Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 4 It must be noted that this statistical test is valid only if the rankings are assigned independently for each target. As Morris points out (p. 406), the obtained p-values should be used only as a rough approximation in the case of one judge ranking a constant response transcript set to a constant target pool. This caution is emphasized especially in the case that (1) is six or less, or (2) the judge has previously not assigned any transcript a rank of one or more than one occasion. The first .caution (NV < 6) does not violate the sampling distribution of the statistic; rather, it suggests that a judge is more likely to be influenced by his memory of rank of transcripts applied to previous targets when the number of transcripts is small. When the number of transcripts is larger than 6, presumably the uncertainty increases to the extent that the judge's rankings approximate independent responses. No data are offered to support this notion. The second caution is simply another means to assess the independence of the judge's rankings. If he has not redundantly ranked the same transcript one before, there is evidence he is not behaving independently, Lee., ranking with replacement. The caution seems reasonable. Morris further indicates that either (1) or (2) is particularly pertinent if more than one-third of the number one rankings are correct and therefore contributing substantially to the small value of s. When a single judge and constant target pool are used, other statistical procedures should be devised and used, contrary to current practice among researchers. Improvements on the Method Two general techniques are validly offered by Morris (1972) to solve the nonindependence problem. In the first method, separate judges might 278 ' Approved For Release reo e Re Bates P96-00787R000700260003-2
val Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 be used. for each "ranking of the targets."' This wording would suggest that a single judge rank all targets against a given response transcript. Such a procedure would involve sequential visits to all targets and necessarily rely upon the judge's memory for at least some target details. A better method would be to have a single judge rank all transcripts for a given target, thereby having no knowledge of the other targets in the pool or how the same set of transcripts might be ranked for any other target. ‘The second methodological improvement requires that a judge be given one response transcript and its target (unknown) plus ‘other similar non- target materials which are changed from one ranking to the next. That is, the judge might receive Transcript A along with materials describing Target A' and nontargets E', F', G', etc. (Table Al). Jf the number of targets (plus nontargets) is large, then.n > N, but equation (3) can.still be applied. As WV becomes large (that is, the number of targets in an N =n experiment becomes large), the judge's task becomes more difficult in the "standard" protocol; therefore, it may be more practical to increase m than VW, and let each judge rank on only one target. A good rule of thumb, suggested. by Morris (1972), might be to not use this exact test when mW < 35. Coneluston While Morris (1972) is an important paper, and his analysis technique is followed by many researchers, there remains cause for concern. Certainly, it is more desirable to calculate the exact probability of a given ¢ than to use the tabled value,.and the calculation is not very complex or demanding. Of greater importance is the problem of nonindependence of rankings by the same judge. Most researchers disregard this problem, others argue it 279 Approved For Release 2000/08/1 Cena ARiRERE? -00787R000100260003-2
$$ a cera eee SN Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 away by indicating that some judges do in fact rank the same transcript "one" on two or more targets. Neither. is an acceptable approach; the second argument merely points out that independence existed (or a "mistake" was realized by the judge) on one specific set of responses. What is needed is a more thorough measure of exact ‘probability which takes into account the degree of nonindependence, much as a covariant might be used in parametric analysis to remove confounded sources of variation. Perhaps of the greatest heuristic concern in this method is its partial use of the data. For the case where n= N, ‘only nm of the ne data points (ranks) are used. The (n? ~ ”) unused data becomes large as m increases. For example, in the ~ = 4 case, only 25% of the rankings enter into the analysis. In the » = 9 cage, only 11% of rankings are used! An exact | probability method based on the correlational relationship in the total data matrix should be developed. It would potentially provide greater sensitivity and more confidence among readers unfamiliar with this particular area of research. , , _ 280 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : Cabdpyeagtiele"00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDBSgHBRES7R000100260003-2 heferences Morris, R. L. An exact method for evaluating preferentially matched .free-response material. Journal of the Amertean Society for Psyehteal Research, 1972, 66, 401-407. Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Stuart, C; E. An ESP test with drawings. Journal of Parapsychology , 1942, 6, 20-43. Uspensky, J..V. Introduction to Mathematical Probability. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1937. Approved For Release 2000/08/10 ACLA-ROBBARIRFOY R000100260003-2 oral
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA BRREERREOT87R000100260003-2 APPENDIX B. REMOTE VIEWING PROTOCOL The following is a verbatim copy of the remote viewing protocol, as described in. a written communication from H. Puthoff to a sponsor in late 1977. Approved For Release 2000/08/10°* CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 a
mall Saal Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 . | REMOTE VIEWING PROTOCOL With regard to replication of our standard remote viewing protocols, ‘the basic outline is as given in our tutorial paper, "A Perceptual Channel for Information Transfer over Kilometer Distances: Historical Perspective and Recent Research, "H. Puthoff and R. Targ, Proc. IEEE, pp. 329-354, March 1976 (4 copies enclosed). The elements of the protocol, each of which I address below consist of (a) target pool selection: (b) subject orientation; (c) outbound experimenter behavior; (d) inbound experimenter behavior; (e) post-experiment feedback; (f) judging procedure. (a) Target Pool Selection: To carry out an experimental series of, say, n experiments with a subject, a list of outdoor targets >> n should be prepared in advance by an experimenter who will not interact with the subject or experiment -after that. The targets should be chosen to be distinctive, but not necessarily distinct from each other$ that is, rather than a collection of nondescript street corners one should select bridges, towers, fountains, gardens, plazas, etc., 80 that a judge could in principle recognize targets on the basis of correct, but sketchy descriptions. On the other hand, once having chosen a fountain-type target, there should be several fountain targets; for a bridge target, several bridge targets, etc., so that you avoid the subject strategy of "T had a tower yesterday, so it can't be a tower today.” In fact, the subject should be told explicitly that the targets are not chosen to be orthogonal to each other. When the target list is made, each target location should be written on a card and placed in an envelope, the envelopes randomized and then numbered:so as to lose all track of a key. These should then be stored in a secure safe or similar container. With regard to whether a target is replaced in the pool after use, there are two ways to go. The preferable one is to not replace it, but keep near-replacement statistics by simply having a very large pool with several similar targets, or else replacing a used fountain target with another fountain target. The problem with straight replacement is that the subject would, upon becoming aware of a mental image of a previous target, be biased to reject it as memory. Therefore, even though straight replacement makes some psychologists happy, it is actually an artifact-producing procedure. (b) Subject Orientation: Before the experiment, the subject should be shown some previous remote viewing results with one goal in mind--to get across the idea that one should, as best as possible, report raw perceptton rather than analysis, since the former tends to be correct and the latter is almost always wrong. Figures 4 and 6 in the LEEE paper are good examples. In Figure 4 the subject had absolutely no concept of a pedestrian overpass, but simply saw a pattern of receding squares; the target in Figure 6 with passable drawings was interpreted as a restaurant; even the correctly dimensioned pools of water in 283 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
=a mined a ee Approved For Release 2000/08/10 “CTA ah P8e"00787R000100260003-2 Figure 3 were misinterpreted as purification plant pools rather than recreational swimming pools. Reading of our book Mind Reach (Targ and Puthoff, Delacorte Press, 1977) provides a good background, as we go into this aspect in much more detail than we could afford in our technical papers. They need to "get itt" that a rounded piece of blue metal is just that, and they shouldn't try to figure out whether it is a car fender before they say anything. Remind the subject that imagina- tion constitutes noise in the channel, and therefore the closer he can get to raw uninterpreted tmagery, the better. To have success in the above, the best guideline we have found is to choose as subjects individuals who are self-confident, not afraid to be wrong, uninhibited, etc. No psychological test we have tried (and we have tried them all) is as successful as the above subjective assessment when it comes to choosing subjects. Artist types used to unevaluated observation are among the most successful. (ce) Outbound Experimenter Behavior: At the start of an experimental session, the inbound and outbound experimenters and subject should rendezvous for a relaxed informal chat in the laboratory setting. (The outbound experimenter or experimenters must not know the target at this time.) Together they agree on a time for the subject description to start. (E.g., 30 minutes hence--the length of time required for getting to the furthest target in the pool. This time is then an invariant for all experiments.) The outbound experimenter then leaves the lab, uses a random number generating procedure to obtain a number from 1 - ,.. (number of targets in pool), obtains the so-numbered envelope from the target pool (preferably kept by another person) and leaves the premises, (We use a Texas Instruments SR-51 hand calculator which has a random number function.) . After driving away from the laboratory, he opens the envelope to determine the target, and proceeds to that location. TI. suggest he arrange to park and then come upon the target location at exactly the starting time so his view of it is fresh at experiment beginning. He then simply pays attention to the environment and does not let his mind wander (especially to another target). It appears not to matter how many people comprise the outbound team, provided they don't (1) just pay attention to each other or (2) scatter about. At the end of the agreed-upon target viewing time they return to the lab (usually 15 minutes). (d) inbound Experimenter Behavior: During the period that the outbound experimenters are enroute to the target, the inbound experimenter and subject have a period to relax and discuss the protocols. (Inbound it is best not to have additional observers.) The goal of the inbound experimenter during this period is to make it "safe" for the subject to expertence remote viewing. This typically includes a low-key pep talk as to how remote viewing appears to be a natural, not abnormal, functLou, that many people appear to have done it successfully, even their first time, and always the reminder to eschew analysis and simply render raw impressions. Approved For Release 2000/08/10 ! CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 SECRET. |
ell Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : Civemimh06-00787R000100260003-2 . LL . Since we think that remote viewing is a difficult task, like perceiving a subliminal stimulus, we think it takes the full attentive powers of the subject. Therefore, the environment, procedures, etc., should be as natural and comfortable as possible so that as little attention as possible is on anything other than the job at hand. No mumbo-jumbo, hypnosis, strobe lights, or sensory-deprivation procedures, since all these (novel) environmental factors take away some of the subject's much~needed attention. We are in this sense proponents of a "naturalist school." If the subject feels more comfortable smoking or drinking a cup of coffee, why not? These should be arranged ahead of time, however, so that neither subject nor experimenter leave the experimental room. while waiting for the outbound experimenter to reach his target. The experimenter should have arranged ahead of time to have pen and paper available for drawing, and a tape recorder. When the agreed-~ upon experimental time arrives; the inbound experimenter simply asks the subject to "deseribe what impressions come to mind with regard to where the outbound experimenter is.” Most subjects prefer to close their eyes, but they should simply do what comes naturally. The room lighting is preferably subdued to prevent after-image highlights, shadows on eyelids, etc. It is best that the inbound experimenter not - push. the subject to say a lot, but act as if they have all the time in the world; otherwise, a subject may tend to embroider descriptions just to be saying something to please the experimenter. If the subject tends towards being analytical ("I see Macy's on El Camino Real"), the experimenter must gently lead the subject into description, not analysis. ("You don't have to tell me where it is, just describe _what you see.") This is the most important and difficult task of the inbound experimenter. It is also useful for the inbound experimenter to "surprise" the subject with new viewpoints. ("Go above the scene and look down--what do you see? If you look to the left, what do you see?) For some reason, the subject's viewpoint appears to.shift rapidly with a question like this, “and the data sneaks through before the subject's defenses activate to block it out. The shifting of viewpoint also obviates the problem of the subject spending the entire time giving meticulous detail on a single blade of grass or piece of concrete, which, even if true, will be of no help to a judge. Once a subject feels he sees something, he tends. to hand on to this perception rather than commit himself to a new viewpoint. The subject must be encouraged to sketch what he sees, even over his objections that he is not an artist, can’t sketch, etc. He may do so throughout, or wait until the last five minutes if intermittent drawing would distract this concentration. Since drawings tend to be more ‘accurate than verbalization, this is an extremely important .factor for good results. (e) Post-Experiment Feedback: When the outbound expcrimenter returns, the inbound and outbound experimenters and subject should proceed 285 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 * SER ee 0078 7ROOOTO0260008-2
Approved For Release 2000/08 1eSE ARP 26-00787R000100260003-2 directly to the target for fecdback. This helps to develop the subject's subjective sense of what in his mental imaging is correct versus incorrect, and completes that experiment for him so that when he does a following experiment, his mind is not still on wondering how he did on the previous one. Only a very expetienced subject can function well time after time without feedback, so this must be done to insure success. (£) Judging Procedure: In a sense, all the action in the remote viewing procedure is in the judging. -Any single experiment in remote viewing, even if perfect, can in principle be dismissed as possibly coincidence. Further, any result less than perfect can be dismissed as a generalized "grass is green, sky is blue" transcript which fits every target. Only blind differential discrimination across a series of targets cay put both of these alternatives to rest. The judging procedures are as follows. First, an experimenter not involved in judging must read the transcripts and delete from them any reference to dates or previous targets, so that a judge could not order the ranscripts chronologically, or determine that a given transcript can't be the boathouse because the subject mentions in the transcript that what he is looking at reminds him of the boathouse which was the previous day's target. With these deletions, the transcripts with their associated drawings are labeled in random order and given to the judge in one hand, so to speak, while a list of the target cards, also in a (different) numbered random order is given to the judge in the other hand. His job, then, is to go to a target location (physically), read through all the transcripts, and order them bast to worst match (1 through 6, say, if there are six targets and six transcripts). He then proceeds to a second target site and reorders the same set of transcripts again, best through worst match, and so forth. The jduge is to do this exercise ina replacement sense; that is, even though he may have assigned a given transcript as best match to a given target, he may find at another target that it is the best match to that one also. Even though he knows logically that it couldn't go to both, we find that judges in fact have no hesitation in using a transcript twice in first place, simply because they aren't sure as to which one it does in fact belong, and they want to insure the best possibility of not missing a potential match. Based on this we feel it is more appropriate to use statistics based on replacement. Some argue with this, and 1£ one thinks it is more correct then one can use statistics or matching without replacement. 286 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 a