Difference between revisions of "Ideomotor effect"

Revision as of 20:51, February 8, 2016

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. 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^[2]) who were exposing trickery and detecting bogus claims. But modern “scientific” incarnations of the ideomotor effect are just as sinister.^[3]

People supposedly ‘born that way’

Perhaps the most prominent – and damaging - modern offshoot of the ideomotor effect is the phenomenon of LGBTI/gender ideology.^{[note 1]} 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. 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 the ubiquitous ideomotor effect. When it comes to homosexual alias sodomical lifestyle, there is no need for the agency of ‘gay gene’^{[note 2]} or ‘gay epi-marks’^{[11][note 3]}, 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.^[13] Tragically, the so called ‘LGBTI people’ and their countless supporters are victims of the ideomotor effect. In line with the ABC theory of emotion, they remain steadfast in their beliefs, rejecting the idea that verbose expressions of being ‘born that way’ are nothing more than their projected fantasy^{[note 4]}, authored by their own subconscious and fueled by gay propagandists.

Notes

1. ↑ 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.^[4]
2. ↑ cf. Bogus claim: "Xq28 - Thanks for the genes mom". T shirt sold in gay and lesbian bookstores in the mid-1990s.^[5] 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.^[6] 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".^[7] The scientific community realises that “our genes do not make us do it”.^[8] 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 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^[9] despite that information is regarded as fundamental human right i.a. by Resolution 1003 (1993) of Parliamentary Assembly of Europe.^[10] 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”.^[9]
3. ↑ 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."^[12]
4. ↑ 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.^[14]

References

See Also

Goebbels' maxim