Ideomotor Response or Spawn of Satan?
There was a recent article in the Daily Mail of three Americans hospitalized for possession after using a Ouija board in San Juan Tlacotenco in SW Mexico.
The Spiritualist theory is that you're talking to the dead, Evangelicals may tell you you're talking to Satan, indeed most Christian religious denominations will answer with:
"Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the
fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in
witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who
consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the
Lord" (Dt 18:10–12, NIV)
Scientists may tell you it's a subconscious ideomotor response, although scientific experiments have yielded some interesting results. In one study participants asked to simply answer a series of questions answered correctly about 50% of the time, with a Ouija board their success rate climbed to 65%. The scientific explanation is that we know the answers, but self-doubt or other emotions may cause us to answer incorrectly, something along the lines of the advice given to test takers to always go with the first answer that pops into mind.
Additionally, there are many scary stories floating about regarding Ouiji boards. Initially there wasn't much negative ascribed to Ouija boards until the movie the Exorcist came out, and from there the scary stories just blossomed.
I've never put much stock in them, subscribing to the ideomotor response theory, although I have some faint memories of someone from my young teen years having one, perhaps an aunt.
What do you think?
 |
| John Bauer - 1915 |
AMAZING SCIENTIFIC BREAKTRHOUGH
Those dark denizens of the internet really are horrible people.
The research, conducted by Erin Buckels of the University of Manitoba
and two colleagues, sought to directly investigate whether people who
engage in trolling are characterized by personality traits that fall in
the so-called Dark Tetrad: Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate
and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession),
psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in
the suffering of others).
Slate
Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behavior.
Science Direct
Administration vs. Legislation
We all know how annoying trolls can be and some in outrage or offense would like to see an end to internet anonymity. Last year Huffington Post began requiring visitors to identify themselves by name, that is certainly within the prerogative of the owners and administrators of Huffington Post... their site, their rules. I may disagree with Arianna when she says:
"Freedom of expression is given to people who stand up for what they're saying and who are not hiding behind anonymity,"
And may point to Thomas Paine publishing Common Sense as "written by an Englishman", but as I said, her site, her rules.
More dangerous are those that propose legislating away the possibility of internet anonymity. First, internet anonymity is superficial at best, none of us have real anonymity. Your ISP know who you are, leaving the proverbial trail of breadcrumbs straight to your door, back here behind the curtain at Western Hero, I have seen how easy it is to track a commenter back to his lair.
Internet anonymity provides us not anonymity from our ISP or from the government, it provides us anonymity, for the most part, from each other. While that anonymity can be abused it also provides a level of comfort or a relatively effective level of non-attribution.
The best argument for anonymity I have heard is what I'll call the John Smith argument. The John Smiths of the world are relatively safe, there are 46,000 John Smiths in the United States. There are 81 other people in the US that share my name... there is one Aloysius Guggenheim. Do you think Aloysius Guggenheim wants to post comments on an Irritable Bowel Syndrome forum? It doesn't take a degree from the University of the Obvious to figure that one out.
Suffer the Little Trolls...
and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the Kingdom of Internet.
Microaggression, Microassaults, Microinsults, and Microinvalidation
Would you ask an Asian student: "Can you help me with this calculus problem? I just can't figure it out." (You're a racist: Implies Asians are good at math.)
Is your office decorated in Danish Modern? (You're a racist: One’s racial identity can be minimized or made insignificant through the sheer exclusion of decorations.)
Would you make this statement? “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.” (You're a racist: Implies minorities receive an unfair benefit.)
Do you believe we are all human beings and skin color is unimportant? (You're a racist: You deny the racial and experiential reality of people of color.)
Would you correct spelling and grammar errors on a submitted college paper? (You're a racist: Creating a hostile campus climate by "correcting perceived grammatical choices that in actuality reflect ideologies".)
Would you correct the use of capitalization of the word "indigenous" in a term paper? (You're a racist: Disregarding the writer's scholarly advocacy and ignoring other ideological implications.)
Want to have a discussion? (You're a racist: Creating a hostile climate by questioning and allowing classmates to question the epistemological and methodological commitments of other students.)
Wait... It gets better; in the Catch-22 department:
Microaggressive acts can usually be explained away by seemingly nonbiased and valid reasons... but they're still microaggresive acts. No matter what your thoughts, feelings, or underlying motivations, conservative or liberal... if you're white, you're a racist.
It appears that modern and symbolic racism are most closely associated with political conservatives, who disclaim personal bigotry by strong and rigid adherence to traditional American values (individualism, self-reliance, hard work, etc.), whereas aversive racism is more characteristic of White liberals (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1996, 2000). Aversive racists, are strongly motivated by egalitarian values as well as antiminority feelings. Their egalitarian values operate on a conscious level, while their antiminority feelings are less conscious and generally covert (DeVos & Banaji, 2005)
Somehow, I can't shake the feeling that this entire concept is racist.
Seriously, I can't make this shit up:
Psychology Today
CFP
National Review
Fordham University
UCLA
