Talk:Ideomotor phenomenon

Carpenter

I have found the Carpenter's paper but I think that it is not discussing about Ouija like this edit [1], but my english is not good, if someone can confirm by looking at http://www.sgipt.org/medppp/psymot/carp1852.htm. --Akkeron 22:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Akkeron, This is the "correct" paper.

Due to the fact that most of the literature of this period was written in rather ornate language, it may not be immediately obvious, that it was, in fact, referring most specifically to the Ouija, and more generally to other ideomotor phenomena such as the responses of a "divining rod".

It was to this sort of "phenomena" (i.e., the "class of phenomena" referred to in the first and second lines of his paper) that his entire paper was directed.

Namely, he was supplying an explanation for the presence of movement that was entirely unconscious (i.e., "independent of volition"). His paper was simply providing a brain-based explanation for the phenomenon that had been first offered, to my recollection, by Francis Bacon in his, I think, Organon, where he speaks of the exercise of suspending a ring held by a thread in the centre of a tube thatt iis somethiing like 15cm in diameter and then "thinking" it to move East-West, and then later, "thinking" it to move North-South.

Part of the problem is that various people, driven by various pet theories keep adding ambiguous and irrelevant pieces to the Wikepedia article:

The ideomotor effect is a psychological phenomenon wherein a subject makes motions unconsciously (i.e., without conscious awareness). Automatic writing, dowsing, facilitated communication, and Ouija boards have also been attributed to the effect of this phenomena. Mystics have often attributed this motion to paranormal or supernatural force. Many subjects are unconvinced that their actions are originating solely from within themselves.

The definition is rather wrong; and, moreover, the reference to nonsense such as "facilitated communication" -- where the operator is in direct physical contact with the subject is simply a blatant misrepresentation of the facts of the matter (simply because there are no ideomotor responses involved).

At the time of his writing, Carpenter was not writing to "explode" beliefs about Ouija Boards (as that had already been done, by others, to the satisfaction of his audience), he was simply pproviding an explanation of just how these sorts of phenomena could be manifested by honest well-meaning individuals who had no conscious intention to deceive either themslves or others.

That is why the term "suggestion" appears in the title of the paper!

He was taking the view expressed by the philosopher Thomas Brown (before him), and the psychologist Edward Titchener (after him) that, whenever the mind was filled with a suggestion, particular responses to whatever the mind was holding would ensue. And, moreover, the extent to which such a response was manifested was taken to be an index of the extennt to which whatever had filled the mind, was indeed suggestive.

So, in summary, Carpenter's paper is about movement.

And, moreover, he decided to label his explanation of the motions that are generated by (in this case "unconscious) thoughts -- and, therefore, Carpenter decided to label his explanation of the existence of these unconscious-thought-generated-ideomotor-responses [N.B. these are "ideomotor responses", they are not, as this article supposes, "ideomotor effects", in the same way that one should never talk of "placebo effects", only "placebo responses", because it is the subject that has the response] "the ideo-motor principle of action" (see p.153).

By the way, Carpenter's last sentence also implicitly refers to Ouija Boards (as it does to divining rods and pendulums).

As a last point, and sorry to go on at such a length, it may also be of some interest to you that, in this paper, Carpenter is offering an explanation of the phenomenon; and, the importance of the paper is his introduction of, and the positioning of the new term "ideo-motor".

By contrast, the outstanding work of Chevreul was a brilliant experiment that very definitely proved that these ideomotor responses, belonged to the subject, and not to the Ouija Board, the diviner's rod, the dowser's pendulum, etc.

The fact that these "idomotor responses" are an important, conventional mechanism of communication between hypnotic subjects and professional hypnotherapists of material lying below a subject's normal conscious awareness gives further support to Carpenter's position that these physical actions are in some way related to (and a direct consequence of) a subject's mental content.

I hope that this proves useful to youLindsay658 05:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Further note. . .

The citation for Cheuvrel is:

Cheuvrel. Michel E., De la Baguette Divinatoire et du Pendule Dit Explorateur (On the Divining Rod and the So-called Exploratory Pendulum), Maillet-Bachelier, Paris, 1854.

The eminence of Chevreul as a scientist -- and the manner in which he so emphatically demonstrated that the impetus for the movement of a hand-held pendulum was in the subject's mind and not in the bob of the pendulum itself -- soon led hypnotists and experimental psychologists to talk of "the Chevreul Pendulum Illusion".

Even today, it is a widespread convention amongst professional hypnotherapists to speak of the device they use in their hypnotherapeutic practice (as a mechanism of communication with their subject's "inner mind"; e.g, Easton and Shor), in terms of it being a "Chevreul's Pendulum" in order to make it sound as if the object in question was far more "reputable", "legitimate", and "scientific" -- and as well, that it was an entirely different physical object (which it was not) -- from the "disreputable", "inappropriate", and "pseudoscientific" pendulums that were used by, say, dowser's and by mystics.

Hope that helps Lindsay658 17:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all your explanations. Akkeron 17:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

--- The term 'Ouija' refers to a specific type of of board, see also Planchette. Its not clear that the 'Ouija' was in use in the 1850's or if it was known to Carpenter at the time. This section should be clarified.

On the other hand, turning tables were known, see this 1855 book, which attributes the effect to unconscious muscle movement: The Fashionable Science of Parlour Magic, pg 85 https://books.google.com/books?id=UypbAAAAcAAJ&dq=magic&pg=PA85#v=onepage&q&f=false Dspark76 (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Tears as main example

I'll remove the tears as an example (the article's main and introductory one, nonetheless) of the concept, as of how far is from the concept's popular conception. The "Ideomotor effect" is used to understand unconscious phenomena linked to producing movement. At most, involuntary tearing is a tertiary and/or alternative usage of the concept. Crying because of emotion seems unrelated, as this is not just "unconscious manifestations" (notice: "-motor") (plus never had any citations, it was just added by someone) but it may be reincluded with an appropriate citation. --64.237.228.39 (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Merged articles

I merged Ideometer effect and response into this article, hopefully someone with direct knowledge on the matter should review it. Below is the discussion found on the original article's talk. Hesham4488 (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ideomotor effect vs. Ideomotor response?

These two phenomena seem like the same thing. Could a distinction be made or should they be combined into one major section rather than broken into two almost identical topics? 63.143.219.45 (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

- Done Dspark76 (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction is improving and evolving to the proper focus of this article -- movement seemingly independent of conscious control. Not a momentary body reflex which is covered elsewhere, not thinking about a lemon and salivating or being aroused -- it's "idea + motor" -- creative flow moving the painter's hand for an extended period of time, for example.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.18.28.106 (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The ideomotor effect is pseudoscience

The ideomotor effect is an illogical theory of how ouija so or other paranormal things work. How can you make your brain move stuff without you realizing that you are moving it and while others as well are seeing the movement. I mean they have different minds and it is very unlikely that others who are playing the game make the same exact moves or movements as the player intended in his mind. There has been cases were people where physically actually attacked by the ouija boards. How is it possible your brain is attacking you by choking or physically hurting you or how your brain create such scenes or 'hallucinations' while you see others being possessed or being attacked by the board.It is impossible or at least extremely unlikely.Does anyone see my point?There are no reliable or logical scientific explanations or scientific theories of paranormal things work.Paranormal things and science have nothing to do with each other. So mixing these subjects or attempting to explain paranormal things in a scientific way makes it pseudoscience. So the ideomodor effect is pseudoscience. Many scientists refuse to believe in these paranormal things simply because they want to have a scientific view of the world because they fear that believing in such things would erode their 'rational' thinking.They just want to think like scientist. Whether you believe in it or not I strongly recommend you not to try the Ouija board or these like things. You never know what could happen.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolguy100038 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia must summarize what reliable sources say. This talk page is to discuss specific improvements to the article (WP:NOTFORUM). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 14:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)