Ideomotor effect

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Mr. A. believing himself to be Mrs. B.

Mrs. C believing herself to be Mr. D.

«And the abolition of the sense of personal identity, Mr. A. believing himself to be Mrs. B.,[note 1] or Mrs. C believing herself to be Mr. D., and acting in conformity to that belief, - is induced in the same mode; the assurance being continually repeated, until it has taken full possession of the mind of the ‘subject,’ who cannot so direct his thoughts as to bring his familiar experience to antagonize and dispel the illusive idea thus forced upon him.»
— William Carpenter[1]
Change: Possible
«I began to suppose that maybe I wasn't born this way. ...that maybe I could change, and that if this guy could do it, maybe I could too!»

The term “ideomotor” was introduced in 1854 by physician William Carpenter to describe phenomenon when we can all too easily fool ourselves.[1] Our ability to fool ourselves is unparalleled, and the ideomotor effect is just one persistent way our own curious psychology can push us towards erroneous conclusions.[note 2] Ideomotor effect has to do with actions, behavior and mindset of a person being subconsciously influenced by suggestion and/or expectations, often without admitting such influence and even with trying to explain it away. In the original situation, the discovery of the ideomotor effect was used to demonstrate that there was no mystery underpinning the eerie happenings of late 19th and early 20th century séances – merely the heady mixture of delusion and occasionally, outright fraud. Spiritism fascinated the 19th century public and was furiously debunked by scientists (such as, i.a. the prominent British scientist Michael Faraday[3]) who were exposing trickery and detecting bogus claims. But modern “scientific” incarnations of the ideomotor effect are just as sinister.[4]


Despite the existence of ideomotor effect being known for almost two centuries, the infinite human capacity for re-invention on the one hand, and their seeming inability to learn from their mistakes on the other, means that people can still fall prey to the same or similar illusions under different packaging.

People supposedly ‘born that way’

Mr. A not believing to be Mr(s). (L)G(BTI) anymore
«In retrospect Mr. A decided that the combination of his anxiety when approaching and meeting people, the teasing rejection by heterosexual males [which he had reported in childhood] and the comfortable acceptance by homosexual males who pursued and courted him had helped convince him of his homosexuality. Passive homosexual behavior allowed him to avoid the severe anxiety experienced when initiating courtship.»
— Journal of Clinical Psychiatry[5]
Bolstering the "Born This Way" Myth
«Bizarrely, the members of this group that no one can define have not only been born this way, they can never change. "This way" is apparently set in genetic stone never, ever to change, though scientists and advocates alike still cannot define exactly what "this way" is.»
— Austin Ruse: Fake Science[6]

Perhaps the most prominent – and damaging - modern offshoot of the ideomotor effect is the phenomenon of the so-called LGBTI/gender ideology.[note 3] There is no special force or agent at play, and a conclusion can be made that far from being some bizarre supernatural event, acting out same-sex attractions by intercourse with the person of the same sex is nothing more than ‘a quasi-involuntary muscular action’ that can be easily explained within the framework of the OCD.[8]

The reported cases of ex-homosexuals had revealed there is no mysterious force at play, natural or supernatural, biological or otherwise – just a propensity for men and women to delude themselves. The evidence is clear – believing to be ‘born that way’ is nothing more than self-delusion buttressed by yet another variant of the ideomotor effect. The very existence of the ex-gay movement shows that the 'born-that-way' myth is a lie.[9] When it comes to homosexual alias sodomical lifestyle, there is no need for the agency of ‘gay gene’[note 4] or ‘gay epi-marks’[15][note 5], and the invocation of such agency contrary to Occam’s razor is the sign of a mind not merely unscientific, but also either uninformed, or, even worse, manipulative.

Despite the fact that nonsensical LGBTI/gender ideology has no more scientific credibility than spiritism, its spectre haunts us even now. It is still reported uncritically in mainstream media; for example, in 2015, an article titled “'Gay genes': science is on the right track, we're born this way. Let’s deal with it.” popped up in The Guardian.[17] Tragically, the so-called ‘LGBTI people’ and their countless supporters are victims of the ubiquitous ideomotor effect. In line with the ABC theory of emotion, these LGBTI somnambulists remain steadfast in their beliefs, rejecting the idea that verbose expressions of being ‘born that way’ are nothing more than their projected fantasy[note 6], authored by their own subconscious and fueled by gay propagandists.[9] When dwelling on the thought of same-sex attraction, particularly in the context of society where people have been hoodwinked that 'you could be born that way,' the resulting confusion about homosexual thoughts or tendencies could manifest itself as reality.[19]


  1. Typical example of Mr. A. believing himself to be Mrs. B. - External Link: Gay Pride Prague (18+; Parental Supervision is Advised)
  2. cf. irrational Beliefs in ABC Theory of Emotion
  3. cf. The social and behavioral sciences have a long history of being shaped and driven by politics and ideology. This is partly because researchers often choose to study issues implicating controversial questions of public policy. And it is partly because it is often impossible to perform the kind of objective observations and controlled experiments that are standard in the physical sciences. History is littered with notorious examples of false theories gaining wide acceptance among respected social and behavioral scientists, some of which supported pernicious public policies.[7]
  4. cf. Bogus claim: "Xq28 - Thanks for the genes mom". T shirt sold in gay and lesbian bookstores in the mid-1990s.[10] In 1991, J.M. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard examined how widespread is homosexual alias sodomical lifestyle among twins when at least one sibling declares to be "homosexual". They reported to have found that 52 percent of the identical twins considered themselves to be "homosexual". From this they suggested that genetic makeup may be the reason so many identical twins were feeling to be "homosexual," i.e. following the homosexual alias sodomical lifestyle. For their hypothesis to be fact, however, there should never be a case when one identical twin would be so called "homosexual" and other heterosexual. It is genetically impossible since both identical twins share 100 percent of the same genes.[5] Should sodomical behaviour be genetic, then both identical twins would always be either "homosexual" or heterosexual. Bailey and Pillard's findings of only 52 percent discredits their own hypothesis thus in fact they have showed that nongenetic factors play a significant part in shaping so called "sexual preference".[11] The scientific community realises that “our genes do not make us do it”.[12] The closed-minded partisans of antiscientific LGBTI/gender ideology feel however offended by scientific observations and they call the scientific discoveries and data, contrary to scientific principles (i.a. setting alternative explanations when dealing with a phenomenon) outlined by philosophers of science such as Karl Popper, a “hate”. Such was the case in Richmond, Virginia where Beth Panilaitis, the executive director of Rosma, a pressure group promoting LGBTI agenda, called for restricting the provision of scientific information on local billboard to the general public in a totalitarian manner[13] despite that information is regarded as fundamental human right i.a. by Resolution 1003 (1993) of Parliamentary Assembly of Europe.[14] Bill Harrison, executive director of Richmond Gay Community Foundation, another LGBTI pressure group, went with nonsensical antiscientific fury even further and de facto absurdly argued, by using the non sequitur fallacy, that learning about a person to have quit sodomical lifestyle, for example such as Michael Glatze, can cause “many people to commit suicide”.[13] To suggest that suicide prevention requires affirming a perrson's behavior or behavioral tendencies is simply foolish. Criminal behavior, for example, often leads to suicidal thoughts, but no one suggest that we must affirm criminal tendences to stop suicide.[9]
  5. cf. Wishful thinking: "Although we cannot provide definitive evidence that homosexuality has a strong epigenetic underpinning, we do think that available evidence is fully consistent with this conclusion."[16]
  6. cf. Campaigners [for so called "Same-sex marriages"] have been using the language of rights in an attempt to add moral force to what are nothing more than personal desires.[18]


  1. 1.0 1.1 William B. Carpenter (1852). On the Influence of Suggestion in Modifying and directing Muscular Movement, independently of Volition. Royal Institution of Great Britain (originally). Retrieved on 2 January 2016. “Materialien und Dokumente zum ideomotorischen (Carpenter) Effekt, hier die Originalarbeit.”
  2. Anthony Falzarano (2009). "8.The Light At The End Of The Tunnel", And Such Were Some Of You! One Man's Walk Out Of The Gay Lifestyle. Xulon Press, 80. ISBN 978-1606473863. 
  3. M. Faraday (November 1853). "Experimental investigation of table-moving". Journal of the Franklin Institute 56 (5): 328–333. doi:10.1016/S0016-0032(38)92173-8. Retrieved 28 January 2016. "The object which I had in view in this inquiry was not to satisfy myself, for my conclusion had been formed already on the evidence of those who had turned tables,--but that I might be enabled to give a strong opinion founded on facts, to the many who applied to me for it. Yet, the proof which I sought for, and the method followed in the inquiry, were precisely of the same nature as those which I should adopt in any other physical investigation. The parties with whom I have worked were very honorable, very clear in their intentions, successful table movers, very desirous of succeeding in establishing the existence of a peculiar power, thoroughly candid, and very effectual.". 
  4. David Robert Grimes (30 October 2015). Science of the seance: why speaking to spirits is talking to yourself. Guardian News and Media Limited. Retrieved on 2 January 2016.
  5. 5.0 5.1 Jeffrey Burke Satinover (1996). "12", Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Baker Books, 83, 190–1. ISBN 9780801056253. “D.H. Golwyn and C.P. Sevlie, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 54, no.1 pp.39-40” 
  6. Austin Ruse (2017). Fake Science: Exposing the Left's Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data. Regnery Publishing, 42. 
  7. Harvey C. Mansfield and Leon R. Kass (26 Mar 2013). The shaky science behind same-sex marriage. Institute for Marriage and Public Policy. Retrieved on 8 Feb 2016.
  8. Men and Women Who Have Experienced Authentic Change in Sexual Orientation Through Therapy that Works!. PATH: Positives Alternatives to Homosexuality. Retrieved on 26 Feb 2017. “The testimonials presented on this site are authentic Voices of Change by men and women who have experienced profound changes in their sexual orientation. These brave men and women represent thousands of people around the world who feel same-sex attraction (SSA) but don't believe these unwanted feelings represent who they truly are as people nor did they believe these feelings to be unchangeable. Because they understood their SSA was not inborn but rather the result of a number of underlying risk factors, they chose to work on and resolve these issues, such as: emotional and/or sexual abuse; unmet emotional needs; depression, OCD or other co-morbid disorders; and childhood wounds to their psychosexual and/or psychosocial development.”
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 Scott Lively (2009). Redeeming the Rainbow: A Christian Response to the "Gay" Agenda, 1 (Version 1.1), Veritas Aeterna Press, 173, 177–8. “The “gays” also invented the myth that they are born that way. Despite decades of efforts and millions of research dollars that “gays” have never proved that homosexuality is innate. They can’t because it isn’t. God does not create people to have no choice in a behavior that He condemns.” 
  10. Matt Ridley (2000). "Chromosomes X and Y", Genome. Fourth Estate Ltd., 107. ISBN 978-1857-028355. 
  11. Jeff Olson (1996). When Passions Are Confused. RBC Ministries,, 14. 
  12. NE Whitehead (October 2013). "9. The “discovery” of the “gay gene”", My Genes Made Me Do It! - Homosexuality and the scientific evidence, 3. 
  13. 13.0 13.1 Billy Hallowell (11 Dec 2014). Gay Rights Activists Outraged Over Billboard’s Message About Homosexuality and Genetics. The Blaze (originally WVUE-TV). Retrieved on 30 Jan 2016. ““Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay,” she said, according to WVUE-TV. “Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. No one is born gay.””
  14. Resolution 1003 (1993). Parliamentary Assembly of Europe. “8. Information is a fundamental right which has been highlighted by the case-law of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights relating to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights ... The owner of the right is the citizen, who also has the related right to demand that the information supplied by journalists be conveyed truthfully, in the case of news, and honestly, in the case of opinions, without outside interference by either the public authorities or the private sector.”
  15. Elizabeth Norton (11 December 2012). Homosexuality May Start in the Womb. AAAS. Retrieved on 2 January 2016. “The "epi-marks" that adjusted parental genes to resist excess testosterone, for example, may alter gene activation in areas of the child's brain involved in sexual attraction and preference.”
  16. William R. Rice; Urban Friberg; Sergey Gavrilets (December 2012). "Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development". The Quarterly Review of Biology 87 (4): 343–368. doi:10.1016/S0016-0032(38)92173-8. Retrieved 28 January 2016. 
  17. Qazi Rahman (24 July 2015). 'Gay genes': science is on the right track, we're born this way. Let’s deal with it.. the Guardian. Retrieved on 2 January 2016.
  18. Steve Doughty (20 March 2012). Gay marriage is not a 'human right': European ruling torpedoes Coalition stance. The Daily Mail. “Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, said: ‘For too long campaigners have been using the language of rights in an attempt to add moral force to what are nothing more than personal desires. ‘In many cases they have bypassed the democratic process and succeeded in imposing their views on the rest of the population by force of law. ‘We are seeing the same principle at work in the Government’s sham of a consultation on same-sex marriage.’ He added: ‘The ruling from the ECHR will embolden those whose concerns about same-sex marriage and adoption are not inspired by personal hatred and animosity, but by a genuine concern for the well-being of children and the welfare of society. ‘Instead of rushing to legislate without seriously considering the views of the electorate, the Government should be encouraging a measured public debate on the nature and meaning of marriage.’”
  19. Gary Bates and Lita Cosner (2013). Gay Marriage:right or wrong? And who decides?. Powder Springs, GA, USA: Creation Book Publishers, 18. ISBN 978-1921-643750. 

See also