The power of the Pendulum

Okay I just recorded this, I had hard time uploading the video directly here so I post it on YouTube and private it only to share the link here, it end up being a long video and apologies for that, you can skip parts, I did a long introduction and explanation before doing the demonstration. Hopefully you can understand me talking. And also, I realized that I’m a hand talker lol

A long time ago I had a handmade pendulum. But it didn't go any further than a couple of attempts. Now I realize that I was too young and didn't have the right books and information to start.
Thank you, irgiO, for taking up the pendulum, starting your experience and sharing your tips. I was very interested in learning all this. Your actions have encouraged me to buy a pendulum.
 
Thank you, irgiO, for taking up the pendulum, starting your experience and sharing your tips. I was very interested in learning all this. Your actions have encouraged me to buy a pendulum.

For sure! And just in case, you don’t need to buy one, you can create your own, for example, I’ve seen people grabbing a key (like a house key) and attached to a rod and it easily works the same, or something similar like that. But if you would like to really purchase one, I would recommend you a metal one, because they can be a bit heavier and an easier to grab. Let me know how it goes!
 
Hi irjO, nice video! It was well done and pretty comprehensive.

I have never read Lethbridge, but I was introduced to pendulums and Tarot cards by New Age "angel people" people back in the 90's. Luckily I didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, as I've had to unlearn almost everything I was taught back then! I've used a pendulum for divination for a long time. I'll describe my process so as to add to the data here.

I have two pendulums, one copper and one rose quartz, like you have. I use the copper one mostly but both work well.

What I do before doing a session is I say out loud: "Any beings present here that are not of the light must leave, now (e.g. STS)" and I repeat it three times (of course I have to excuse my selfish STS self LOL).

Then I hold the pendulum and "ground" by simply being present in the moment and clearing my mind. When that's done I then ask something like this:

"If there are any beings of pure light and intention of STO persuasion who are willing and able to provide information that me or my higher self does not have for the questions I intend to ask (implied: while letting my higher self instead provide the answers I need if it has them), then I would be very grateful if you could, through my higher self through me through this pendulum, provide answers to my questions WHILE NOT LETTING MY OWN PERSONAL ANXIOUS STATE get in the way of my receiving the truth." I found adding that last little bit has made a HUGE difference in the quality of my answers, especially when asking health questions.

I then do a calibration, where I hold the pendulum a few inches above my hand like you said your mom does, then I ask it two questions: "Please show me your no: is my name [X]? (not my real name)." If it responds, it moves horizontally as it does for your "no" answers. Then I ask it: "Please show me your yes: is my name [Y]? (my real name)." If it responds, it moves vertically for my "yes" answers, as for you. (Sometimes I get no response, which tells me I need to do the session another time.)

I then go through with my questions, "yes" or "no" only. I do touch it between each answer to "reground" it as sometimes it takes too long to stop moving before the next question.

Often when I ask a question I won't get a "yes" or "no"; instead, the pendulum will simply stay straight up and down and will. not. move!! That tells me I need to move off of that subject or that I'm asking the wrong questions. That also happens when whatever source is giving answers decides it's had enough!!

Overall I've had excellent guidance from the pendulum, particularly with regards to health concerns. The one drawback with my method as compared to yours is, with your letter board you have the option to ask questions that your "source" can answer directly, giving information like the C's. With my "yes" or "no" method I'm stuck having to trust that I am asking the right questions, and there's no option for me to know what I don't know. My source can't tell me what I need to know before I can ask the right questions in other words. So I might need to get a board like yours!
 
Hi irjO,
One thing caught my attention:

So I am curious 🧐 what exactly do You visualize?
Objective information - is abstract.
Visualisation of abstract concept is something concrete.
If not a secret, what is it?
Good question, I don’t visualize the information itself, I visualize me receiving information, like, I’m picturing myself in my mind with the pendulum and myself acting as an “antenna” getting like light from a point a little above of my head to my head and then the light goes traveling through my head to my arm and from my arm to the pendulum on my hand! I imagine that lights as information.
When I explain it like this, it sounds a little delulu I know, but that’s how I would picture it.
 
Overall I've had excellent guidance from the pendulum, particularly with regards to health concerns. The one drawback with my method as compared to yours is, with your letter board you have the option to ask questions that your "source" can answer directly, giving information like the C's. With my "yes" or "no" method I'm stuck having to trust that I am asking the right questions, and there's no option for me to know what I don't know. My source can't tell me what I need to know before I can ask the right questions in other words. So I might need to get a board like yours!
It it’s interesting that when I asked the pendulum health related question, specially regarding allergies, the answers quite surprised me because it mentioned that I’m allergic to regular black pepper and egg whites, I thought I wasn’t because I never felt any issues with it but ima experimenting not eating egg whites and allergy to that is not shocker anyways, it’s very common but it’s interesting nevertheless. Tomorrow I have the appointment with dermatologist to see what exact condition I have on my skin, let’s see if it was right.

Now, when you say STO and STS energies, “my source and your source”, that could still be a preconception of New Age stuff still. Remember that basically pendulums are a direct communication with our different state of mind or centers, it can communicate with our lower centers or higher centers through our subconscious. This is something I learned pretty well during these times. Yes, it could connect with our higher self or higher center mind, also known as unconscious mind (not proven, but I can have a little faith here and there) but is not like a spirit board or ouija board, that indeed can attract any type of energies around.
 
Thank you irjO! Great video. I started experimenting with pendulum myself a while ago. I didn't go beyond 'yes' and 'no' answers, but now I'll try different approach. I have notice one thing about answers in my experiments . For me it seemed easier to get consistent answers when I was asking questions about physical objects. Now I suspect that identifying the source of information first, like you do, may be necessary.
 
Thank you irjO! Great video. I started experimenting with pendulum myself a while ago. I didn't go beyond 'yes' and 'no' answers, but now I'll try different approach. I have notice one thing about answers in my experiments . For me it seemed easier to get consistent answers when I was asking questions about physical objects. Now I suspect that identifying the source of information first, like you do, may be necessary.

So usually when it does this, from what I have learned, it’s kinda connecting to the information field to be used to find objects, or to detect specific objects/areas. Usually for some people it works like that very successfully, and doesn’t work much connecting to the subconscious mind or it connects with our ego side only, which is fine, or either one needs more practice with it or it could be that’s what we can only access through that method depending on many factors.
In my case, I tried using it for objects or finding things and it hasn’t been much of a help, although it moves but hasn’t been very trustworthy for that specific intent, but it’s been really good answering to questions. Let know how it goes if you try it again.
 
There is one more thing - the length of the string. Lethbridge puts some significance into that aspect. Did you notice anything about it, did you experiment with different lengths of the chain, string? I'm assuming - it might have more meaning when it comes to finding specific objects (the material they are made of). I got mixed results but for me when it comes to 'yes no' questioning 27cm seems to be ... oscillating with more ease.
 
There is one more thing - the length of the string. Lethbridge puts some significance into that aspect. Did you notice anything about it, did you experiment with different lengths of the chain, string? I'm assuming - it might have more meaning when it comes to finding specific objects (the material they are made of). I got mixed results but for me when it comes to 'yes no' questioning 27cm seems to be ... oscillating with more ease.

Yes, I mentioned it briefly in the video, if you use it with a long string/rod, it might move slower than desired, you wanna find the middle ground, not too short, but not too long either. If you have a pendulum or something that can act as a pendulum, that has a long string, you can grab it from the middle of the string, so it makes the distance between your fingers and the tip of the pendulum or the pointer shorter. But like many things on this exercise, is just a recommendation, at the end will be your preference.
 
I just posted this in this thread (post #192):


Open to any discussions! This could be quite fruitful, IMHO.
 
This is a very interesting journal article describing a study done by Oxford Academics, where it measures variables on the accuracy and the bias of the answers of a Pendulum. It even compares the same study on a Ouija board.

Ask the pendulum: personality predictors of ideomotor performance

For centuries, people have asked questions to hand-held pendulums and interpreted their movements as responses from the divine. These movements occur due to the ideomotor effect, wherein priming or thinking of a motion causes muscle movements that end up swinging the pendulum. By associating particular swinging movements with “yes” and “no” responses, we investigated whether pendulums can aid decision-making and which personality traits correlate with this performance. Participants (⁠𝑁=80⁠) completed a visual detection task in which they searched for a target letter among rapidly presented characters. In the verbal condition, participants stated whether they saw the target in each trial. In the pendulum condition, participants instead mentally “asked” a hand-held pendulum whether the target was present; particular motions signified “yes” and “no”.

[Dowsing is the result of this Ideomotor effect. The scientific explanation for what happens when people dowse is that “ideomotor movements” – muscle movements caused by subconscious mental activity – make anything held in the hands move. It looks and feels as if the movements are involuntary. The same phenomenon has been shown to lie behind movements of objects on a Ouija board. However, using Ouija Board is not dowsing per se, dowsing does a particular thing that is the connection between the right and left side of the brain, which can surpass rational mind or conscious mind, it is performed alone. Spirit boards are to be used by 2 people minimum for a minimun of acceptable performance]

We measured the accuracy of their responses as well as their sensitivity and bias using signal detection theory. We also assessed four personality measures: locus of control (feelings of control over one’s life), transliminality (sensitivity to subtle stimuli), need for cognition (preference for analytical thinking), and faith in intuition (preference for intuitive thinking). Overall, locus of control predicted verbal performance and transliminality predicted pendulum performance. Accuracy was low in both conditions (verbal: 57%, pendulum: 53%), but bias was higher in the verbal condition (⁠𝑑=1.10⁠). We confirmed this bias difference in a second study (⁠𝑑=0.47⁠, 𝑁=40⁠). Our results suggest that people have different decision strategies when using a pendulum compared to conscious guessing. These findings may help explain why some people can answer questions more accurately with pendulums and Ouija boards. More broadly, identifying the differences between ideomotor and verbal responses could lead to practical ways to improve decision-making.

Introduction​

Pendulums magnify subtle movements. If one holds a pendulum and thinks of a particular motion, subtle muscle movements will initiate the swinging of the pendulum in that direction. These movements usually occur without perceived conscious control (Easton and Shor 1976; Gordon and Rosenbaum 1984). As a result, for centuries people have interpreted these movements as responses from the unconscious – or the divine. In some cases, people can answer questions more accurately with muscle movements than they can with conscious guessing (Gauchou et al. 2012). The personality traits that predict this accuracy, however, remain unknown. The present study thus explores several traits and their relation to ideomotor performance.

Hand-held pendulums swing seemingly on their own due to ideomotor movements, subtle muscle movements caused by thinking of a motion. Similar mechanisms likely underlie Ouija boards, automatic writing, dowsing rods, and other ideomotor tools intended to bypass conscious analysis and reduce bias (Spitz 1997; Wegner 2003). Hypnotherapists have used pendulums clinically to probe unconscious material (Ewin 2009); magicians have used them to retrieve information from people such as the location of hidden objects (Spitz 1997; Banachek 2002). Others use pendulums in an attempt to aid decision-making – from choosing which vegetables are fresh to deciding which house to buy or even who to marry (Lundstrom 2010).

Fortunately, for those making drastic decisions this way, ideomotor responses can be more accurate than chance alone. For example, Gauchou et al. (2012) tested whether ideomotor responses can reflect implicit knowledge when using a Ouija board. Participants held a small pointer or planchette on a board ascribed with “yes” and “no” responses. The experimenter asked various questions that participants earlier claimed not to know (e.g. “Did Operation Desert Storm occur in the 1980s?”). Without the participants’ perceived control, they moved the planchette toward the “yes” or “no” areas of the board, answering the questions. Their responses were more accurate when using the Ouija board (65%) than when responding verbally (50%). By following their involuntary muscle movements, it seemed that participants could express their implicit knowledge.

These ideomotor phenomena vary from person to person. For some, pendulums barely move; for others, they immediately swing in a consistent direction (Karlin et al. 2007). During our pilot testing, some participants found the pendulum movement mundane while others found it mystical: one even stayed behind to privately ask the pendulum questions about her life. Nevertheless, we know of only two individual factors that may underlie ideomotor differences: gender and hypnotic suggestibility. Women produce larger ideomotor movements than men in some studies (Easton and Shor 1976) but not in others (Wegner et al. 1998). Hypnotic suggestibility – how easily one follows suggestions under hypnosis – also positively correlates with pendulum movement (Eysenck and Furneaux 1945; Karlin et al. 2007). To uncover more of these factors, we explored four personality measures that may predict ideomotor response:

  • Locus of control measures feelings of control over one’s life (Duttweiler 1984). People with an internal locus tend to take responsibility for their actions; those with an external locus tend to believe that situational forces or luck determine their life events. We predicted that people with a more external locus of control would perform better, since they may be more likely to let the pendulum swing without consciously interfering with it (cf. Lundstrom 2010; Gauchou et al. 2012). Similarly, people with an external locus of control may be more suggestible (Burger 1981) which should promote pendulum movement (Eysenck and Furneaux 1945; Karlin et al. 2007).
  • Transliminality measures the threshold at which stimuli reach conscious awareness, as measured by a self-report questionnaire (Lange et al. 2000). People with higher transliminality can detect subtle internal or external stimuli, such as briefly presented images (Crawley et al. 2002; Olson et al. 2015). Transliminality also correlates with absorption, mysticism, and paranormal beliefs (Lange et al. 2000). Since pendulum users claim that people need to be sensitive to their thoughts and muscle movements (Nielsen and Polansky 1987; Lundstrom 2010), we predicted that those higher in transliminality would show more accurate ideomotor responses. In addition, since transliminality correlates with paranormal beliefs, high transliminality people may be more open to the atypical activity of asking questions to a pendulum.
  • Need for cognition measures the tendency to engage in and enjoy thinking (Cacioppo and Petty 1982). We expected that these analytical people would perform worse with the pendulum since they may try to consciously interfere with the ideomotor responses (cf. Lundstrom 2010).
  • Faith in intuition measures reliance on intuitive decision-making (Cacioppo and Petty 1982). If ideomotor responses can express implicit knowledge (Gauchou et al. 2012), those who trust their intuition may perform better with the pendulum.

In this paper, we explore how these personality traits relate to ideomotor response. Participants completed two conditions of a task in which they searched for a target letter among rapidly presented characters. In the verbal condition, participants stated whether they saw the target in each trial. In the pendulum condition, they instead mentally “asked” a pendulum whether the target was present; we told them particular motions signified “yes” and “no”. Study 1 compares these verbal and pendulum responses; Study 2 tests whether these differences remain in a more difficult task. Combined, these studies explore whether people can use pendulums to access the mechanisms involved in unconscious decision-making.

Study 1

Methods​

Participants​

Eighty undergraduate students from McGill University completed the study for course credit. After excluding those who deviated from the task instructions (see the Analysis section), 63 participants remained. They were on average 20.3 years old (SD = 1.4) and 87% were female. Most studied psychology (65%), commonly in the second year of their studies (40%). Few had held a pendulum before (33%) or had done so only for a physics class (25%); few had used a Ouija board either (29%). Most of the participants were right-handed (86%). We chose our sample size in advance based on a power analysis (see the Analysis section).

Materials​

Questionnaires​

To begin the study, participants completed paper-and-pencil questionnaires testing four personality traits. To measure locus of control, we used the 28-item Internal Control Index. An example item is: “If I want something, I work hard to get it”. Each item uses a five-point Likert scale ranging from “rarely” (1) to “usually” (5). Higher scores on the questionnaire (up to 140) suggest an internal locus of control and lower scores (down to 28) suggest an external one. The scale has high internal consistency (Cronbach’s 𝛼=0.84⁠; Duttweiler 1984); it was similar in our sample (⁠𝛼=0.81⁠). Participants had an average score of 102.78 (SD = 11.07, range = 79–126), which is expected given their age and education level (Duttweiler 1984).

We then measured transliminality using the 17-item true–false Revised Transliminality Scale. An example item is: “… I have had such a heightened awareness of sights and sounds that I cannot shut them out”. Agreeing with such items implies greater sensitivity – that more near-threshold material enters conscious awareness. The scale ranges from 0 to 17 reflecting how many items were labeled as true. It has a test–retest reliability of 0.82 and good convergent validity (Houran et al. 2003). The scale also has high internal consistency (Cronbach’s 𝛼=0.82⁠; Lange et al. 2000); it was similar in our sample (⁠𝛼=0.77⁠). After a Rasch transformation (see Lange et al. 2000), participants had an average score of 22.9 (SD = 3.49) and a range of 13.7–32.5, close to the expected values (Thalbourne et al. 2003).

Finally, participants completed the 40-item Rational–Experiential Inventory which measures one’s information processing style (Epstein et al. 1996). It has two subscales: need for cognition and faith in intuition. An example item measuring need for cognition is: “I prefer complex problems to simple problems”; for faith in intuition, an example is: “I trust my initial feelings about people”. Each item ranges from “definitely not true” (1) to “definitely true of myself” (5), making each subscale range from 20 to 100. The internal consistency of both subscales is high (⁠𝛼=0.81 and 0.90); the values were similar in our sample (⁠𝛼=0.80 and 0.89). Participants had an average need for cognition score of 76.74 (SD = 10.18, range = 50–96) and a faith in intuition score of 63.99 (SD = 12.62, range = 33–96). The need for cognition score correlated with locus of control (⁠𝑟(60)=0.620⁠, 95% CI [0.450,0.760]⁠).

Equipment​

After completing the questionnaires, participants entered the testing room which contained a glass table in front of a computer monitor (1920 × 1080 resolution, 24-inch BenQ, Taipei, Taiwan). Stimuli were presented using PsychoPy (version 1.83.04; Peirce 2009) at 60 Hz. On the table sat a brass pendulum with a 20 cm string (Adermark, Vancouver, Canada). A video camera (GoPro 4, San Mateo, CA) was placed 6 cm underneath the glass surface of the table to record the pendulum’s movement.

Procedure​

Instructions​

The experimenter explained that pendulums magnify unconscious muscle movements and can therefore reflect implicit knowledge. Based on advice from hypnotherapists and magicians, we used suggestion to associate pendulum movements with particular responses (Banachek 2002; D. Ewin, personal communication, 2014; cf. Eysenck and Furneaux 1945). In particular, the experimenter stated:

What researchers have found is that if you hold a pendulum and think of yes, it will swing up and down as if nodding its head.1 If you think of no, it will swing side to side as if shaking its head no. You don’t even have to consciously move your hand: it will just move unconsciously and the pendulum will begin to swing.2


While giving these instructions, the experimenter demonstrated the movement with the pendulum. Next, the participant held the pendulum in her right hand above the video camera, so that the tip of the pendulum was 2 cm above the table. The participant thought of the word yes and waited for vertical movement. The experimenter promoted this movement by waving her finger beside the pendulum then slowly increasing the speed (cf. pacing and leading; Easton and Shor 1977; Nash and Barnier 2012). Using suggestions common in hypnosis, the experimenter verbally reinforced the pendulum’s movement (“just like that”, “that’s right”) before repeating this procedure for the horizontal movement representing “no”.

Detection task​

Participants then completed the task, which consisted of two conditions with 24 trials each. In each trial, participants would see a rapidly presented series of numbers and punctuation marks while they attempted to detect a target letter. The experimenter explained that the letter would appear in half of the trials. The stimuli were white on a 50% gray screen and measured 3 cm in height (4.3 degrees of visual angle).

Each trial began with a fixation cross followed by six distractors (numbers or punctuation marks) at 17 ms each to serve as masks (see Fig. 1). Next, 24 distractors appeared for 33 ms each with no inter-stimulus interval. In half of the trials, one of the distractors was replaced with the target: a random capital letter. The target never appeared in the first six nor the last six positions of the stream to reduce serial position effects (Potter 1976). The stream concluded with another six masks at 17 ms each.

Task design.

Figure 1.
Task design.
Notes: Participants searched for the target letter among distractors (numbers and punctuation). They then stated the target’s presence either verbally or by asking a pendulum and responding based on its movements. In the verbal task, participants stated their confidence (certain or uncertain); in the pendulum task, they stated their agreement with the pendulum’s response (agree, disagree, or uncertain).

Verbal condition​

After viewing the stream, participants stated whether the target was present, then the experimenter typed this response. The median response time was 5.53 s (SD = 3.01) and there was no time limit. Participants then indicated their confidence by stating whether they were certain or uncertain about their response. Throughout this verbal condition, participants held a pen above the video camera to maintain a similar posture as in the pendulum condition (Fig. 2). We counter-balanced the order of these conditions across participants.

Setup.

Figure 2.
Setup.
Notes: In the verbal condition, participants answered verbally while holding a pen (A); in the pendulum condition, they mentally asked a pendulum then watched its movement (B).

[In other words, the verbal condition were the conscious anwswers or coming from the conscious mind of the partipants]

Pendulum condition​

In the pendulum condition, after each character stream, participants mentally asked the pendulum whether the target was present. As instructed, vertical movement meant “yes” and horizontal movement meant “no”. The participants watched the pendulum’s movement then verbally classified it as “yes” or “no”. The video camera recorded the movement and the experimenter noted any discrepancies between the participants’ classifications and the actual swinging. Overall, there were few discrepancies so we deferred to the participants’ judgements.3 The median response time was 20.64 s (SD = 14.81), considerably longer than in the verbal condition (Mdn =5.53 s, SD = 3.01). Participants then indicated their confidence by stating whether they agreed with, disagreed with, or were uncertain about the pendulum’s response. For example, sometimes the pendulum swung in a vertical “yes” pattern, but the participant disagreed with it and thought the correct answer should have been “no”. Measuring confidence in this way allowed us to make coarse comparisons between the two conditions.

If the pendulum was not moving in a consistent pattern, the experimenter suggested to continue focusing on its movement before stating the response. The pendulum eventually moved in every trial. After the study, we fully debriefed participants. The protocol was approved by the McGill Faculty of Medicine Institutional Review Board.

Dependent variables​

In each trial, we measured accuracy: whether participants were correct about the target’s presence. We then used signal detection theory to calculate sensitivity and bias (Green and Swets 1966). Sensitivity (⁠𝑑′⁠) refers to how well people could detect the target; higher values mean better detection and zero values mean chance-level performance. Bias (or criterion, 𝑐⁠) refers to the overall bias in declaring the target present or absent. Higher bias values mean a higher probability of declaring the target absent and zero values mean no bias toward either response.

Analysis​

We had two sets of hypotheses. First, we expected that personality measures would predict performance. For each condition, we used mixed-effect logistic regression to predict the accuracy of each trial given the four personality measures. We chose a family-wise Type I error rate of 0.10, giving Bonferroni-corrected 𝛼 values of 0.025 for each of the four predictors. Next, we tested two analogous linear models predicting average (not per-trial) sensitivity then average bias as response variables. Each of these three models constituted separate families for error control. All regressions were forced-entry. Their assumptions were reasonable besides the lack of specification error: as an exploratory study, we could not measure all (and only) relevant variables. Our logistic model for accuracy had high statistical power; our linear models for sensitivity and bias did not. For overall model fit statistics, see Table A2.

Second, we assessed how participants’ confidence in their responses related to performance between the conditions. We had five pre-specified hypotheses based on the Ouija board findings (see Appendix 1; Gauchou et al. 2012). We compared per-trial accuracy using chi-square tests as well as average sensitivity and bias using t-tests. Hypotheses about each of these dependent variables constituted a family. A family-wise 𝛼 of 0.10 gave Bonferroni-corrected 𝛼 values of 0.02 for each test. With our intended sample size (⁠𝑁=80⁠) and assuming a 10% exclusion rate, we had 90% power to detect medium-sized effects (Cohen’s 𝑑=0.43⁠). All assumptions were reasonable for these tests.

We excluded participants who gave the same response to over 80% of the trials in either condition. For example, if a participant responded “present” to 85% of the verbal trials, we omitted the data from both conditions. This exclusion criterion omitted participants who deviated from the task instructions by giving near-constant responses; it also allowed us to calculate signal detection theory values. Beyond these considerations, the 80% criterion was chosen arbitrarily. This criterion excluded 16 participants in the verbal condition and 3 in the pendulum condition (2 of whom were already excluded), leaving 63 remaining in total. In addition, two participants did not complete all of the questionnaires and so were excluded only from the personality analyses. Our exclusion criteria, variables, hypotheses, and analyses were pre-registered online.4

There was one difference between our pre-registered procedure and our analysis here. We initially intended to see how personality measures correlated with differences in condition performance within each participant. However, given the low performance in both conditions, we instead decided to analyze how personality measures predicted performance within each condition. This only changed the dependent variables in the personality models (from difference scores to raw scores). All other deviations from our pre-register procedure are explicitly labeled as exploratory and do not use significance testing.

Our analysis focuses on effect sizes (Cumming 2014). For mean differences, we report a robust version of Cohen’s 𝑑 – symbolized as 𝑑𝑅 – which measures condition differences in standard deviations. It equals the 20% trimmed mean divided by the 20% Winsorized standard deviation (Algina et al. 2005). Square brackets throughout denote bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals (Kirby and Gerlanc 2013).

The analyses used R 3.3.3 (R Core Team 2016), with packages lme4 1.1-12 for mixed-effects logistic regression, bootES 1.2 for bootstrapped effect sizes (Kirby and Gerlanc 2013), Hmisc 4.0-2 for bootstrapped confidence intervals, MuMIn 1.15.6 for logistic regression 𝑅2⁠, and ggplot2 2.2.1 (Wickham 2009) for graphs.

Results​

Overall, accuracy and sensitivity were low in both the verbal (⁠57% [55%,60%]⁠, 𝑑′=0.26 [0.15,0.37]⁠) and pendulum conditions (⁠53% [51%,56%]⁠, 𝑑′=0.12 [0.04,0.21]⁠, Fig. 3A). Bias, however, was higher in the verbal condition (⁠𝑐=0.2 [0.15,0.24]⁠) than in the pendulum condition (⁠𝑐=0 [−0.05,0.06]⁠, 𝑡(62)=6.7⁠, 𝑃<0.001⁠, Fig. 3B). Thus, participants were more likely to declare the target absent in the verbal condition, yet they showed little bias in the pendulum condition. The difference was 1.096 [0.76,1.54] standard deviations (⁠𝑑𝑅⁠) – a large effect. Within each participant, exploratory analyses showed that bias correlated between the conditions (⁠𝑟=0.323 [0.010,0.600]⁠) but we did not see a similar correlation for sensitivity (⁠𝑟=0.199 [−0.040,0.420]⁠).

Sensitivity (A) and bias (B) by task.

Figure 3.
Sensitivity (A) and bias (B) by task.
Notes: Bias was higher in the verbal task. Dots show means, errors bars show 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals, circles show data points, and width estimates underlying distribution.
Open in new tabDownload slide
Several personality measures predicted performance. In the verbal condition, locus of control predicted sensitivity: people who reported feeling more control over their lives performed better than those who reported less control (Fig. 4A). For every one-point increase in locus of control, sensitivity (⁠𝑑′⁠) increased by 0.02 units (⁠𝑃=0.008⁠). Need for cognition also predicted verbal performance: people with higher need for cognition scores performed less accurately (odds ratio =0.982⁠, 𝑃=0.023⁠).

Sensitivity in the verbal condition given locus of control (A; r=.183) and sensitivity in the pendulum condition given transliminality (B; r=.310), ignoring all other predictors.

Figure 4.
Sensitivity in the verbal condition given locus of control (A; 𝑟=.183⁠) and sensitivity in the pendulum condition given transliminality (B; 𝑟=.310⁠), ignoring all other predictors.
Note: Each circle shows data from one participant.

In the pendulum condition, transliminality predicted performance. People with higher transliminality scores – those more sensitive to subtle stimuli – performed better than those with lower scores (Fig. 4B). For every one-point increase in transliminality, sensitivity increased by 0.044 units (⁠𝑃=0.009⁠). See Table 1 for full statistics.


Table 1.
Personality predictors of verbal and pendulum performance
DVTaskPredictor𝐵SE𝑧P
AccuracyVerbalLocus of control0.0170.0072.5930.010*
Transliminality0.0040.0200.1840.854
Need for cognition−0.0180.008−2.2680.023*
Faith in intuition0.0050.0051.1240.261
PendulumLocus of control0.0100.0061.6100.107
Transliminality0.0520.0202.6490.008*
Need for cognition−0.0050.008−0.6050.545
Faith in intuition0.0000.0040.0920.927
SensitivityVerbalLocus of control0.0200.0072.7610.008*
Transliminality0.0050.0210.2320.818
Need for cognition−0.0190.008−2.2260.030
Faith in intuition0.0050.0051.0370.304
PendulumLocus of control0.0080.0051.5690.122
Transliminality0.0440.0162.7100.009*
Need for cognition−0.0020.006−0.3110.757
Faith in intuition0.0000.004−0.0450.964
BiasVerbalLocus of control0.0000.0020.1270.900
Transliminality−0.0110.007−1.4280.159
Need for cognition0.0000.0030.0050.996
Faith in intuition−0.0030.002−1.7680.082
PendulumLocus of control−0.0020.003−0.6250.534
Transliminality0.0070.0100.7300.468
Need for cognition0.0050.0041.1920.238
Faith in intuition−0.0050.002−2.2520.028
Notes: Locus of control and need for cognition predicted verbal performance while transliminality predicted pendulum performance. Bonferroni-corrected 𝛼 values were 0.025.


Beyond these personality measures, we also found gender differences in an exploratory analysis. Women and men differed in their sensitivity: women outperformed men in the verbal condition (⁠𝑑𝑅=1.24 [0.64,2.06]⁠, Fig. 5A) but not in the pendulum condition (⁠𝑑𝑅=−0.03 [−0.99,0.99]⁠, Fig. 5B). We did not see similarly strong gender differences in bias (verbal: 𝑑𝑅=−0.31 [−1.49,0.74]⁠; pendulum: 𝑑𝑅=0.16 [−0.87,0.9]⁠).

Sensitivity by condition and gender.

Figure 5.
Sensitivity by condition and gender.
Notes: Women outperformed men in the verbal condition (A) but not the pendulum condition (B). Dots show means, errors bars show 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals, circles show data points, and width estimates underlying distribution.

For confidence, performance was highest when participants felt certain about their answers (see Table A1 and Fig. A1). Ideomotor response always underperformed verbal guessing, unlike the Ouija board findings (Gauchou et al. 2012). We next conducted a follow-up study to examine this discrepancy.

Study 2

Gauchou et al. (2012) found the largest difference between verbal and ideomotor performance when participants felt least certain about their responses. Namely, when guessing, participants performed best when responding with a Ouija board. To increase the uncertainty (and difficulty) of our task, we doubled the stimulus presentation speed. We then tested whether this increase in uncertainty would give results comparable to those with a Ouija board. This study also allowed us to replicate some of the findings of Study 1 (cf. Open Science Collaboration 2015).

Methods​

We recruited 40 additional undergraduate students to participate. After exclusions, 34 participants remained, 59% of whom were female (compared to 87% in Study 1). Besides gender, the samples of the two studies were similar. The participants were on average 20.2 years old (SD = 0.9); many studied psychology (44%), commonly in the second (32%) or fourth year (35%) of their degree. Few had held a pendulum before (24%) and most were right-handed (85%). The rest of the methodology was identical to Study 1 except that the stimulus timing was 17 ms rather than 33 ms (see Fig. 1).

Our sample size was limited by feasibility constraints. We did not have high statistical power to predict performance based on personality, but we did have the power to test some of the large effects seen in Study 1.

Results​

Accuracy was at chance level for both the verbal (⁠51% [47%,54%]⁠) and pendulum conditions (⁠50% [47%,54%]⁠, Fig. 6A). The lower accuracy was likely due to the relatively brief stimulus presentation time (17 ms) which reduced visibility and caused a floor effect. As in Study 1, bias was higher in the verbal condition (⁠𝑐=0.18 [0.11,0.24]⁠) than in the pendulum condition (⁠𝑐=0.04 [−0.04,0.12]⁠, 𝑡(32)=2.59⁠, 𝑃=0.014⁠, Fig. 6B). Thus, people again showed almost no bias in the pendulum condition. The difference between the conditions was 0.466 [0.14,0.9] standard deviations (⁠𝑑𝑅⁠).

Sensitivity (A) and bias (B) by condition.

Figure 6.
Sensitivity (A) and bias (B) by condition.
Notes: As in Study 1, bias was higher in the verbal condition. Dots show means, errors bars show 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals, circles show data points, and width estimates underlying distribution.

Unlike in Study 1, personality measures did not predict performance (see Table A3), possibly due to the floor effects and reduced power. Further, exploratory analyses showed that sensitivity in the verbal condition negatively correlated with sensitivity in the pendulum condition (⁠𝑟=−0.364 [−0.630,−0.000]⁠). We did not see a similar correlation for bias (⁠𝑟=0.081 [−0.270,0.440]⁠). Thus, using a more difficult task we were only able to partly reproduce the pattern of results found in Study 1. Supplementary data sets, including personality measures, reaction time, and all other dependent variables, are available online at Ask the pendulum: Personality predictors of ideomotor performance.

Discussion​

For centuries, people have consulted hand-held pendulums in an attempt to aid decision-making. We examined which personality measures predicted performance when deciding about the presence of visual stimuli. Participants either responded verbally or by “asking” a pendulum and watching its motion after we paired particular movements with different answers.

Several personality measures predicted performance. In the verbal condition, people who felt more control over their lives (locus of control) performed better than those who felt less control. In the pendulum condition, people high in transliminality – those sensitive to subtle stimuli – performed better than those low in transliminality. Indeed, transliminality may capture some important aspects of pendulum use. Pendulum users would ideally be sensitive to their subtle movements; transliminality correlates with detection of subtle internal and external stimuli (e.g. Thalbourne and Houran 2000). Pendulum users should also be open to the idea of consulting a pendulum (Lundstrom 2010); similarly, transliminality correlates with openness to experience and paranormal beliefs (Lange et al. 2000).

Although accuracy was comparable in both conditions, pendulum responses showed relatively little bias. Both conditions of the task were difficult, which usually increases uncertainty and bias, making people more likely to declare the target absent (Green and Swets 1966). In both studies, however, bias was higher in the verbal condition but lower – around 0 – in the pendulum condition. Thus, consistent with the views of some pendulum users (e.g. Lundstrom 2010), decisions made with pendulums may be less biased – though not more accurate.

Given this difference in bias, our findings suggest that people employ a different decision strategy when using a pendulum versus responding verbally. In other words, unconscious pendulum movements are not equivalent to conscious responses; instead, something changes in the process of decision-making. These results are consistent with other studies finding different decision strategies in ideomotor versus verbal responses (e.g. Marcel 1993; Gauchou et al. 2012). Nevertheless, the largest limitation of our study is that we cannot isolate this mechanism or the cause of the differences between the conditions. Perhaps focusing attention away from the decision itself (cf. Dijksterhuis and Strick 2016), using a more introspective mindset (Wilson and Schooler 1991; Tordesillas and Chaiken 1999), or taking more time to ponder the questions could explain these differences. Or, as one reviewer suggested, merely giving the suggestion that pendulums reflect unconscious knowledge could have affected their bias. Alas, in our study, we chose a more natural method of pendulum use at the expense of causal precision.

Our results somewhat differed from those found with Ouija boards. In particular, Gauchou et al. (2012) found that ideomotor performance can exceed verbal performance; we did not see this relationship with pendulums. This could have been due to several factors, such as the difference in ideomotor tool (Ouija board vs. pendulum) or type of question asked (memory vs. visual detection). Indeed, given that we only examined perceptual decisions, it is unclear how far our findings can generalize. Future studies could explore what other types of decisions people can accurately answer through ideomotor response (Olson and Raz, in progress). Such studies could help determine the mechanisms and boundaries of unconscious decision-making.

Still, many questions remain. If people use a different decision-making strategy with a pendulum, what is its mechanism and phenomenology? Do the dynamics of the pendulum movement, such as speed or direction, predict accuracy? Will our finding of a reduced decision bias when using a pendulum generalize to real-world decisions? Answering these questions will help understand the puzzling practice of consulting a pendulum, and it may even help improve decision-making.

Link of the study
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Highlights for this would be:
  • Participants completed a visual detection task and responded either verbally or with a pendulum.
  • Those who were sensitive to subtle stimuli (high transliminality) performed best with pendulums.
  • Participants showed less response bias when using a pendulum compared to verbal guessing.
My imput as well is the importance on the type of decision making, communications or questions posted on both the spirit board and a pendulum can have a good acccuracy level and less bias (doesn't mean it can decieve the receiper withany type of answers) compare to conscious decisions, also, Pendulum can be more accurate because of its simplicity in the usage than spirit boards. I'm understanding that instruments using the ideomothos condition can perform depending on the intention of the participant using it. It can be safer for example if the person in control have a solid base and intention on using the instruments. When people use a spirit board, the intention they would (most likely) won't be to using it to comunicate with their subcoinscious mind or any part of the mind, which can still happens even without the intention, but mostly, their intent would most likely be communcation with an entity/spirit or mind outside of their own minds or separated from them. Also when 2 or more people are using the intrument, which mind is the ''stronger'' to provide the answers, could that also create a conduit when 2 or more people use it?

The use of the pendulum automatically invites the tendency of doing divining purposes or communications with our own minds. thats why always its important to have 2 factors checked; The intention and the knowledge (acceptable questions). Saying that, there is always the danger of having poor intentions or making poor questions while using either instruments. One can lead to a possesion and the other to a dependency, which is a kind of possesion as well if you think about it.

In the following post (which I'll post on the following days) I'll put some pieces of different little sessions I had experimenting where I tried to get answers to check any tye of accuracy, to evaluate if answes could lead to any type of dependency of the instrument (or invite to a dependency), decieve somehow with its answers or provide some kind of helpful advice or whatever.

Edit: Corrections.
 
Last edited:
Hello, after a few months with my experiment, as mentioned, I bring you some results, until today I am not sure if there can be something special from the results I have obtained with it, I have used the pendulum in 3 ways, in ''search'' mode, in ''conversation'' mode, and in ''radiesthesia'' (dowsing related to something medical) mode which is mostly the same as ''conversation'' mode. You will see clear examples of things that at first did not make much sense, but somehow the pendulum itself has guided me and given me some tips to improve the dowsing method. On this post, I'll post an example of the first 2-month sessions, and I'll be uploading the newer ones after.
I will be putting my notes in red of what I consider important to write down to provide context, I started practicing twice a week and have been lowering the practice once or twice a month now, I will get to a point that I will almost not be using it until I learn new things that I can implement with it or have something in my mind very strongly that I would like to consult.

The first couple of sessions I didn't record it because I was mostly focused on the process itself and doing adjustments, the ones at the end of February, I published bits and pieces in the previous post, but these were the first sessions that I recorded completely with annotations at the end of March, I always do the introduction and a prayer before the session like I mentioned on the first couple of post in this thread, and apparently according to the pendulum, the ''spiritual masters'' or ''higher masters'' are the ones to provide most of the answers, sometimes it has answered yes as being only my subconscious mind and nothing else, so it seems it depends on the day and time? Anyway:

Introduction done.

Good morning, let me test this new board.

Should I be worried about money? [I asked this because I received some bills from lawyer and medical and I was tight on money]
No [Since then so far I haven't had like really problems with money, so, so far so good]

Should I learn divination?
Yes

Would I do well if work in relation to that?
Yes

Would it help me if I recorded YouTube videos? [I don't know about Youtube but I always had in my mind talking a bit about speritualism and maybe do some ''preductions'' type of reading or do readings to other's people online?]
Yes

What would you recommend me to record them in English or Spanish?
Spanish [On this I would agree since there is so much desinfo in Spanish a lot of low quality material, I suspect this message came from me direclly]

Tomorrow I will go to New York, if I use the pendulum with my family, will I be able to communicate with you?
Yes [I did and it worked really well]

Even with my sister or parents present?
Yes

Ok, by the way I have decided that at the end of my contract here I will go to New York to pay my debts and from there I plan to move to Tennessee or a nearby area, is the plan ok?
Open

Mmm. Change of subject, did I die in a past life because someone stabbed me in the back with a sword or knife?
Yes [I have a missing little bone on my lower spine area, I was born that way, so I suspect maybe there is something karmatic involved with that]

What year did I die in that life?
1568

Give me the first letter of the country where I died in that year!
A [back then the spelling was very slow and it has increased dramatically, thats why I wanted to waste the less energy possible by asking just one letter]

Is that the name of a country we know today?
Yes

Is it European?
No

African?
No

American?
No

Asian
Yes

Australian?
Yes [Australia is not asian per se but near the area so not sure about this]

And I was born there?
No

Was I born in Europe in that lifetime?
Yes

At what age did I die?
72

Ah well I was old. What country was I born in? give me the first letter!
I

Is that an I?
Yes

England? [England name in spanish begings with an ''I'', Inglaterra]
Yes

It can't be if England hadn't arrived in Australia until 250 years later. [according to Wikipedia but yet is not a source I trust much either]
No

Did they arrive earlier?
Yes

But still it differs a lot time wise, hang on, you wanted to say the H instead of the I [Holland did arrive earlier according the documents, and the letter H is next to the I]
Yes

Ahh, Holland?
Yes [Then what did it says 'yes' to the England question? there is a contradictory message here]

I see, did someone native to Australia kill me?
No

Another European?
Yes

Did I know him?
No

Was it an ambush?
Yes

Did he use a sword?
No

A knife?
Yes

Is that why I have problems in this life in that area?
Yes

Okay, do you have any messages tonight that I should think about? [I don't like doing these questions because it can lead to nothing, but so far, anytime I do it, it gives me little good advices somehow]
Yes

What is the message?
“Find total space.” [This have a bit more sense in spanish than english, as in ''find space in your schedule'']

Is that it?
Yes

I don't understand, that refers to answering the past life question?
No

Is it something from this life?
Yes

Is it referring to the moving?
No

Is it something here in my apartment?
No

Is it something related to a place?
No

But space is place or area... has to do with mathematics?
No

You'll drive me crazy! Oh yeah! The phrase can also be used with time, can't it?
Yes

Did you mean to find a window in my time in general?
Yes

Is this with the divination thing? I mean, being organized and stuff?
Yes [That is true, I always had in my mind the intention of organice better my time, and was thinking on make space in my schedule to improve on editing, which leads me to think again that this message was sent by my subconcious]

Was that message from my subconscious?
No

From my higher self?
No

From my masters, or ''guides''?
Yes [I don't think so]

Okay, assuming I'm actually connected with that....
If a person asks me for help and after reading the cards and all that and there's a question that we can't answer, could you assist me, meaning using the pendulum?
Yes

Are you the same group of souls mixed together at that level? [I can't remember the reason for this question, but it might be related to the book The life beyond the Veil I was reading at that moment]
No

I mean, my “masters” are not the same as the masters like in Brian Weiss ''Masters'' or higher self of similar right?
Yes

Ok, yes I guess there are different groups? Anyway, my arm hurts, is there anything that I should be aware of for now?
No

Okay, thanks.

Another by the end of March:
Was the earthquake that just occurred in Taiwan of natural origin? [This was after the big earthquake that happened in Taiwan when the news of China doing military excersices near the area were getting bigger back in March]
No

Was it provoked?
Yes

Was it the Chinese?
No

Was it USA?
Yes

Is that why as I suspect, that China was already preparing to invade Taiwan and the US acted first to sweep the thing away?
Yes [Interesting if true]

Wow, and the one who ends up suffering is always the people, these psychopaths don't mind hurting or making a population suffer as long as they don't lose something they think is theirs.
Yes [Didn't ask anything but I guess it agrees]

My sister Gaby in this life I have shared past lives with her?
Yes

How many lives have I shared with her?
6

The last life I shared with her in what year did I die?
1577

How old was she when I died?
6

Did I also die in that life as a child?
Yes

How many of the 84 lives I have had on earth have I died as a child?
7

7 out of 84?
That sounds like a lot, or well I don't know, is it common?
Yes

Ok, when you say you are ''my masters'' are you saying it is me in like a higher reality?
Yes

And they are several of you? meaning because your are slike units of consciousness from my past and future lives that have been held there and grow somehow? [I don't even know If I understood my question]
Yes

I don't know how to ask more about this subject, it's a bit complicated....

In what country or region known at the moment, on the actual name of called where I died that year you mentioned?
Give me the first two letters even if it is
U K

Uk sounds like two nations to me, either united kingdom or british islands.
No

The second region is Ukraine?
Yes

Did I was murder in that life?
No

Did I die of disease?
Yes

At that time I'm not sure what region was in that place or known by, I think that was already the Russian Empire?
Yes, close [circles clockwise means close, counter clockwise means open]

Tatarstan?
Yes

What relation I had with my sister in that life?
Aunt

Ok, we had a good relationship?
Yes

Why do I feel a pulse in my fingers? Do you have a message for me today? [I had little spams on my fingers at that moment like it wants to move]
Yes

Is it a phrase or a word? How many words?
4

4 words? godsh, ok let me get ready, spell it.
“See earthquake taeiwan tomorrow.” [Misspelled Taiwan or was me who read it wrong]

I guess you meant Taiwan?
Yes

Will there be another earthquake tomorrow?
Yes

Oh no, will it be stronger than the first one?
No

More destructive?
No

Will it be a natural replica?
No

Will it also be provoked?
Yes [there was not just 1 but 4 little more earthquakes in the island the next 2 days, provoked or not]

Well if it will not be stronger, will it be as a marker of a major event?
Yes

Does it have to do with China-USA?
Yes

Will China use this earthquake to send troops to the island?
No [Correct, they didn't]

Will the US use the event to send troops as “relief”?
Yes [Correct they did, altough they weren't ''troops'']

So the conflict may escalate?
Yes [Hasn't happened yet]

Will China finally occupy Taiwan at some point in the near future?
Yes [the C's also said this so lets ''wait and see'']

Ok... well, I will pay attention, Taiwan has always belonged to China and never ''officially'' became independent.

The session of February 26th I asked you to spell a word for me and you spelled ''borkoima'', that word was correct at the end? [It didn't make sense at all, but it was one of the first sessions]
No

Rightly so! I never understood the meaning, if I ask you for the word you meant back then, would you give it to me now?
Yes

Ok, what word did you want to tell me that time?
“Study”

Study? Are you referring to what I was talking that time about radiesthesia or dowsing?
Close

About the pendulum?
Close

About tarot or I Ching?
Close

Divination?
Close

Anything else than close? lol Or you mean study in general? as in continue learning?
Yes! [Exclamations are because the 'yes' are like very puntuated]

That misspelled word I had before came from my subconscious?
No

From you?
No

Was it me? somehow that I gave myself that answer?
Yes

Ok, changing the subject, I suspect from this last time I went to NY that one of the problems affecting my dad's brain chemistry balance is that he does lack nicotine, is this correct?
Yes

He would benefits a lot from smoking or not?
Yes

Is that why his mood has been affected big time since he quit smoking?
Yes

If I tell him or suggest with data, will he try smoking again?
No

Is there any chance he will start smoking again?
No

If he were to smoke will it affect his health?
No

Hmmm he has already demonized smoking, I don't think he will change his mind again...
Yes

Too bad! Is there a message you want to give to him? [wrong question, unless he ask directly, I should not ask this]
No [Good!]

Ok I'm tired already, thanks for the info!

Another Session:
I Had a situation at work where I realized that my team wasn't communicating everything with me and wanted to try the pendulum to see if can guide me on that sitation a little bit. Regarding my co-wrokers. Would it be better to talk to them than text them?
Yes!

It's because my messages can be interpreted in a way that I didn't intend in writing it, I guess.
Yes

Yeah I figured, I have to use emojis and stuff to imply my intention sometimes. Have they felt intimidated by my directness?
Do operations managers feel the same way? ... Better not answer me, I'd rather reflect on that. [I try to be carefull on not asking question that is related to other people if they are not present]

Do you have a word or message you want to say to me that I should be aware of?
Yes

Would you give me the word or words?
Yes

The board is yours! (Spelled out letters).
“You deserve to see.”

Is that the whole message?
Yes

Is there another word?
No

I deserve to see what?
(No movement)

Is it something specific?
No

In general?
Yes

How to see the reality of things?
Yes

The truth?
Yes [I think that message was related to the previous subject about my approach on communicating with my co-workers, in reality nothing bad was happening but I observe the interaction between the team members and somethings a bit odd with 2 of them who didn't communicate much]

Ok I will think about it, I guess you allude to seeing more to that side of me of how I am perceived by others, I will put it aside for now. Maybe I'll come back and ask them about it.

Okay, will there be an important event happening this year worldwide that will have great repercussions on me and my family's future? [I wanted to test the pendulum with a general subject or type of ''prediction'' question]
Yes

Will I lose my job because of it?
No

Will I move out because of it?
No

But, will it affect me in any way?
Yes [So far, many things has happened that affected me emotionally speaking, and there still the subject of the elections]

I plan to move to New York after my contract expires and from there plan quietly if I move to Tennessee, is this a good idea?
Open

Ok, I guess, in the given case, would my parents also benefit from moving to that area?
Yes [Interesting that I didn't get the ''open'' answer for this]

Oh you didn't tell me ''open'' ok, what about my sister and the kids?
Open [It made me laugh]

Ha! Ok. If I were to get approved for immigration papers, would I be required to get vaccinated?
Yes [Well, it was a bad formullated question because indeed to get the green card you need to get vaccinated]

Will I give in to the vaccine?
No

Will I be approved for a green card if I don't get vaccinated using an exception?
Yes [Interesting if its true]

You said it! Well, I wish.
Is there a big chance I would end up going back to my country?
No!

I would ask if I would ever in my life go back to live in Venezuela, but that sounds very general and the answer would be “open” is that right?
Yes

Okay! I will most likely come back to you with more questions, for now thank you for giving me this information, you can disconnect!

Here is another of the first ones:
Are you what is known as the unconscious?
Yes

Universal mind?
Yes

For starters, I have been reading about pendulums, and they are very effective in finding certain things or materials that one tries to look for underground, is this true?
Yes

I am smoking pipe once a day, as your recommendation, although I don't trust much yet, however today it was a commercial cigarette, is it ok? [One of the first sessions with the board with letters, pendulum recommended me to smoke at least one cigarrete per day, I do smoke but not daily, so I started doing that and it really helped my brain to work better, stress levels improved and not just that, I also noticed that pendulum was moving faster after starting smoking daily]
Yes

Does it help with communication as you mentioned? [Actually I asked previously if there is a better way to communicate thorugh the pendulum with an STO, guide or higher self or whatever, and it answered ''cigarette'', then more questions I made about that lead me know that if I increase the nicotine intake would help me]
Yes

I bought an organic tobacco coming from North Carolina, is this tobacco better for me?
Yes [Obviously it is compare to comercial ones, just testing]

Ok because the pack is on its way!
I want to know about my life in Ireland, in the first sessions you answered yes to me that I lived in Ireland in the past, is that right?
Yes

What year did I die when I lived in Ireland?
1485

How old was I in that life when I died?
58

Was I mostly happy in that life?
Close

Was I also a musician? [Bad formulatted question, the subcouncious can take the questions very literally so I had to specify that I was reffering to that previous life]
Yes

Give me the first letter of the instrument you played in that life?
N [?]

Is that in Spanish?
No

What was the first letter in Spanish or English?
A

Accordion?
Yes

Did you also play the accordion in that life?
Yes [I think this answer is garbage, I play the accordion on this life and accordions weren't invented back then anyways]

A few sessions back you told me if as a recommendation to move out of here where I live, obviously I have to wait until my contract is up to do that, would moving out of Orlando be advisable for me?
Yes

Would moving back to NY be okay for me?
Open

Anywhere else where I could leave well?
Open

You're not going to tell me then... free will I guess.
Can you see any information about the future of this country by the end of the year?
Yes

I know I've asked this before, but will they hold the presidential election?
No [How things are going so far this wouldn't surprise me if its true]

Is it because something will happen?
Yes [Was this answer reffering to a timeline where Trump does get kill? One wonders...]

Trump will be official candidate at least?
Yes [Correct, he is]

Can you give me a word on something I should ask? [Testing the pendulum on this matter, lately when I ask this, it answers ''no'']
Yes

Give it to me!
Runano [The following example if how my mind can alter any response or create scenarios with mixed answers, I have learned many things during this time and proccess, and the answers have improved since then, nevertheless you can read what I meant]

Runano?
Yes

Here we go again with a weird word, let me research wait, give me a second.
Is it a name?
No

But on the internet it appears as a family name or surname?
Yes

Ah! it's not a first name but a last name?
Yes

Is it something related to this life?
No

Something related to a past life?
Yes

Was that my last name in a past life?
No

Someone else's?
Yes

Was it the life I had in New Zealand?
No

Was it Vietnam?
No

The one in Egypt?
Yes

What did you ask about that life?
Yes

Was I mostly happy in that life?
No

Is that the one I died in when I was 15 years old?
Yes

Runano was the last name of someone there?
Yes

A relative?
Yes

But how can it be a relative and it wasn't my last name? Ah! Was it someone I married? [assumptions and more assumptions from me]
Yes!

At 15 years old I was already married?? [Perhaps this is somehow correct but answered in a different context]
Yes!

Oh wait! Was I a girl in that life?
Yes

And I married an older man?
Yes

How old was that man who was my husband when I died at 15?
45

45?? But if I was a child... but it could make sense since many people in those days sold their daughters for money or cattle or what do I know?
Did my family sell me?
Yes

To this man named Runano? [It sounds plausable except the last name itself]
Yes

Did I love him?
No

Did he love me?
Close

I mean, sort of, more or less?
Yes

Did he suffer when I died?
Close

I mean, in his own way?
Yes

If I was married does that mean I had any children?
Yes

I had a child?? And so young...
no movements

Was it a boy?
No

Was it a girl?
Yes

Did she grow to adulthood?
Yes

Thank goodness... At what age did she die?
67

Did I have another child?
No

Was she raised by my former husband?
Yes

Was she happy in her life?
Yes

Did she have offspring?
Yes

Are any of her descendants alive today?
Yes

Do I know any descendants in this life?
No

I was already scared... wait, am I a descendant of that person?
No

Ah ok, so does that life have any importance?
Yes

Is it because there is a karmic process that I brought to this life from that one?
Yes

Well, I don't know what it could be but I could think of that, you tell me it wasn't a first name but it was a last name, did I have a first name then? [this could bring frustration but it is obvious that is was me with my assumptions]
No

I don't understand... if it was not a name or it was a surname it should be a name then... let me ask you directly, can you answer me with words?
Yes

Ok tell me then why did you tell me it wasn't a name in the end if it was? Or why did you mention that name? Start
''No one is asceana'' [Was my subconcious or higher self ''frustraded'' as well? lol]

Is that the whole sentence?
Yes

That doesn't make sense.... The first word is nobody?
Yes

Second word is “is”?
Yes

Third word is ''asceana''? [back then it misspeled a lot or me was the one how wasn't patient and spelled the letters when it didn't finish moving']
No

And what is the word then?
''Runano''

So the phrase is “nobody is runano” is that it?
Yes

Ok, nobody was called runano then?
Yes

You're going to drive me crazy...wait. I think you meant Romanian? [Another assumption, very deep I felt that in that moment if it would have answered ''no'' I would have been emotionally ''annoyed'' and perhaps would have stoped the session]
Yes

So it's Romanian and not Runano?
Yes!

Is this person of Romanian nationality or from the area back then?
Close

Is there an interference that does not allow me to get all the letters correctly?
Yes!

Is it an energy around?
No

Do you have trouble spelling?
No

Am I the problem?
Yes

Is it because in my mind I sometimes assume what the next letter will be?
Yes

Can that be improved?
Yes

Do you recommend me not to ask for letters and use yes or no?
Open

So, it is because this communication is ''young'' so to speak?
Yes

I imagine that if I keep praying, it will improve over time?
Yes!

Smoking?
Yes

Having more sessions?
Yes!

In other words, more practice?
Yes!

Thanks.

I was a bit invested on the previous one since for a moment I thought the whole thing was a waste of time, but then I realized that things like that should not bother me if I'm taking the experimental approach, so usually when I'm more ''fresher'' and with more energy I ask questions related to previous sessions to keep a record and see if there is any bias. Following session:

[I removed the first part because it has personal questions] If I ask you to know about tarot cards, would you know the meaning?
No

So I have to explain to you the meaning of each card?
Yes

Can you help me with tarot divination?
Yes

Look at the new board with the letters better positioned, is it better for you?
Yes

Or is the old one better for you?
Open

I mean, it would be my preference practically?
Yes

Ok, do you have any words before I begin?
Yes

The board is yours:
“Open mind.” [I think this is related to the frustation I had last time]

Open my mind more?
Yes

Does that have to do with faith?
Yes!

Do you say that because of my skepticism with all this?
Yes [That won't change anyways but its gotten better]

Well, bear with me, by the same token I don't think it will stop being 100%, but there is room for improvement.
Did that last message come from my subconscious mind?
No

Have I had communication with my subconscious mind before?
No

Could I communicate with my subconscious mind?
Yes

Would I have to ask?
Yes

Ok, from the scale of 1 to 100% what percentage am I communicating with my higher self or what is the quality of communication? (Using new board)
80% [I don't know why I asked this like that and didn't give much importance to this answer, I think I wanted to see if it can gives porcentage and probabilities, garbage anyways]

Ok not bad, my mom asked me if these maps are how the planet will look like after the changes? [A map she found on twitter related to a preduction, where many coast areas were underwater]
No

I guess the opposite will happen, sea level will go down, no?
Yes

Sure, in a ice age that happens, I knew that already! Enough of the topic, will I survive this year? [from time to time I make direct questions to test what type of answer a pendulum would give, its a stupid question but just for the sake of testing]
Open

Free will?
Yes

Back in the session of March 6th you gave me the word Runano or Romanian, is that word accurate? [It answered this before but just to keep a record to see if there is any contradiction]
No

Is it because of my interference?
Yes

Could you tell me what the correct word or phrase would be, today?
Yes

Tell me!
“Not now” [It would make sense if we use this answer with the past session's question]

Not now?
Yes

Is there anything else?
No

You mean at that time you wanted to tell me ''not now'' when I asked if there was a word that you could tell me?
Yes

Or does this sentence apply to today's session?
No

Ok it was at the time, I guess because of the level of interference that was present?
Yes

Is this type of interference coming from me?
Yes

Is it my mind?
No

Subconscious mind?
No

Unconscious mind?
No

Any energetic center?
No

Oh my God! Is it something like psychic of mine?
Yes

Is that why sometimes you eat letters or words, for example, you told me “open mind” instead of “open your mind”, so it helps like to reserve energy, and in that way there is as little interference as possible?
Yes! [So I guess my ''psychic abilities'' were or still are not that good ifhave any? That is]

Ok, have you ever felt frustrated with me?
No [Really? lol]

With the method of communication?
Yes

I can imagine. Would there be a time when you might run out of energy?
Yes

What would you do if you were to run out of energy?
*The pendulum slowly stops.

That is difficult to discern, well let's make a plan, if you run out of energy what you will do is make a big circle, you can even interrupt me if you want, but let it be a big circle and little by little it will stop until it becomes still, that will indicate me to ask you if you are without energy and thus end the session once and for all, do you agree?
*pendulum make a large circle and slowly stop.

Hmm ok, if you run out of energy would I be left talking purely to my subconscious mind?
Yes

Well, that's why it's important to let me know, so I avoid lowering the quality of communication, assuming of course that I'm not actually communicating with my subconscious or ego rather than something higher. Anyway, thanks.

When in New York, my brother-in-law lost a package Amazon delivered with a medication, I wanted to try the Pendulum and see how it works in the case. Nobody in my family knew who took it (according to them) so I started using it on the house, and it didn't move almost anywhere, so I used the board with it and indicated me ''basement'' so I went down with the pendulum to the basement, and it began moving in circles, in the basement is where we keep some food, is the laundry area and also my dad has its little office there, it's a big basement. Where the pendulum was showing me the location of the package it was taking me where the food is, but there are so many packages and can that I gave up, I don't have any way of proving what happened, but I suspect my dad though that it was one of his packages and saved it there, although he denied it but knowing my father and his memory it was kinda the best explanation. But we just let it go and ordered another one.

Another example is that sometimes when it gets too humid and hot where I live, there is this weird smell that I don't know where it comes from, it is just like a smell of something old its weird and I clean my apartment completely, but it has carpets (which I'm not a fan) I used the pendulum to see if it can help me about it, I asked, and it confirmed that it was an area on the carpet where a liquid was spill on the carpet by previous owner. I then used it to locate the area, and it pointed me near the door to the parking lot. I cleaned the area deeply I had to open the windows because the products I used were a bit strong then used the vacuum, so far haven't felt that smell anymore so if it was correct information then it's very interesting.

There are so many extracts I can put on here, these were only a few sessions, but I would saturate the thread if I put them all here, next post, I will upload only the latest sessions to compare the information. Overall, even though as you can see there were a lot of ''ok''and expected answers, and some of them were garbage, there were also really good answers here and there that has helped me realize things big time about myself, specially the ones after 3 months of practicing. So, I think patience can pay off a bit and of course a base of knowledge that can work as BS detector. Even with that, I made mistakes, so it's a learning curve.
 
Back
Top Bottom