User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 80

  1. #41
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    I've already said I'm open to the idea that it's an idiomotor process.
    Or that it didn't jump at all - revisiting the information that exists now to form a new theory on what you felt. The analogy is more about being skeptical of what you went through.

    edit: To be clear, I mean ideomotor as a method of finding water involuntarily through divining, not through a subconcious outlet to environmental clues. It is the divining through rods that is faulty, not the ability to predict where water is.

  2. #42
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Or that it didn't jump at all - revisiting the information that exists now to form a new theory on what you felt. The analogy is more about being skeptical of what you went through.
    Personally, I'm more skeptical about you and your absolute certainty. You go at this with the the fervor of the newly converted... it's positively fanatical.

    I don't trust it, gats.

  3. #43
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Personally, I'm more skeptical about you and your absolute certainty. You go at this with the the fervor of the newly converted... it's positively fanatical.

    I don't trust it, gats.
    Got my edit in late, just to clarify the part I'm addressing above.

    The only reason I pushed this is because of the analogy used, actually. It's relatively simple to show me that divining works and many attempts have been made to show it. I'll keep waiting until someone does.

  4. #44
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    It is the divining through rods that is faulty, not the ability to predict where water is.
    Let's not get hung up on terminology. If there were a process that caused it to work, I would expect it to be a physical process, not a metaphysical one.

    I wouldn't consider it any more a means of "divination" than the art of finding north with a magnet.

  5. #45
    perdu fleur par bologne Martoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    Interesting thread, JJJ!

    This is an interesting study on human perceptions, truth, and science.

    Up until reading this, I've actually had the assumption that divining or dowsing was valid, and worked reliably. This was based purely on limited information, and never having researched it. I just assumed it was the result of some well-understood physical phenomenon that I had never gotten around to reading up on. I wasn't even aware that the scientific community discounted it, or that it "only works for some people." The fact that I was ignorant in this didn't matter, since it had no bearing on my personal sphere of existence (i.e., I don't think my life would have been any different up to this point if I had known or thought otherwise, apart from the indirect differences via the Butterfly Effect).

    When I was about 16, several classmates and I had the job of digging a trench so that a broken water line could be repaired. The water line was a PVC pipe about 4 inches in diameter, buried about 5 feet underground. I believe it ran about 200 to 300 feet across a field. Someone there (probably the property owner) had a pair of "divining rods". They were L-shaped pieces of heavy wire, with the short leg about 5 inches and the long leg about 12. We all took turns "divining" at different points along the water line. You'd hold the short legs in loose fists, with the long legs pointing forward. When you walked across the water line, the rods would swing towards each other. We'd then put a stake in the ground at this point. We continued down the length of the pipe this way, taking turns, putting in a stake every 20 feet or so. We then started digging the trench in the middle, and worked outwards until we found the break in the pipe. The stakes were within a couple feet of being directly over the pipe.

    It was likely this experience that left me with the assumption that divining is a valid, reliable process. After reading the info in this thread (especially the article pt linked to), I now think it's probably myth, and the "idiomotor reaction" mentioned sounds to me like a reasonable explanation.

    When it comes to my own conclusions and beliefs, I'm a "fuzzy logic" kinda guy. In this particular example, I now have about 98% confidence that divining or dowsing doesn't work. But that other 2% is still there.

    I agree with Oberon's comment about the "we now know" statements that are often heard. I understand that it's not really practical to always say "we now think". Since we can't ever really know anything with 100% certainty, there wouldn't be much point even having the word "know" if it has zero domain to be applied to. So it's just generally understood that the word "know" really means "pretty damn certain".

    Still, I think there's a subconscious effect that happens when we use and hear the "know" verbiage. It tends to make people closed to the concept that we could conceivably be wrong, even though, as repeatedly demonstrated, we can be. I think this kind of inflexible certainty can slow scientific progress and discovery.
    I'm not a procrastinator. I'm a long-term planner.

  6. #46
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Let's not get hung up on terminology. If there were a process that caused it to work, I would expect it to be a physical process, not a metaphysical one.

    I wouldn't consider it any more a means of "divination" than the art of finding north with a magnet.
    Well, I'm not going to disagree that some people might be good at finding water out in the wild... I'm not sure what is being claimed then, honestly.

    I'll put it another way - I currently can accept that some people can find water using landmarks and so forth, I can accept that some people walk around with a stick in their hand as way of bringing intuitive information together (ie: the stick is a tool of the mind, just like a coin flip is to discharge responsibility of making a decision)...

    What I don't currently accept is that people can actually detect water (as evidenced by the controlled trials), rod or no rod, which is the claim being made by dowsers. If they said "I'm a good outdoorsman and can predict where water should be", then ok... That's quite a leap from the start of this thread or the claims that are made.

  7. #47
    Senior Member JivinJeffJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Martoon View Post
    Interesting thread, JJJ!
    Thanks! I thought so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martoon View Post
    Personal experience
    That's very interesting. I wouldn't be so quick to discount it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martoon View Post
    It was likely this experience that left me with the assumption that divining is a valid, reliable process. After reading the info in this thread (especially the article pt linked to), I now think it's probably myth, and the "idiomotor reaction" mentioned sounds to me like a reasonable explanation.
    To be honest, I think that a lot of the plausibility of the "idiomotor reaction" explanation is that the term itself sounds so scientifically verified and documented. It's a word made from latin and greek roots, after all. Let's drop the "idiomotor" and just say "moving it yourself". Which is all the word means. Not quite so plausible when said like that, I suspect.

  8. #48
    Senior Member JivinJeffJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,698

    Default

    I wonder if there's some experiment I could do with my dad which wouldn't involve a hell of a lot of work? Maybe identifying a spot where he has "located" water, blindfolding him, spinning him around a number of times, leading him all over the place and then leading him back over the previous location?

  9. #49
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JivinJeffJones View Post
    To be honest, I think that a lot of the plausibility of the "idiomotor reaction" explanation is that the term itself sounds so scientifically verified and documented. It's a word made from latin and greek roots, after all. Let's drop the "idiomotor" and just say "moving it yourself". Which is all the word means. Not quite so plausible when said like that, I suspect.
    Tiny muscle reactions you do yourself without being aware of it.
    The reaction is real. I've successfully led people to objects in a room they were thinking about without them leading me. I held them in the hand and moved the hand back and forth while they were sending me "telepathic messages" about where to move it. By noticing how they very gently resisted every move I made except in the direction which the thing was, I knew where to go. The closer they came, the more they believed, and in the end they practically forced my hand to the object, still flabberghasted that I'd been able to read their minds.

    In dowsing, people are holding objects that either will move with very slight tilts of the wrists (the L shapes) or slight unflexing of the hands (a flexed object like a Y stick). If they expect water to be somewhere and they believe dowsing works, they'll unknowingly flex the muscles enough to make the rod move.

    It could be that it's a physical principle we don't know yet that moves the stick, but it seems more plausible to me that it's the physical/psychological (lol, psy-phy) principle we already know, since that explains it and also explains why controlled tests never have worked. (Watch the video.)

    As for sceptics, I agree they jump to conclusions far too often and discount anything they don't already know, but as PT says: If nobody can demonstrate that it works, why start figuring out how it works?

  10. #50
    Senior Member JivinJeffJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    Tiny muscle reactions you do yourself without being aware of it.
    The reaction is real. I've successfully led people to objects in a room they were thinking about without them leading me. I held them in the hand and moved the hand back and forth while they were sending me "telepathic messages" about where to move it. By noticing how they very gently resisted every move I made except in the direction which the thing was, I knew where to go. The closer they came, the more they believed, and in the end they practically forced my hand to the object, still flabberghasted that I'd been able to read their minds.

    In dowsing, people are holding objects that either will move with very slight tilts of the wrists (the L shapes) or slight unflexing of the hands (a flexed object like a Y stick). If they expect water to be somewhere and they believe dowsing works, they'll unknowingly flex the muscles enough to make the rod move.
    From what I've heard from others (and Oberon could correct or support me here), the movement of the dowsing object is far too vigorous to be unknowingly obtained. It's actually too strong to oppose. Do you really think you couldn't oppose "idiomotor" reactions? Personally, I don't think it at all likely that so many people could fool themselves into thinking that the stick is moving when it's actually them moving it. Martoon's story, for instance. He had no idea that there was any possibility of the dowsing sticks not working. He had no idea that it wasn't a scientifically-verified practice. He wasn't given some big spiel about why it would work. He was just given the stick and told how to use it.

    Personally, I think people hide a hell of a lot behind pseudo-psychological smokescreens. Can't explain it? It must be something weird the brain is doing. There's plenty of room under that carpet.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 370
    Last Post: 02-07-2016, 09:54 PM
  2. What's the deal with this headlining news story (Casey Anthony)?
    By swordpath in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 137
    Last Post: 09-08-2012, 11:10 AM
  3. [MBTItm] What's the deal with this?
    By Lily flower in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-13-2010, 02:58 AM
  4. [NF] To NF males, what's the deal with this guy?
    By dee in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-26-2010, 01:50 PM
  5. What's the deal with Socionics?
    By alicia91 in forum Socionics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-02-2008, 08:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO