Ed Ouija

[jj]

Forgive me, I'm slow today. How does this relate to whatever mechanism is in control (if any) of the Ouija board?

Your eyes see the board, yes?

Your mind knows how to spell a word, yes?

Your fingers are attached to your nervious system, yes?

There doesn't have to be any "intent".

 

[jj]

It might be easier, but it wouldn't be accurate.
I am stating that your original question contained the assumption that it did exist.
Do you have any proof?

More to the point I want to know how to test for it.

I can show SOME kind of linkage in audio tests, but I don't claim that there is any extraordinary intellectual thing going on.

 

[BNiles]

I think that's going a bit far when discussing a simple question of intersensory linkage, isn't it?

Yes it is, but this was taken a little out of context.

Sundog and I had slightly expanded our train of thought, and that's why I added the little disclaimer about stepping beyond the Ideomotor Effect.

 

[BNiles]

I can show SOME kind of linkage in audio tests, but I don't claim that there is any extraordinary intellectual thing going on.

This was my point as well. It's not some superpower, or extraordinary brain activity. It's a simple thought process that we don't pay much (if any) attention to. It doesn't matter what name you give it.

I know that names and labels can be a touchy point on these threads.

 

[Sundog]

(loooong sigh)

[very patient]

Okay. Allow me to rephrase.

Assumption: That the two people operating the Ouija board are honest.

Assumption: That a Ouija "session" is observed to produce sensible sentences.

(Obviously one can take issue with this assumption. I consider this so blindingly obvious that I didn't spell it out before.)


"Leaving out conscious fraud, what reasonable explanation exists for the apparent construction of meaningful sentences from two honest persons operating a Ouija board?"

Assuming, once again, that any such thing is observed.

[/vp]

 

[jj]

Yes it is, but this was taken a little out of context.

Sundog and I had slightly expanded our train of thought, and that's why I added the little disclaimer about stepping beyond the Ideomotor Effect.

Ok.

 

[Sundog]

Your eyes see the board, yes?

Your mind knows how to spell a word, yes?

Your fingers are attached to your nervious system, yes?

There doesn't have to be any "intent".

OK, I think I get you now. But what about the origination of the sentence itself? Or do you think it's a letter-by-letter thing?

 

[tracer]

"Leaving out conscious fraud, what reasonable explanation exists for the apparent construction of meaningful sentences from two honest persons operating a Ouija board?"

Well ... one person could have an idea as to what he "wants" to see, and provide the ideomotor-based muscular cues, while the other person doesn't and just "goes along for the ride".

 

[Jeff Corey]

Assumption: That the two people operating the Ouija board are honest.

Assumption: That a Ouija "session" is observed to produce sensible sentences.

(Obviously one can take issue with this assumption. I consider this so blindingly obvious that I didn't spell it out before.)[/vp]

That's why real scientists do double blind studies, so their "blindingly obvious assumptions" don't fool them.
And spare me the histrionics and silly little blinkeyes.
They don't add to the strenght of your discussion.

 

[Explorer]

Hexhammer said:

"If you got specific correct answers about things you yourself didn't know, someones moving the pointer. You won't get good specific answers if no one with their hands on the pointer knows them already. What I mean is if you ask:
"Who are we talking to?"
The pointer stops at "B"
You think maybe it's Billy.
Now the pointer finishes spelling out Billy.
I noticed this tendency of "mind reading" many times. I would think of something, and the board would spell it out. Yet it did not feel like I was trying to move the pointer."

Au contraire! In my session when I got a name beginning to be spelt out, I had M-I-C-H.. and immediately thought it was going to be MICHAEL. Suddenly, the glass moved rapidly to "NO" and respelt the name N-I-C-H-O-L-A-S. I was quite content with Michael. I thought afterwards that as the letter "N" was next to "M" and the glass was as big as a complete letter, this was an error on my part for reading the wrong letter (I was also jotting down the reponses as well as having one finger on the glass).

 

[Hexxenhammer]

Hexhammer said:

"If you got specific correct answers about things you yourself didn't know, someones moving the pointer. You won't get good specific answers if no one with their hands on the pointer knows them already. What I mean is if you ask:
"Who are we talking to?"
The pointer stops at "B"
You think maybe it's Billy.
Now the pointer finishes spelling out Billy.
I noticed this tendency of "mind reading" many times. I would think of something, and the board would spell it out. Yet it did not feel like I was trying to move the pointer."

Au contraire! In my session when I got a name beginning to be spelt out, I had M-I-C-H.. and immediately thought it was going to be MICHAEL. Suddenly, the glass moved rapidly to "NO" and respelt the name N-I-C-H-O-L-A-S. I was quite content with Michael. I thought afterwards that as the letter "N" was next to "M" and the glass was as big as a complete letter, this was an error on my part for reading the wrong letter (I was also jotting down the reponses as well as having one finger on the glass).

What do you think caused that? From what you have said I deduce fraud by your companion. If you were writing down what the board was saying, the person using it with you could have seen what you were writing and therefore moved the glass to make it look like the board was correcting you. This story is not convincing.

 

[Sundog]

That's why real scientists do double blind studies, so their "blindingly obvious assumptions" don't fool them.
And spare me the histrionics and silly little blinkeyes.
They don't add to the strenght of your discussion.

No problem, if you'll spare me the Socratic inquiry bit and just spell out what you're thinking. I'm not interested enough to guess.

 

[Explorer]

Hexhammer, you said:

"What do you think caused that? From what you have said I deduce fraud by your companion. If you were writing down what the board was saying, the person using it with you could have seen what you were writing and therefore moved the glass to make it look like the board was correcting you. This story is not convincing."

What do I think caused that? I don't really know. All I do know is that fraud is the least likely answer as far as my experiment was concerned. You don't have to believe me, as that is your right. I wasn't trying to prove anything to anyone, least alone anyone on this board at the time. Everything was at my instigation and under my control, and as the experimenter I chose my companions carefully and new what their capabilities and intentions were as far as that can go. Not a scientific experiment at all, but for me, nevertheless an interesting experience that hitherto has not been published for any public consumption gain or personal status.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Hexxanhammer said:

"The answers to these questions are usually obvious and so it's easy for the users to answer them themselves without realizing it. Does that make sense?"

That just demostrates the limited scope of the participant's intellect. Just try doing ouija asking specific questions about local history with serious people. You will be amazed, unless of course you are an idiotometer.

Try blindfolding the participants. I'ts amazing what this does to their intellect.

 

[Hexxenhammer]

What do I think caused that? I don't really know. All I do know is that fraud is the least likely answer as far as my experiment was concerned.

Fraud is the LEAST likely answer? What's the MOST likely answer? Any answer other than fraud has a lot of baggage that I don't think you can carry.

Everything was at my instigation and under my control, and as the experimenter I chose my companions carefully and new what their capabilities and intentions were as far as that can go.

You say you weren't under control of the pointer. Either some otherworldly force was, or your friend was. Which was it?

 

[Explorer]

Hexhammer, you said:

"You say you weren't under control of the pointer. Either some otherworldly force was, or your friend was. Which was it?"

I meant that the experiment was under my control. As far as the pointer was concerned, that was under the joint control of the participants, which included myself, not some other force, unworldly or otherwise. Hope that helps.

Diogenes said:

"Try blindfolding the participants. I'ts amazing what this does to their intellect"

As has been said before on another thread on this subject, blindfolding the participants muck it up. This is only a problem for those who pre-judge the cause to be deliberate fraud in every case. It does not challenge the ideomotor effect, or other possible causes that derive from the inner workings of the human brain.

Regards

Explorer

 

[Dude111]

A very interesting site..... I didnt know that many different style Boards were made!

I used to have

OUIJA
Parker Brothers
Deluxe Wooden Edition
Design on wood 1967

I thought that was the only board made!!


They are quite interesting these boards...........

 

[wasapi]

The ouiji Museum.......

http://www.museumoftalkingboards.com/gal1.html

The Magic Marvel board looks liek it came form McDonalds

What an interesting site, I really enjoyed it.

I was given my first Ouija Board when I was a child. My mother was a big woo-believer. (She also gave me Tarot cards when I was about 10). I recall that I never believed there was anything paranormal. However, to keep Mom happy, she had me do regular tarot readings for her, and indulge her as a Ouija partner.

 

[Trebuchet]

Did the board predict the 16.5 year thread necromancy?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

What was the purpose of them? Were they originally made to contact the spirits? If this is so, I wonder how many sales they had. I wouldn't imagine that enough people would buy into that crap back then to make it profitable.

They became popular when Spiritualism was the new big religious movement sweeping the globe (although when first released they were a novelty) and seances, mentalism, table turning and such like were incredibly popular. They utterly rode the zietgeist.