Talk:Ideomotor effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

Please expand on both the experimental proof of the effect and the various places it appears. I am guessing that the clinical studies had some very interesting nuances. The ideomotor effect has debunked plenty of phenomena, each of which may be discussed. I have heard that Clever Hans, called "the smartest horse in the world," responded to the ideomotor effect of its owner. Teply 00:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are thinking of the Clever Hans effect? Deleuze 17:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the Clever Hans effect and the ideomotor effect are two very separate phenomena. Jeff Silvers 10:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for pointing this out. Teply 03:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalanced

The current article focuses on the implausible "paranormal or supernatural" attributions of ideomotor behaviour. While outside of mainstream, ideomotor signaling has been used in the health profession. --Comaze 06:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's been edited since the above posting, but to me the article explains a scientific phenomenon that might be used to explain certain paranormal phenomena. To me the article is quite balanced from a scientific standpoint (as it should be) --Samhaynn 12/28/06 2202

[edit] 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)