One of the interesting and much-studied aspects in geological
history is the fact that the earth's magnetic field has not remained
identical over longer time scales.  Magnetic reversals have occurred, such
that the north magnetic pole has exchanged polarity with the south pole;
and the timing of those events has proven to be useful for determining the
age of in-situ sedimentary deposits.  As they fall out of the water column,
the iron-containing particles in the sediment align themselves with the
prevailing, concurrent magnetic field.  Magnetic reversals thus result in
layered reversals in the residual magnetic orientation of sedimentary
magnetite (a magnetized iron-containing mineral).  The timing of many of
those reversals during recent geological history has been carefully
determined, so that investigations of the magnetic orientation of sediments
of uncertain age can be useful for determining their true age.
        Because magnetite is usually a very minor constituent of sediment,
extremely sensitive techniques are necessary to detect it and determine its
polarity.  Dr. J. Kirschvink of the California Institute of Technology, is
a geophysicist who has applied those sensitive methods to geological
deposits, using careful  precautions to avoid extraneous contamination.
Using those same techniques, he has also searched for magnetite in the
tissues of a broad spectrum of animal tissues.  This is an interesting
issue  because were magnetite to be present within an appropriately
constructed and enervated sensory organ, the animal might potentially
utilize such an organ to determine geographical directions relative to the
magnetic poles, perhaps facilitating the navigation underlying
long-distance animal migrations.
        The mere presence of magnetite in tissues is not, of course,
definitive evidence for the perception of the earth's magnetic field.
Hemoglobin, each molecule of which contains an iron atom, is the primary
respiratory pigment in many higher animals, and the breakdown and
re-synthesis of hemoglobin are therefore dependent on the presence of iron
in the tissues, of which magnetite would be a significant constituent.
Essential for perception would be a sensory organ in which the magnetite is
organized together with  nervous tissue, so as to provide a useful
orienting stimulus.
        Dr. Kirschvink has demonstrated the presence of magnetite in the
tissues of several different kinds of animals, including the claim that the
human brain contains detectable magnetite.  In none of those studies has
anything resembling a sensory organ within which the magnetite is organized
been discovered.  For example, the description of the magnetite in human
brain tissue gives the impression that  magnetite is a universal
contaminant throughout the brain, with no hint of a structure to transduce
magnetic moments due to body orientation into a perceptible stimulus, to be
transmitted elsewhere.  Hence, the magnetite discovered in human brains
may be purely adventitious.  It might, for example, represent a breakdown
product of hemoglobin that cannot be conveniently excreted.  As an even
simpler possibility,  the mere presence of iron (or magnetite) in an
animal's tissues might only indicate the presence of blood (and its
hemoglobin)
--

 http://www.phact.org/e/dowsing.htm

  Skeptical Inquirer / Jan 1999 /  The Failure of the Munich Dowsing Experiments   -to get your own subsciption, call (800) 634-1610 or go to CSICOP / Skeptical Inquirer / Subscribing

Eric's main skeptics page

The Mischief-Making of Ideomotor Action

Ray Hyman

[Scientific Review of Alt Med 3(2):34-43, 1999. © 1999 Prometheus Books,
Inc.]
 
 
 

Introduction

In 1992, I was hired by the state of Oregon as an expert witness in a trial
of four chiropractors who had been accused of using a "Toftness-like device"
in their practices. The "Toftness Radiation Detector" was an appliance
designed by a chiropractor for diagnosing ailments. It consisted of a metal
cylinder shaped somewhat like a thick soup can. At one end was a lens; at
the other was a smooth plastic "rubbing plate." A handle was attached
perpendicular to the middle of the cylinder. In practice, the operator would
grasp the handle with one hand and place the lens against the patient's
spine. While moving the device along the spine, the chiropractor would rub
the fingers of his other hand back and forth on the plastic rubbing plate.
As long as the lens was over a healthy part of the spine, the operator's
fingers would continue to slide freely across the plate. At least that was
the theory.

According to Toftness, when the lens came to a diseased part of the back,
the operator's fingers would encounter increased friction and start to
"stick" on the rubbing plate. The lens, he believed, was sensitive to a very
subtle form of radiation that was emitted by portions of the spine that were
in need of chiropractic manipulation. Toftness conducted seminars to train
chiropractors in the proper use of his apparatus. He would then lease these
devices to them for use in their own offices.
 

In January 1982, the United States District Court in Wisconsin issued "a
permanent nationwide injunction against the manufacturing, promoting,
selling, leasing, distributing, shipping, delivering, or using in any way
any Toftness Radiation Detector or any article or device that is
substantially the same as, or employs the same basic principles as, the
Toftness Radiation Detector." [emphasis added] The United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld this decision in 1984.
 

Although the chiropractors who were charged by the State of Oregon claimed
to have abandoned the outlawed Toftness device, prosecutors maintained that
they were guilty of using a Toftness-like device. Their particular
derivative had been designed by one of the defendants, also as an aid for
spinal diagnosis. It consisted of a block of wood with an embedded concave
plastic surface. This time, however, the "rubbing plate" was placed on an
adjacent horizontal surface, rather than being part of the instrument that
was in direct contact with the spine. The chiropractor would use his left
hand to palpate the patient's spine while he moved the fingers of his right
hand back and forth across the plastic rubbing plate. In this slight
variation on Toftness' theme, the defendants claimed that whenever their
left hand contacted a problematic spot on a patient's spine, friction would
increase, causing the fingers of their right hand to "stick" on the rubbing
plate.
 

Despite these similarities, the Oregon chiropractors strongly denied that
theirs was a Toftness-like device. Although the chiropractor who designed
the Oregon rubbing plate had been trained by Toftness and had previously
used the Toftness Radiation Detector himself, he claimed that he no longer
believed that Toftness' instrument detected radiation of any sort. In fact,
he now believed that the sticking of the fingers on the plate with both the
Toftness and the Oregon instruments was not triggered by any physical signal
at all. Instead, he argued that the sticking was a trained subliminal
response of the chiropractor, evoked unconsciously by his or her accumulated
experience in locating spinal problems. He claimed that, although the visual
and tactile signs of pathology obtained from spinal palpation were often too
weak to be consciously perceived by a chiropractor, years of acquired
expertise in spinal diagnosis were stored in his or her unconscious.
Supposedly, this expertise could be brought to the surface with the aid of
the rubbing plate.
 
 
 

A Video Demonstration

One of my tasks as a consultant and expert witness for the State of Oregon
was to produce a video tape to illustrate the psychological principles that
made the rubbing plate seem to work. For this purpose, I used two groups of
student volunteers. I met with the first group and showed them the Oregon
rubbing plate which the Assistant District Attorney had loaned to me. I also
showed them a pendulum made from a ring suspended from a cord and a pair of
dowsing (or "divining") rods consisting of two metal bars bent at right
angles.[1] With one rod in each hand, I first demonstrated how dowsing works
by holding the rods in front of me, aimed straight ahead and with their
horizontal arms parallel to each other and to the floor. I then slowly
walked about the room until the rods suddenly crossed one another. I walked
away from that spot and showed how the rods uncrossed and became parallel
again. I suggested that the place where the rods had crossed must be near a
source of flowing water, perhaps a water pipe under the floor. I then
requested that each of the students try the rods. To their amazement, the
rods crossed when they walked over the spot I had indicated.

I then did a similar demonstration using the pendulum, before turning to the
rubbing plate. I explained that the rubbing plate had been created by an
Oregon doctor to amplify the sensitivity of our perceptions. To show how, I
spread some playing cards face up on a table. I told the students that the
red playing cards reflected mainly light from the long end of the visual
spectrum. The black playing cards, on the other hand, reflected very little
light, but what they did reflect contained an equal amount of radiation from
all parts of the spectrum. Normally, I continued, the human senses cannot
detect the difference between these two types of emission. However, by using
the rubbing plate, we might be able to enhance our sensitivity to these
differences, I suggested. I demonstrated this by passing my left hand back
and forth, about a foot above the face-up playing cards. Meanwhile, my
right-hand fingers were sliding back and forth across the surface of the
rubbing plate. My fingers glided smoothly over the plastic surface whenever
my hand was passing over a black card, but they would always begin to
"stick" whenever my left hand encountered a red card.
 

I had each student try the experiment in turn. To their surprise, their
fingers would also "stick" whenever their other hand was hovering over a red
card. One of the students was from Africa. She became terrified when her
fingers seemed to stick as her hand passed over a red card. She was
convinced that this was the work of the Devil. I had to spend some time
trying to reassure her that the sticking sensation was nothing but a normal,
unconscious psychological reaction of her own, not demonic powers at work.
 

I did similar demonstrations for the second group of students. However, this
time I let them see my dowsing rods crossing at a different arbitrarily
chosen location in the room. Sure enough, for these students, too, the rods
crossed just at the spot where mine had. Also, this time I told them that my
fingers would stick only when my left hand was over a black card. As you
might guess, for the second group, their fingers stuck only when their left
hand was over a black card.
 

I made this video to illustrate a simple, but important, point. Under a
variety of circumstances, our muscles will behave unconsciously in
accordance with an implanted expectation.[2,3] What makes this simple fact
so important is that we are not aware that we ourselves are the source of
the resulting action. This lack of any sense of volition is common in many
everyday actions as well as reports of those responding to hypnotic
suggestions.[4] The latter report that their actions feel as though they are
being propelled by powers external to themselves. My demonstrations with the
divining rods had implanted the suggestion in each of the onlookers that the
rods would cross at a certain location. When these students took the rods in
their own hands and walked over the place where they believed the water pipe
to be, they unconsciously made tiny muscle movements that caused the
unstable rods the cross. They emphatically denied that they had done
anything intentionally to make the rods move. Indeed, many insisted that
they could feel the rods moving of their own accord, driven by some outside
force.
 

The sticking response on the rubbing plate is even more compelling in this
regard. When the students see one hand over the card that is expected to
make their fingers stick on the rubbing pad, they unconsciously press
somewhat harder on the surface and/or change the angle of their fingers
slightly. This is sufficient to increase the friction between their fingers
and the rubbing surface. The subjective experience for most students is
eerie and they insist that they are doing nothing on purpose to make the
sticking occur.
 
 
 

Ideomotor Action

This "influence of suggestion in modifying and directing muscular movement,
independently of volition" was given the label ideomotor action by the
psychologist/physiologist William B. Carpenter in 1852.[5] Later, the
concept was more widely publicized by the Harvard physician turned
psychologist, William James.[6] Carpenter wanted to show that a variety of
currently popular phenomena had conventional scientific explanations rather
than the widely believed supernatural ones. The phenomena he tackled
included dowsing ("water witching"), the magic pendulum, certain aspects of
mesmerism, spiritualists' "table turning," and Reichenbach's "Odylic force."
Carpenter did not question the reality of the phenomena, nor the honesty of
the people who were involved. He only disputed the explanation, arguing
that, "All the phenomena of the 'biologized' state, when attentively
examined, will be found to consist in the occupation of the mind by the
ideas which have been suggested to it, and in the influence which these
ideas exert upon the actions of the body." Thus Carpenter invoked ideomotor
action as a nonparanormal explanation for various phenomena that were being
credited to new physical forces, spiritual intervention, or other
supernatural causes. He published many books and articles during the latter
half of the nineteenth century expounding his ideas about ideomotor
action.[7,8]

William James[9] elaborated upon Carpenter's ideas, asserting that ideomotor
activity was the basic process underlying all volitional behavior: "Wherever
a movement unhesitatingly and immediately follows upon the idea of it, we
have ideomotor action. We are then aware of nothing between the conception
and the execution. All sorts of neuromuscular responses come between, of
course, but we know absolutely nothing of them. We think the act, and it is
done; and that is all that introspection tells us of the matter." James
viewed ideomotor action not as a curiosity but as "simply the normal process
stripped of disguise." James concluded that, "We may then lay it down for
certain that every [mental] representation of a movement awakens in some
degree the actual movement which is its object; and awakens it in a maximum
degree whenever it is not kept from so doing by an antagonistic
representation present simultaneously to the mind." Modern brain researchers
have produced data and theory that help explain how quasi-independent
modules in the brain can initiate motor movements without necessarily
engaging the "executive module" that is responsible for our sense of
self-awareness and volition (see B. Beyerstein, this volume).
 

Probably the first major scientist to become concerned about the mischief
being created by ideomotor action, although he did not know the concept by
this name, was the French chemist Michel Chevreul. Chevreul, who lived for
one hundred three years, became interested in the experiments of some of his
fellow chemists around the beginning of the nineteenth century. These
colleagues were using what was known as "the exploring pendulum" to analyze
chemical compounds.
 

The first recorded use of the exploring pendulum occurred around 371 C.E. A
priest would bow over a plate, the edge of which was marked with the letters
of the alphabet. This "diviner" or "oracle" would hold a ring, suspended
from a thin thread, over the center of the plate. A question would be put to
the priest. The movements of the ring would then be observed. When the ring
was set in motion, it would swing toward one of the letters. This letter
would be recorded; then the same process would be used to select another
letter. This would continue until one or more words, which answered the
question, would be generated. In this, we see the origins of the modern
Ouija board, used to this day by occultists for divining purposes.[10]
 

In the early nineteenth century, certain chemists were advocating this
method for analyzing the composition of substances. In 1808, a Professor
Gerboin of Strasbourg wrote an entire book on use of the pendulum for
chemical analysis.[11] As a budding scientist, Chevreul was intrigued, but
he remained skeptical. He was surprised, however, to find that the pendulum
worked as advertised when he tried it over a dish of mercury. He carried out
more tests, however. To see if a physical force was responsible for the
movement of the pendulum, he placed a glass plate between the iron ring and
the mercury. To his surprise, the oscillations diminished and then stopped.
When he removed the glass plate, the pendulum movements resumed. He next
suspected that the pendulum moved because it was difficult to hold his arm
steady. When he rested his arm on a support, the movements diminished but
did not stop altogether.
 

Finally, Chevreul did what none of his predecessors had thought of doing. He
conducted the equivalent of what we would call a double-blind trial. He
blindfolded himself and then he had an assistant interpose or remove the
glass plate between the pendulum and the mercury without his knowledge.
Under these conditions, nothing happened. Chevreul concluded, "So long as I
believed the movement possible, it took place; but after discovering the
cause I could not reproduce it." His experiments with the pendulum show how
easy it is "to mistake illusions for realities, whenever we are confronted
by phenomena in which the human sense-organs are involved under conditions
imperfectly analyzed." Chevreul used this principle of expectant attention
to account for the phenomena of dowsing, movements of the exploring
pendulum, and the then current fad among spiritualists, table-turning.
 

Chevreul was one of France's most prestigious scientists by the time he
conducted these investigations. At about the same time, one of England's
most famous scientists, Michael Faraday, published his investigation of
table-turning, in 1853.[12] By the 1850s table-turning (also called
table-tilting or table-rapping) had become the rage among spiritualists,
both in North America and in Europe. In a typical session, a small group of
persons, usually called "sitters," would sit around a table with their hands
resting upon its top. After an extended period of expectant waiting, a rap
would be heard or the table would tilt upon one leg. Sometimes the table
would sway and begin moving about the room, dragging the sitters along.
Occasionally, sitters would claim that the table actually levitated off the
floor. Table-turning was what first attracted many prominent scientists to
the investigation of psychic phenomena. During the summer of 1853, several
English scientists decided to investigate this phenomenon. Contemporary
theories attributed table-turning to such things as electricity, magnetism,
"attraction," the rotation of the earth, and Karl von Reichenbach's "Odylic
force." Electricity, which the public at that time considered to be an
occult and mystical force, was the most popular of these explanations.
 

A committee of four medical men held seances in June 1853 to
investigate.[13] They discovered that the table did not move when the
sitters' attention was diverted; nor did it move when they had not formed a
common expectation about how the table should move. The table would not move
if half the sitters expected it to move to the right and the other half
expected it to move to the left. "But," the panel commented, "when
expectation was allowed free play, and especially if the direction of the
probable movement was indicated beforehand, the table began to rotate after
a few minutes, although none of the sitters was conscious of exercising any
effort at all. The conclusion was formed that the motion was due to muscular
action, mostly exercised unconsciously."
 

The most publicized and carefully controlled study of table-turning was
reported by Michael Faraday in 1853. Faraday obtained the cooperation of
participants who he knew to be "very honorable" and who were also
"successful table-movers." He found that the table would move in the
expected direction, even when just one subject was seated at the table.
Faraday first looked into the possibility that the movements were due to
known forces such as electricity or magnetism. He showed that sandpaper,
millboard, glue, glass, moist clay, tinfoil, cardboard, vulcanized rubber,
and wood did not interfere with the table's movements. From these initial
tests, he concluded that, "No form of experiment or mode of observation that
I could devise gave me the slightest indication of any peculiar force. No
attraction, or repulsion . . . nor anything which could be referred to other
than mere mechanical pressure exerted inadvertently by the turner."
 

By then, Faraday suspected that his sitters were unconsciously pushing the
table in the desired direction. However, his sitters firmly maintained that
they were not the source of the table movements. And, as already mentioned,
Faraday was satisfied that his sitters were "very honorable." So he devised
an ingenious arrangement to pin down the cause of the movement. He placed
four or five pieces of slippery cardboard, one on top of the other, upon the
table. The sheets were attached to one another by little pellets of a soft
cement. The bottommost sheet was attached to a piece of sandpaper that
rested against the table top. This stack of cardboard sheets was
approximately the size of the table top with the topmost layer being
slightly larger than the table top. The edge of each layer in this cardboard
sandwich slightly overlapped the one below. To mark their original
positions, Faraday drew a pencil line across these exposed concentric
borders of the cardboard sheets, on their under surface. The stack of
cardboard sheets was secured to the table top by large rubber bands which
insured that when the table moved, the sheets would move with it. However,
the bands allowed sufficient play to permit the individual sheets of
cardboard to move somewhat independently of one another.
 

The sitter then placed his hands upon the surface of the top cardboard layer
and waited for the table to move in the direction previously agreed upon.
Faraday reasoned that if the table moved to the left, and the source of the
movement was the table and not the sitter, the table would move first and
drag the successive layers of cardboard along with it, sequentially, from
bottom to top, but with a slight lag. If this were the case, the displaced
pencil marks would reveal a staggered line sloping outwards from the left to
the right. On the other hand, if the sitter was unwittingly moving the
table, then his hands would push the top cardboard to the left and the
remaining cardboards and the table would be dragged along successively, from
top to bottom. This would result in displacement of the pencil marks in a
staggered line sloping from right to left. Faraday observed that, "It was
easy to see by displacement of the parts of the line that the hand had moved
further from the table, and that the latter had lagged behind -- that the
hand, in fact, had pushed the upper card to the left and that the under
cards and the table had followed and been dragged by it."
 
 
 

'It's Not the Same Thing!'

Faraday's report was sufficient to convince most scientists that
table-turning and related phenomena did not stem from new physical forces or
occult powers. Unfortunately, it inadvertently had the opposite effect upon
a few prominent scientists such as Alfred Russel Wallace, the cofounder with
Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Wallace had his
first encounter with "the phenomena of Spiritualism" in the summer of 1865.
He was seated with other sitters around a table. The table behaved in ways
that he was sure could not be entirely explained by Faraday's findings and
Carpenter's theory of ideomotor action. Faraday's research only dealt with
one of the many possible causes of table movements. Indeed, in the original
seances using tables, the movements were caused not by ideomotor action but
by various cheating methods employed by fraudulent mediums and their
accomplices. In addition, many converts' testimonials were obtained under
conditions that tend to exaggerate normal human biases and result in sincere
but mistaken reports of things that never actually happened.

Wallace experienced gyrations of the table that he was sure could not be
handled by Faraday's findings. In his mind, this showed that skeptical
scientists such as Faraday cannot be trusted to discover and fairly report
upon truly revolutionary phenomena.[14,15] This tendency to dismiss a
skeptical investigation because it cannot account for every instance of an
alleged class of paranormal phenomena is what I call loopholism -- the
tendency to seek out each and every loophole in a skeptical account as a way
to protect one's belief in a cherished supernatural or pseudoscientific
claim. Wallace was familiar with Faraday's report. However, he seized upon
the differences between the table's behavior in Faraday's experiment and
what he had witnessed to assert that what Faraday had explained and what
Wallace had experienced were not the same thing.
 

Perhaps the most striking, and saddest, example of loopholism is the story
of the eminent American chemist, Robert Hare. Hare was professor emeritus of
chemistry at the University of Pennsylvania when he became involved with
table-turning in 1853, at age 72. According to Isaac Asimov,[16] Hare was
"one of the few strictly American products who in those days could be
considered within hailing distance of the great European chemists." When
Faraday's report was published, the Philadelphia Inquirer asked Hare for his
comments. In his letter to the paper, on July 27, 1853, Hare firmly rejected
the possibility that some exotic force could produce movement of wooden
tables. He wrote, "I recommend to your attention, and that of others
interested in this hallucination, Faraday's observations and experiments,
recently published in some of our respectable newspapers. I entirely concur
in the conclusions of that distinguished expounder of Nature's riddles."
 

A Mr. Amasa Holcombe and a Dr. Comstock replied to Hare's letter and invited
him to attend a table-turning session. Comstock appealed to Hare's sense of
fairness by asking him to observe and test the phenomena for himself rather
than rely upon Faraday's report. Accepting the invitation, Hare attended a
"circle" at a private house. He describes his experience as follows:
 

Seated at a table with half a dozen persons, a hymn was sung with religious
zeal and solemnity. Soon afterwards tappings were distinctly heard as if
made beneath and against the table, which, from the perfect stillness of
every one of the party, could not be attributed to any one among them.
Apparently, the sounds were such as could only be made with some hard
instrument, or with the ends of fingers aided by nails.
 

I learned that simple queries were answered by means of these
manifestations; one tap being considered as equivalent to a negative; two,
to doubtful; and three, to an affirmative. With the greatest apparent
sincerity, questions were put and answers taken and recorded, as if all
concerned considered them as coming from a rational though invisible agent.
Subsequently, two media sat down at a small table (drawer removed) which,
upon careful examination, I found present to my inspection nothing but the
surface of a bare board, on the under side as well as upon the upper. Yet
the taps were heard as before, seemingly against the table. Even assuming
the people by whom I was surrounded to be capable of deception, and the feat
to be due to jugglery, it was still inexplicable. But manifestly I was in a
company of worthy people, who were themselves under a deception if these
sounds did not proceed from spiritual agency.
 

On a subsequent occasion, at the same house, I heard similar tapping on a
partition between two parlours. I opened the door between the parlours, and
passed that adjoining the one in which I had been sitting. Nothing could be
seen which could account for the sounds.
 

Hare goes on to describe other phenomena that he could not explain on the
basis of normal agency. Although he dismisses the possibility of trickery,
Hare does not seem to realize that he would find it just as difficult to
detect the modus operandi behind a magician's tricks as he would to find a
normal explanation for mediums' feats. In one instance, a skeptical lawyer
friend indicated that what they had just witnessed must be due either to
legerdemain on the part of the medium or to the agency of some invisible
intelligent being. Hare's response is revealing:
 

But assigning the result to legerdemain was altogether opposed to my
knowledge of his character. This gentleman, and the circle to which he
belonged, spent about three hours, twice or thrice a week, in getting
communications through the alphabet, by the process to which the lines above
mentioned were due. This would not have taken place, had they not had
implicit confidence, that the information thus obtained proceeded from
spirits.
 

In other words, Hare rejects the possibility of trickery not because it was
impossible but because people of "good character" would not have wasted
their time on this if it originated in trickery! This same overconfidence in
the belief that members of one's own high social class could not engage in
treachery protected the often inept spy, Kim Philby, from being exposed for
decades while he stole British and American secrets for the USSR. It also
shielded the Soviet "mole," Aldrich Ames, who left numerous clues as he
systematically plundered the files of the CIA for years.
 

Hare describes his subsequent research into spirit communication in his
remarkable 1855 book which bore the equally remarkable title, Experimental
Investigation of the Spirit Manifestations, Demonstrating the Existence of
Spirits and their Communion with Mortals. Doctrine of the Spirit World
Respecting Heaven, Hell, Morality, and God. Also, the Influence of Scripture
on the Morals of Christians.[17] Before undertaking his research into
spiritualism, Hare tells us he was a materialist and an atheist. He
describes in detail the various experiments he conducted that, to him,
proved the existence of the spirit world. He himself developed mediumistic
powers. During these experiments Hare claimed he had communicated not only
with the spirits of his departed relatives but also those of George
Washington, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Benjamin Franklin, Lord Byron,
and Isaac Newton.
 

Hare created a device "which, if spirits were actually concerned in the
phenomena, would enable them to manifest their physical and intellectual
power independently of control by any medium." The Spiritscope, as he called
it, consisted of a pasteboard disk slightly larger than a foot in diameter.
Around its circumference he attached the letters of the alphabet in a
haphazard order. An arrow that swivelled at the center of the disk was used
to select letters one at a time by pointing toward them. For his initial
test, he had a medium sit opposite him at a table. The disk was placed
between Hare and the medium such that Hare could see the letters and the
movements of the arrow but the medium could not. The medium sat with her
hands on a surface above the table which, through a system of pulleys,
cords, and weights, was attached to the arrow such that slight pressures of
her hand would cause it to move in various directions and point to letters.
Hare asked if any spirits were present. The arrow pointed to the letter Y
(indicating "Yes."). Hare next asked the spirit to provide the initials of
his name. The index pointed to R and then to H. Hare asked, "My honored
father?" The index pointed to Y.
 

Hare carried out several more such experiments with similar results.
Apparently he never fully understood the key aspect of Faraday's results --
that honest, intelligent people can unconsciously engage in muscular
activity that is consistent with their expectations. Although the medium
sitting opposite him could not see the letters or the index on the disk, she
was looking directly at Hare as he was observing the behavior of the index.
We now know from many other investigations of ideomotor action -- such as
Oskar Pfungst's classic investigation of the allegedly intelligent horse,
Clever Hans[18] -- that people frequently give clues about what they are
thinking or observing without realizing it.[19] These subtle clues can guide
the behavior of other individuals -- or even animals. Sometimes these
individuals consciously detect these clues and use them to deceive,[20] but
frequently the person being guided by the clues is just as unconscious of
them as is the individual providing them.
 

Hare eventually found he could work alone, without the help of mediums, and
still get meaningful communications from his Spiritscope. He had no inkling
that he could be source of the messages being spelled out on his
Spiritscope. Hare's example shows again that intelligence, professional
accomplishment, and personal integrity offer no automatic protection against
wishful thinking and self-delusion. Hare's Spiritscope served as the model
for the later commercial development of the Ouija board -- another striking
example of the power of ideomotor action.
 
 
 

Radionics and Medical Radiesthesia

Perhaps in no other area has the seduction of ideomotor action created as
much mischief as it has in medical settings. Over the past two centuries,
many Europeans have used the term radiesthesia to refer to the alleged force
that underlies dowsing and the exploring pendulum. The term is especially
prevalent in connection with medical and healing applications. Medical
radiesthesia is used to diagnose a variety of ailments -- often from a
distance. During this century, medical radiesthesia has often been merged
with what is called "radionics." Radiesthesia remains very popular today
among naturopaths.[21] Radionic devices are "black boxes" or similar
contrivances that proponents claim have the ability to harness energy to
diagnose and to heal illness. Today's practitioners of medical radiesthesia
and radionics trace their beginnings to contraptions created by the San
Francisco doctor Albert Abrams at the beginning of this century.[22]

Abrams had a conventional medical education, becoming professor of pathology
at what eventually became the Stanford University School of Medicine. In
1910, Abrams claimed to discover that he could diagnose a variety of
diseases by tapping his fingers on the patient's abdomen and listening for
locations that yielded a dull sound. He then claimed to diagnose a patient
from a distance by tapping on the belly of a proxy patient and using a drop
of dried blood. Later, finding that an autograph was sufficient, he
diagnosed by proxy numerous past celebrities, many of whom he diagnosed with
syphilis. Next, Abrams built "electronic" boxes that would enable doctors to
diagnose patients at a distance. He went further and devised other gadgets
that he leased to others to treat patients at a distance. He required the
others to sign an oath that they would never open them. But when finally
examined, they revealed a functionless jumble of components. Abrams became
extremely wealthy and earned an American Medical Association title, "the
dean of the twentieth-century charlatans."
 

Some of his students had difficulty with the proxy percussion method, so
Abrams devised a substitute -- a glass rod drawn across the proxy's abdomen.
When the glass rod encountered an area corresponding with the distant
patient's disease, the friction would increase and the rod would "stick."
Note that this "sticking" response resembles the modus operandi of the
Toftness Radiation Detector and the Oregon rubbing plate. Indeed, Abrams was
the grandfather of the use of the sticking response as the "output" feature
of many subsequent radionic devices.
 

"Dr." Ruth Drown replaced the abdomen with a rubbing plate as the detection
component in radionic devices. Mrs. Drown and her various contraptions were
the objects of well-publicized quackery trials just before World War II.
Like Abrams, Drown invented gadgets to both diagnose and treat patients from
a distance. During the war, it became impossible to import Drown instruments
into England. George de la Warr was recruited to construct a copy of Drown's
apparatus for the British market, and developed grandiose and aggressively
marketed descendants of the rubbing plate in England for 30 years. He added
a variety of changes -- all relying on a rubbing plate. He and his promoters
claimed they had discovered a new form of radiation that would revolutionize
science and society. In 1949, an inventor named Hieronymous obtained the
first patent for a radionic machine. Not surprisingly, its alleged ability
to detect unusual emanations depended upon a rubbing a plate and the
sticking response.
 
 
 

Facilitated Communication, Applied Kinesiology, and TCM

Devices whose seeming utility depends ultimately on a rubbing plate or some
related form of ideomotor action are still widely promoted on the fringes of
medical, agricultural, forensic, geological, mining, and other applied
fields. The preceding account provides the barest outline of the extent to
which theories, systems, and machinery, dependent on some kind of ideomotor
action, delude intelligent, sincere people -- sellers and buyers alike. The
following are three contemporary instances of ideomotor action in medicine:
"facilitated communication," "applied kinesiology," and certain aspects of
Traditional Chinese Medicine.

"In facilitated communication,"[23] the "facilitator" attempts to aid
autistic children or those with other cognitive and language deficits to
communicate. The child is placed in front of a keyboard, letters of which
appear on a screen. The facilitator physically steadies the child's finger
as it presses the keys. The child then types coherent sentences, apparently
revealing high level communication skills.
 

Advocates of the method claimed that the children possessed high
intelligence and considerable knowledge, but they could not express thoughts
in speech or writing. Facilitators helped reveal the intellect within.
Parents and many therapists were thrilled. Several university professors who
specialized in treatment of mentally handicapped children claimed that the
method was a revolution in the understanding of autism. Scientists who
called for controlled experiments were rejected for showing lack of
understanding and sympathy. Facilitators maintained that they were not
influencing the children's letter selections.
 

Some patients, guided by facilitators, typed out messages claiming that
their parents or other caregivers had sexually abused them. Reputations were
ruined, alleged perpetrators were jailed, and families were torn apart.
Eventually, controlled, blinded experiments isolated the information coming
to the facilitator from that coming to the patient, proving the source of
the messages was the facilitator, through ideomotor action.
 

Another example is "applied kinesiology." Legitimate kinesiology is the
study of human motor performance using the standard tools of biochemistry,
physiology, biomechanics, and psychology. "Applied kinesiology" purports to
show that isolated muscle group weakness can be used to diagnose allergies,
toxicities, and other disorders. Naturopaths and chiropractors are among its
most ardent practitioners.[24] Such things as refined foods, foods grown
with chemical fertilizers, artificial food colorants and preservatives,
infinitesimal pesticide residues, refined sugar, or even flourescent
lighting are said to sap vital energies and cause disease.
 

To measure susceptibility to such influences, practitioners place their
palms face down on the hand or forearm of the patient who is told to exert
an upward counter-force. The practitioner then puts a small amount of the
allegedly offensive substance on the patient's tongue, skin, or nostrils, or
turns on the fluorescent lights. The patient loses strength instantaneously,
the kinesiologist's force easily overcomes the resistance, and the arm
collapses. Of course, both participants in this folie à deux feel they
maintain a constant effort throughout. As the reader is no doubt aware by
now, such a demonstration proves nothing in the absence of a placebo control
and a double-blind administration. Knowing an allegedly harmful substance
has been applied, the practitioner unconsciously presses a little harder and
the patient unconsciously resists a bit less.
 

Some years ago I participated in a test of applied kinesiology at Dr.
Wallace Sampson's medical office in Mountain View, California. A team of
chiropractors came to demonstrate the procedure. Several physician observers
and the chiropractors had agreed that chiropractors would first be free to
illustrate applied kinesiology in whatever manner they chose. Afterward, we
would try some double-blind tests of their claims. The chiropractors
presented as their major example a demonstration they believed showed that
the human body could respond to the difference between glucose (a "bad"
sugar) and fructose (a "good" sugar). The differential sensitivity was a
truism among "alternative healers," though there was no scientific warrant
for it. The chiropractors had volunteers lie on their backs and raise one
arm vertically. They then would put a drop of glucose (in a solution of
water) on the volunteer's tongue. The chiropractor then tried to push the
volunteer's upraised arm down to a horizontal position while the volunteer
tried to resist. In almost every case, the volunteer could not resist. The
chiropractors stated the volunteer's body recognized glucose as a "bad"
sugar. After the volunteer's mouth was rinsed out and a drop of fructose was
placed on the tongue, the volunteer, in just about every test, resisted
movement to the horizontal position. The body had recognized fructose as a
"good" sugar.
 

After lunch a nurse brought us a large number of test tubes, each one coded
with a secret number so that we could not tell from the tubes which
contained fructose and which contained glucose. The nurse then left the room
so that no one in the room during the subsequent testing would consciously
know which tubes contained glucose and which fructose. The arm tests were
repeated, but this time they were double-blind -- neither the volunteer, the
chiropractors, nor the onlookers was aware of whether the solution being
applied to the volunteer's tongue was glucose or fructose. As in the morning
session, sometimes the volunteers were able to resist and other times they
were not. We recorded the code number of the solution on each trial. Then
the nurse returned with the key to the code. When we determined which trials
involved glucose and which involved fructose, there was no connection
between ability to resist and whether the volunteer was given the "good" or
the "bad" sugar.
 

When these results were announced, the head chiropractor turned to me and
said, "You see, that is why we never do double-blind testing anymore. It
never works!" At first I thought he was joking. It turned it out he was
quite serious. Since he "knew" that applied kinesiology works, and the best
scientific method shows that it does not work, then -- in his mind -- there
must be something wrong with the scientific method. This is both a form of
loopholism as well as an illustration of what I call the plea for special
dispensation. Many pseudo- and fringe-scientists often react to the failure
of science to confirm their prized beliefs, not by gracefully accepting the
possibility that they were wrong, but by arguing that science is defective.
 

Another variation of this special dispensation was illustrated by the
reaction of a dowser that Barry Beyerstein and I tested on an edition of the
television program Scientific American Frontiers, hosted by Alan Alda. The
dowser had agreed in advance to a double-blind test that he felt would prove
his powers, but failed the test. Mr. Alda felt some compassion for this
dowser, and discussed the failure with him. The dowser admitted he was
disappointed but he felt that the outcome simply revealed that science had
not yet matured to the point where it could cope with dowsing.
 

A final example of ideomotor mischief can be found in certain practices of
Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM.)[25,26] The essence of TCM is a
scientifically undetectable vitalistic force called Qi (pronounced "chee").
Disease, according to TCM, results from an imbalance in the flow of the yin
and yang forms of this universal "energy" in one's body. Acupuncture,
Chinese herbs, massage, and so on, are supposed to restore the balance of Qi
and thereby restore health. TCM practitioners claim to diagnose a wide
variety of aliments using "pulse diagnosis" which bears little resemblance
to the way scientifically trained physicians take a patient's pulse. The way
in which the patient's hand is held by TCM practitioners while taking the
pulse provides fertile ground for contamination by ideomotor activity (see
the section on "muscle reading" in Marks and Kammann.) Not surprisingly,
there is little to no objective evidence that these procedures have any
diagnostic value. In a similar manner, TCM practitioners who employ the
discipline called "Qi Gong" assert that they can direct their own Qi into
others in order to achieve both diagnosis and healing. When a Qi Gong
master's Qi is supposedly flowing, the "recipients" often feel suddenly
energized or experience paralyzing weakness. In an unblinded demonstration
shown on Bill Moyers' PBS series, Healing and the Mind, stalwart students
were suddenly seen to lose the strength to push over their frail master. In
properly blinded tests of Qi Gong masters, when "recipients" do not know
when Qi is or is not being directed at them, such changes in how strong they
perceive their muscles to be fail to appear.
 
 
 

Some Common Features of Ideomotor-Based Systems

Although the effects of ideomotor action have been understood for at least
one hundred fifty years, the phenomenon remains surprisingly unknown, even
to scientists. To conclude, the following are some of the psychological
features that characterize nearly all the systems and schemes that have
bases in ideomotor action.

Ideomotor Action
 

To reiterate, all systems using the rubbing plate, the dowsing rod, the
exploring pendulum, or related technique depend on an almost undetectable
motor movement, amplified into a more noticeable event. The impetus arises
from one's own subtle and unperceived expectations. Elaborate, grandiose
theories are then devised to explain the observed effects.
 

Projection of the Operator's Actions to an External Force
 

This is one of key properties of ideomotor action. Although the operator's
own actions cause the fingers to stick, the rod to move, or the pendulum to
rotate in a given direction, the operator attributes the cause onto an
external force. Subjectively, that is what it feels like. Lacking a sense of
volition, one credits unknown forces, radiations, or other external
emanations.
 

The Cause of the Action Is Attributed to Forces New to Science and
Revolutionary in Nature
 

This is implied in the previous point. Not only is the cause attributed to
an external source, but each time the phenomenon is encountered anew, those
who have not read their history attribute it to a force previously unknown.
 

Delusions of Grandeur
 

Not only do the proponents insist that the cause is external, but they tend
to see themselves as revolutionary saviors of mankind. They claim to have
discovered new principles and forces, ones whose ramifications will
transform contemporary science, not to mention society as we know it.
 

Delusions of Persecution
 

Those who suffer from delusions of grandeur frequently exhibit delusions of
persecution. Self-styled revolutionaries assert that orthodox scientists
dismiss discoverers of breakthroughs such as radionic devices and the like
merely out of envy, pig-headedness, conformism, or unwillingness to give
credit to brave outsiders who are not part of the scientific establishment.
 

To Be Forearmed Is To Be Disarmed
 

Proponents of quack devices and procedures will often argue that they are
aware of ideomotor action and the role of expectancies. They often assert
that their awareness makes them immune from its effects. Many dowsers now
admit unconscious expectations can affect the action of the divining rod.
They assert that their awareness prevents ideomotor action and allows
expression of the "true dowsing response." Unfortunately, the awareness of
ideomotor action does not make one immune from its expression.
 

Self-Sealing Belief Systems
 

Once the proponent becomes convinced that his favorite system "works," then
the psychological forces discussed by James Alcock come into play. These
self-serving biases serve to protect the belief system from falsification.
Loopholism is one way proponents protect their beliefs in the face of
contrary evidence. Saying "It is not the same thing" allows the believer to
shield the system. Alcock supplies more examples of this ability to distort,
forget, or ignore evidence. The true physician is aware of distortions of
one's own judgement, as well as those of pseudoscientific competitors.
 
 
 

References
 

1.      Vogt EZ, Hyman R. Water Witching U.S.A. 2d ed. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press; 1979.

2.      Ibid.

3.      Spitz H. Nonconscious Movements: From Mystical Messages to
Facilitated Communication. Manwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1997.

4.      Bowers KS. Dissociated control, imagination, and the phenomenology
of dissociation. In: Spiegel D, ed. Dissociation: Culture, Mind and Body.
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 1994: 21-38.

5.      Carpenter WB. On the influence of suggestion in modifying and
directing muscular movement, independently of volition. Proceedings of the
Royal Institution of Great Britain. 1852;1:147-153.

6.      James W. Principles of Psychology. New York, NY: Holt; 1890.

7.      Carpenter WB. Mental Physiology. London, UK: C. Kegan Paul; 1874.

8.      Carpenter WB. Mesmerism, Spiritualism, &c. New York, NY: D.
Appleton; 1874.

9.      Carpenter, On the influence of suggestion in modifying and directing
muscular movement, independently of volition.

10.     Vogt and Hyman, Water Witching U.S.A.

11.     Jastrow J. Wish and Wisdom. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts;
1935.

12.     Faraday M. Experimental investigation of table turning. Atheneum.
July 1853:801-803.

13.     Podmore F. Mediums of the 19th Century. Vol. 2. New Hyde Park, NY:
University Books; 1963.

14.     Wallace AR. On Miracles and Modern Spiritualism: Three Essays.
London, UK: James Burns; 1875.

15.     Wallace AR. My Life: A Record of Events and Opinions. New York: NY:
Dodd, Mead; 1906.

16.     Asimov I. Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and
Technology. Rev. ed. New York, NY: Equinox; 1976.

17.     Hare R. Experimental Investigation of the Spirit Manifestations,
Demostrating the Existence of Spirits and Their Communication With Mortals:
Doctrine of the Spirit World Respecting Heaven, Hell, Morality, and God. New
York, NY: Partridge and Brittan; 1855.

18.     Pfungst O. Clever Hans. New York, NY: Hold, Rinehart and Winston;
1965. [This is a reprint of the original 1911 edition. It contains a useful
introduction by Robert Rosenthal.]

19.     Hyman R. Cold reading: how to convince strangers that you know all
about them. Zetetic. 1977;1(2):18-37.

20.     Marks D, Kammann R. The Psychology of the Psychic. Amherst, NY:
Prometheus Books; 1980.

21.     Beyerstein B, Downie S. Naturopathy. Scientific Rev Alternative Med.
1998;2(1):20-28.

22.     Armstrong D, Armstrong SM. The body electric: future shocks. In: The
Great American Medicine Show. New York, NY: Prentice Hall; 1991.

23.     Dillon K. Facilitated communication, autism, and Ouija. Skeptical
Inquirer. 1993;17(3):281-287.

24.     Beyerstein B, Sampson W. Traditional medicine and pseudoscience in
China: a report of the second CSICOP delegation. Part 1. Skeptical Inquirer.
1996;20(4):18-26.

25.     Ibid.

26.     Sampson W, Beyerstein B. Traditional medicine and pseudoscience in
China: a report of the second CSICOP delegation. Part 2. Skeptical Inquirer.
1996;20(5):27-34.