The goal of not influencing something that one is nevertheless in a direct contol of, is impossible to achieve perfectly.
The ouija board provides and interesting test case of the consequences of this.
Instructions:
Your fingertips lightly touch the edge of the planchette. Your friend does the same on the opposite side. You consciously move the planchette in circles around the board to get it “warmed up.” Then you ask your question. No response at first. Then slowly the planchette begins to move, seemingly on its own – at least you’re not trying to move it. Let it go. Sliding from one letter to the next, the planchette spells out its answer. And it seems to fit. More questions are asked, and with increasing speed the Ouija provides its responses, letter by letter. Seemingly with significance. Sometimes with dark significance.
So with both or all parties are trying to just let the board spell out what it will, something nevertheless happens.
Why? Well, given that one cannot actually achieve perfectly zero force, the goal of "letting" gets translated subconsciously into "not resisting" and not resisting can only be achieved in this unstable situation if one is unconsciously helping in minute ways.
Now we can see that if there is the slightest prejudice for a certain thing that both or all parties might think of, then effects accumulate and it feels to both parties as if the board is spelling something out on its own.
But what happens when a person does not accept supernatural explanations?
Well, then that person will be convinced that the other person guided the board. If both persons have this attitude then both will think the other one was dishonestly trying to push in certain directions.
This could turn out to be an embarrassing situation if something shocking or untoward was spelled out.
What really happened is that each person was making micromovements; sometimes guiding, sometimes letting and occasionally resisting (but the instruction was to "let").
But, on the above analysis, neither person was consciously guiding the board. Yet both are now convinced that the other one was pushing for an outcome.
Now what about similar effects in social situations? What if two or three people are present in an ambiguous situation and are either in group control of events themselves or in group control of an account of the ambiguous situation??
Examples:
1. Several people were simulatenous witnesses of a traffic accident and are in a room trying to recount to police what happened. People start unconsciously looking to other members to fill in gaps in their own perception and a group story is constructed.
2. Same as above except that now instead of an accident it was a UFO sighting (or angels, fairies etc.--something seen, heard, or felt by a group but not clearly). Three witnesses?
3. Two people in a new relationship wanting to please the other and trying to decipher what the other person wants out of the relationship. With neither person wishing to force the trajectory of the relationship, it nevertheless moves like the ouija board in a definite direction that may surprise both people in the end. In the end, both may be convinced that the other one pushed for the outcome. If the end was unpleasant then each will blame the other and it will be almost impossible for either to see what really happened.
4. The madness of mobs.
A different but closely related account can be given as to how dreams are constructed from neural noise. See the introduction in Dennett's "Consciouness Explained". In this case the "interpreting crowd" is the myriad neural modules involved in perception and control.