THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE OUIJA BOARD[45]
Before we proceed to discuss the intelligence lying behind the Ouija
Board, I must offer a few remarks upon the subject of automatic writing
in general, passing in very brief review the various theories that have
been advanced from time to time by way of explanation of the action of
this extraordinary little device.
One of the sanest and most rational popular accounts of this instrument
and its workings that I have so far come across (all things considered)
is a little pamphlet entitled _The Planchette Mystery_, very little
known, from which I shall quote in writing this review. Epes Sargent's
book, _Planchette: the Despair of Science_, contains in reality very
little on the planchette board, and the title is somewhat deceptive. Mr.
Myers's articles on the subject (particularly in _Proceedings of
S.P.R._, vol. ii. pp. 217-37; vol. iii. pp. 1-63; and vol. ix. pp.
26-128) are, of course, classical, but are involved and inaccessible for
the general reader, even had he the time to read them carefully; so that
perhaps the following resume may not be unnecessary or out of place.
It is to be presumed that every reader of this book knows what a Ouija
Board is, and, roughly, what it does. _How_ it does it is a more
difficult question to answer; in fact, it may be said that no definite
answer has even yet been forthcoming. All that has been done, or that we
can do, is to examine the facts, and to advance an explanatory theory
that is really explanatory and in accord, as nearly as possible, with
accepted theories and teaching.
First, let us consider the movement of the board. There can be little
doubt that the same force which propels the planchette board propels the
ouija board also; and this is still further demonstrated by the fact
that, in many experiments, the planchette board is used as a ouija, and
points to the letters, which are written out on a large piece of paper,
and the pencil point indicates the letter in the same manner as does the
ouija. It certainly appears far easier for the board to point to letters
than to write--and this is most suggestive and interesting when we
consider it. It would seem to indicate that the controlling intelligence
found it easier to convey its thoughts when the letters were before it,
in plain sight--a very suggestive fact, taken in conjunction with
certain mediumistic phenomena.[46] Of course there is the alternative
explanation of this fact--that a straight push-and-pull action is easier
to accomplish than the more detailed and complicated action of forming
words and letters. But that would not make plain to us why it is that no
_attempt_ at writing should be made, very often, until the
letter-pointing system is adopted.
Presuming, then, that the movement or impelling force is the same in
each instance, the question is: What is this force? In the great bulk of
cases there can only be one answer to this question: unconscious
muscular action. Whenever muscular contact is allowed, this may safely
be assumed to be the explanation of the movements of the board--even if
it shows an apparently independent will and movement of its own, and
apparently drags the hands of the sitters with it. I have discussed this
at some length in my _Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism_, pp. 66-72,
and it is unnecessary to go into the question again here. Unconscious
muscular action will account for so much that, even if it were not the
true explanation of the facts, in reality, we should have to assume that
it was.
It will be observed that I have said "in the great bulk of cases." Some
of my readers may object to this limitation, and say that it is the true
and sufficient explanation of _all_ the cases, without exception.
Personally I doubt that fact. There are numerous cases on record when
the board has continued to write after the hands of all the sitters have
been removed from it. Now, if there be operative a force which has been
in some way generated during the sitting, it is quite possible, of
course, that this same force may be operative in those cases where
contact is allowed, only it is difficult to prove that fact.[47]
Personally I have no difficulty in conceiving such a force or power, at
least theoretically. This force may be the first glimmerings of the
force whose more powerful manifestations we see in the movements of
tables (witness Gasparin's experiments, e.g.), and ultimately in
telekinetic phenomena, as, for example, in the Palladino case. This
would seem to indicate that such forces and powers are possessed by
every one in a limited degree, but that it is only in certain
individuals that it becomes so marked and extraordinary that it produces
the phenomena spoken of above.
Granting, then, for the sake of argument, that the board is moved by the
sitter, either consciously or unconsciously; by unconscious muscular
action or by some "fluid" emanating from his fingers (and we must
remember that even were a spirit using the writer's organism to manifest
through, it must use the muscular and motor system), the great and vital
question still remains: What is the intelligence behind the board that
directs the phenomena? Who does the writing? What is the source of the
information so often given?
Let us first consider the theory held by a very large number of
persons--that the board is moved by some kind of "electricity." We must
suppose that the generally recognized electricity is meant, because, if
not, the motive force would be electricity _plus something_, and the
"something" would be the explanation. And yet, if the force moving the
board be "electricity," how comes it that this "electricity" can answer
back, and possess an individuality so independent from that of the
writer; capable, too, of giving a vast mass of information to the
sitters, on occasion, of which they knew nothing? Then, again, it must
be remembered that a ouija or planchette is almost universally made of
_wood_--not metal or any well-known good conductor of electricity, but
of wood--which is generally recognized to be an exceedingly bad
conductor. Obviously the theory is absurd. And when we come to remember
those cases in which the board gave information previously unknown to
the writer having his hands on the board at the time, the theory sinks
into its proper place--oblivion.
Then there is the theory of a floating, ambient mentality. This theory
is held by many, and it is contended by them that this mentality is
clothed, by some mysterious process, with a force similar to that which
it possessed in the living organism; and that, in its expression of the
combined intelligence of the circle, it generally follows the strongest
mind, or the mind that is best qualified or conditioned to give
correctly the thought. This theory found its champion in the person of
Dr. Joseph Maxwell (see his _Metapsychical Phenomena_), and must be
taken into account seriously. But an objection, and to my mind a fatal
objection, to this theory is the fact that the intelligence seems to
possess, not a collective but a decidedly personal character--one which
is sufficiently stable and individual to argue back and to maintain its
own opinions and beliefs in the face of great opposition from all the
members of the circle. Is there anything in all this that suggests a
floating, compound mentality; or does it not rather bear the marks of
being a theory made up for the occasion, in order to evade some
alternative explanation, objectionable, perhaps, to the sitters or
critics?
All that has been said above also applies to the theory of a _spiritus
mundi_, or spirit of the universe, which formed so large a part in the
cosmological theories of many ancient philosophers. It is supposed to be
a sort of all-pervading nervous principle, having, however, a mind of
its own, when occasion demands--for otherwise how are the results to be
accounted for? I think this and the preceding theory can best be met,
perhaps, by asking its supporters to produce one iota of evidence in its
behalf. When this has been forthcoming it will be time enough to
consider it seriously.
Then there is the theory that the unconscious muscular action of the
sitters is the cause of the movement and writing. This has been
considered before, and it was pointed out that, even granting for the
sake of argument that the board was actually moved by this means, the
question still remains: How are we to account for the mentality behind
the movement--especially when facts are given unknown to all the members
of the circle? (For an example of this see _Proceedings, S.P.R._, vol.
ix. pp. 93-8.)
The question thus arises: _What_ did the writing? The theory of
unconscious muscular action has been considered, and found not to
explain all the facts. Many might contend that the board was moved by a
principle or force as yet unknown, and think the question settled in
that way. Of course this is a mere begging of the question, for all
practical purposes, because, if the explanation were known, there would
be no mystery and no argument about it. But the mere statement that the
board is operated by a force as yet unknown merely restates the problem,
without in any way attempting to solve it, and hence leaves us precisely
where we were. Certainly this theory will not do!
Undoubtedly, the simplest explanation--and the correct one--for the
majority of the facts is that the subconscious mind is alone responsible
for them. Thoughts, images, reflections, imaginations, tend to
externalize or express themselves in this manner,--in motor
avenues,--through the movement of the board. The vast majority of ouija
board "communications" are to be accounted for in this way. But what of
those other (relatively rare) cases in which supernormal information,
unknown to the sitter, is obtained? Any theory which is advanced must
explain these cases also, as well as the movement of the board, and pure
subconscious activity does not. We should still have to account for this
knowledge, unknown to the writer; so that we shall have to seek further
yet, in order to discover the true cause of the intelligence doing the
writing.
We seem to be driven, then, into one of two alternatives: (1) that
unconscious muscular action pushed the board, and that the supernormal
information given was obtained by telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.; or (2)
that spirits did the writing. Let us examine each of these hypotheses in
turn a little more carefully. It seems to me that the first theory is
practically unable to account in any satisfactory way for many
communications that have been received. On the other hand, it would be
perfectly absurd to invoke the agency of "spirits" for every one of the
messages that have been written out--I mean supernormal messages. On the
contrary, there are many experiments that point to clairvoyance or
telepathy as the true explanation. It is highly probable, it seems to
me, that the same agency is not involved on every occasion, but that
there may be spirits (granting such to exist) on some occasions;
telepathy and clairvoyance on other occasions; and purely unconscious
muscular action on most occasions, when no supernormal is involved. It
is only the prevailing tendency to cover all facts by a single
explanation that has led to the difficulty. If we were willing to admit
that there may be operative many different influences and causes, on
different occasions, it seems to me that much of the difficulty would
vanish.
There can be no doubt as to the fact that the ouija board is a far more
mysterious little instrument than the majority of persons suppose--or
rather, the forces and the mentalities behind the movement of the board
are exceedingly complex, and but little understood. As the author of
_The Planchette Mystery_ said: "A wonderful jumble of mental and moral
possibilities is this little piece of dead matter, now giving utterance
to childish drivel, now bandying jokes and badinage, now stirring the
conscience by unexceptionable Christian admonitions, and now uttering
the baldest infidelity or the most shocking profanity; and often
discoursing gravely on science, philosophy, or theology." Any theory
that is advanced to explain the facts must take all this into
consideration, and much more. Let us turn for a few minutes to consider
the automatic script, as frequently obtained.
There are, very frequently, answers to mental questions--questions, too,
the answer to which none of those having their hands on the board could
possibly know. Often, again, remarks are volunteered conveying
information not possessed by any one of the writers. The distinct
characterization of a personality is frequently seen,--and a personality
of a very detestable sort. The language employed, frequently, is quite
unprintable. The "ouija" lies as coolly and confidently as it tells the
truth; in fact, it is dogmatically positive that its statements are
correct in every case, even when they are glaringly incorrect at the
very time they are written. This spirit of dogmatism is shown in many
passages, and suggests to us the attempt at domineering on the part of
an intelligence unused to such a position, and rejoicing in its
supremacy.
I wish to insist primarily upon the action of the board itself, and its
apparently _human_ characteristics--quite apart from any information
which it volunteers; and this will be of the greater interest, I fancy,
for the reason that such observations have, to the best of my knowledge,
rarely been made. I can perhaps best illustrate my point by giving a few
concrete examples.
There can be no question that the board has _moods_. It gets angry on
occasion, for example, and at such times will tear round the table like
a living thing, pointing first to one letter and then to another, and
accentuating its meaning or calling attention to certain letters that
are important, or that have been omitted in the rapid spelling, by
rapping impatiently on the latter with the point--the point being lifted
off the board at such times half an inch or so, and the board remaining
planted on its two hind legs. I have seen the front leg of the board rap
a dozen or so times on a letter that had been omitted; and sometimes the
board would get so violent that it had to be quieted--just as the hand
in automatic writing has to be quieted. Then, again, the board gets a
certain "technique" of its own, acting in certain ways on certain
occasions, and in other ways on other occasions; and frequently assuming
a perfectly definite _form_ of movement with certain persons--a certain
sweep or an erratic manner of pointing to letters which it maintains
uniformly so long as that person has his or her hands on the board.
Occasionally the ouija will assume a different personality, according to
the communicating intelligence, and not according to the person having
his hands on the board. Just as raps or tables assume distinct
personalities (see Dr. Maxwell's book for examples of this), so the
ouija board assumes a perfectly definite personality, on occasion, and
moves and writes according to that personality's idiosyncrasies. And
this becomes all the more marked when we take into account certain
peculiarities of the board--for example, its unwillingness to give names
and dates, or to furnish any definite information about itself. I have
observed over and over again that, whenever the intelligence doing the
writing is closely questioned about itself, it will become angry, and
refuse to give this information--either sulking or swearing at the
writers. On the other hand, the board has some good points. It refused
to disclose secrets about other persons, and got angry in the same way
when pressed. Another exceedingly interesting and suggestive thing is
that the intelligence operating the board occasionally gets tired. "Give
me a rest now" is an expression frequently observed, and would seem to
indicate that the "intelligence" gets confused and fatigued by the very
process of communicating its thoughts--just as the "controls" do in the
Piper case.
The very movements of the board frequently showed great skill and
intelligence also; for instance, if the ouija encountered a rough or
uneven place in the paper on one occasion it would always avoid crossing
that spot in the future, and would go carefully round it, so as to avoid
catching its legs in the hole or rough place in the paper. Still more
striking was the manner in which the board pointed to certain letters on
occasion. Many times the board was unable to point to a certain letter
because the point of the ouija was in an awkward position, or on the
edge of the table, or for some other reason. On such occasions the board
backed one of its hind legs around until one of these legs pointed to
the desired letter! Those having their hands on the board had many a
hearty laugh over these antics, and particularly this one, which always
reminded them of a horse backing itself round in this ludicrous way. It
was always entirely unexpected, and was the source of great amusement.
But what was the intelligence guiding the board when the only person
having her hands upon it was not looking at its antics, or paying
attention to what it was spelling out? Was it a spirit? If so, how did
it manage to move the board? Did it act directly upon the matter of the
board, and push it with its hands, as a material being would push it,
or did it act in some more mysterious manner? Granting, for the sake of
argument, that a spirit of some sort was involved in the production of
the writing, how are we to assume its interaction with the matter of the
board and its movements?
Two theories will at once present themselves to the reader: (1) that the
spirit acts directly upon the matter of the ouija board, and pushes it
as any mortal would push it; and (2) that the spirit acts only through
the brain and nervous and muscular system of the person or persons
having their hands on the board. I leave these for the present, because
they have been discussed so often before. The following is _the ouija
board's own theory_ of such action--so we can at least listen to it with
interest. In the course of some writing obtained, the following
explanation of the action of the board was given by the "spirits"
controlling it. I quote from the record:
"... Two spirits can always, when it is in divine order, readily
communicate with each other, because they can always bring
themselves into direct _rapport_ at some one or more points. Though
matter is widely discreted from spirit, in that the one is dead and
the other is alive, yet there is a certain correspondence between
the two, and between the degrees of the one and the degrees of the
other; and according to this correspondence, relation, or
_rapport_, spirit may act upon matter. Thus your spirit, in all its
degrees and faculties, is in the closest _rapport_ with all the
degrees of matter composing your body, and for this reason alone is
able to move it as it does, which it will no longer be able to do
when that _rapport_ is destroyed by what you call death. Through
your body it is _en rapport_ with and is able to act upon
surrounding matter. If, then, you are in a susceptible condition, a
spirit can not only get into _rapport_ with your spirit, and
through it with your body, and control its motions, or even suspend
your own proper action and external consciousness by entrancement;
but if you are at the same time _en rapport_ with this little board
it can, through contact of your hands, get into _rapport_ with
_that_, and move it without any conscious or volitional agency on
your part. Furthermore, under certain favourable conditions, a
spirit may, through your sphere and body combined, come into
_rapport_ even with the spheres of the ultimate particles of
material bodies near you, and thence with the particles and the
whole bodies themselves--and may thus, even without contact of your
hands, move them or make sounds upon them as has often been
witnessed. Its action, as before said, ceases where the _rapport_
ceases; and if communications from really intelligent spirits have
sometimes been defective as to the quality of the intelligence
manifested, it is because there has been found nothing in the
medium which could be brought into _rapport_ or correspondence with
the more elevated ideas of the spirit. The spirit, too, in frequent
instances, is unable to prevent its energizing influences from
being diverted by the reactive power of the medium into the
channels of the imperfect types of thought and expression that are
established in his mind, and it is for this simple reason that the
communication is as you say often tinctured with the peculiarities
of the medium, and even sometimes is nothing more than a
reproduction of the mental states of the latter--perhaps greatly
intensified."
Such is the theory originated by "ouija" itself--ingenious enough, if
not very scientific. The majority of my readers will probably prefer to
believe, either that some external intelligence moved the board
directly; or that the sitter himself did so--from purely subconscious
motives, or because he was thereby externalizing or acting as the
channel for the expression of ideas imparted to him from without. In
view of the reality of physical phenomena, I should be inclined to leave
the question open as to which of these two interpretations is correct in
any specific case. But there can be no doubt that, in most instances at
least, the board is moved by the subconscious muscular activity of the
sitter; and this is the most sane and rational view to take until
definite proof to the contrary be forthcoming.
FOOTNOTES:
[45] More properly, "the psychology of ouija board _writing_" or "of
writing obtained by means of the Ouija Board." This general title is
shorter, however, for a chapter heading.
[46] I have in mind especially one remarkable (but hitherto unpublished)
experiment with Mrs. Piper. A certain lady of my acquaintance--an old
Piper sitter--has tried to convey a certain word to "Rector"
telepathically--to be given by automatic writing through the trance.
Several attempts failed. Finally, one day, the lady in question wrote
out the word on a blackboard, and sat looking at it for about half an
hour. The word was given the next day through Mrs. Piper. The blackboard
was in the lady's own house, distant some 800 miles from Mrs. Piper, in
Boston. This certainly seems to show that there is a peculiar "magic" in
thoughts or things that are objectified in this manner. It serves to
explain why it is that many clairvoyants cannot read thoughts and
questions--e.g., until written out on paper--as in the case of Bert
Reese, whom I have frequently seen.
[47] Dr. W. J. Crawford's experiments have since confirmed this.