102,831
edits
Changes
no edit summary
[[File:lighterstill.jpg]][[File:Autowriting_large.jpg|right|frame]]
[[File:lighterstill.jpg]][[File:Autowriting_large.jpg|right|frame]]
'''Automatic writing''' is the [[process]] or production of writing material that does not come from the [[conscious]] [[thoughts]] of the writer. Practitioners say that the writer's hand forms the message, with the [[person]] being unaware of what will be written. In some cases, it is done by people in a [[trance]] [[state]]. In others, the writer is aware (not in a trance) of their surroundings but not of the actions of their writing hand.
'''Automatic writing''' is the [[process]] or production of writing material that does not come from the [[conscious]] [[thoughts]] of the writer. Practitioners say that the writer's hand forms the message, with the [[person]] being unaware of what will be written. In some cases, it is done by people in a [[trance]] [[state]]. In others, the writer is aware (not in a trance) of their surroundings but not of the actions of their writing hand.
==History==
George (Georgie) Hyde-Lees, the wife of [[William Butler Yeats]], said that she could write automatically. In 1975, Wendy Hart of Maidenhead said that she wrote automatically about Nicholas Moore, a sea captain who died in 1642. Her husband did research on Moore, and he said that this person had resided at St Columb Major in Cornwall during the Civil War.
----
<center>For lessons on the [[topic]] of '''''Automatic Writing''''', follow [http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Automatic_Writing this link].</center>
<center>For lessons on the [[topic]] of '''''Automatic Writing''''', follow [http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Automatic_Writing this link].</center>
==Criticism==
==Criticism==
A 1998 article in ''Psychological Science'' described a series of [[experiment]]s designed to determine whether people who believed in automatic writing could be shown that it might be the ideomotor effect. The paper indicated that "our attempt to introduce [[doubt]] about the validity of automatic writing did not succeed." The paper noted that "including [[information]] about the controversy surrounding facilitated [[communication]] did not affect self-efficacy ratings, nor did it affect the number of responses that were produced. In this sense, illusory facilitation appears to be a very robust [[phenomenon]], not unlike illusory correlation, which is not reversed by warning participants about the phenomenon."[2]
A 1998 article in ''Psychological Science'' described a series of [[experiment]]s designed to determine whether people who believed in automatic writing could be shown that it might be the ideomotor effect. The paper indicated that "our attempt to introduce [[doubt]] about the validity of automatic writing did not succeed." The paper noted that "including [[information]] about the controversy surrounding facilitated [[communication]] did not affect self-efficacy ratings, nor did it affect the number of responses that were produced. In this sense, illusory facilitation appears to be a very robust [[phenomenon]], not unlike illusory correlation, which is not reversed by warning participants about the phenomenon."[2]