Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300160001-3
Final Report- -Objective C,
Task 5
December 1986
IcS
NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF
PARTICIPANTS IN PSYCHOENERGETIC TASKS
By:
NEVIN D. LANTZ
SRI
International
RALPH
J. KIERNAN
Stanford Medical School
Prepared
for:
PETER
J. McNELIS, DSW
CONTRACTING OFFICER'S TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo
Park,
California
94025
U.S.A.
(415) 326-6200
Cable:
SRI INTL MPK
. _
_TWX:
910-313-204.6.
ed For Release
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0003001 60001 -3
I
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300160001-3
Final Report- -Objective
C,
Task 5
Covering the Period
1 October
1985 to 30 September
1986
December
1986
NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF
PARTICIPANTS IN PSYCHOENERGETIC TASKS
By:
NEVIN D. LANTZ
SRI
International
RALPH
J. KIERNAN
Stanford Medical School
Prepared
for:
PETER
J. McNELIS, DSW
CONTRACTING OFFICER'S TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE
SRI
Project
1291
Approved by:
ROBERT S. LEONARD, Executive Director
Geoscience end Engineering Center
333 Ravenswood Avenue
• Menlo
Park,
California
94025
•
U.S.A.
Rf6l8ai$-2?ft9o7dWto :^IA^bl^-0W$7F&fr8&?ft&0001 -3
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300160001-3
I INTRODUCTION
The neuropsychological assessment of participants in SRI International’s psychoenergetic
program* was begun in an exploratory manner in FY 1986.
Client interest in exploring brain
mechanisms or processes that correlate with psychoenergetic functioning led to SRI’s
engagement of Dr. Ralph J. Kieman, a neuropsychologist at the Stanford Medical School, as a
consultant to provide direction in this effort.
Dr. Kiernan had provided consultation in the
area of psychological testing during the early years of psychoenergetic research at SRI, and in
the intervening years has become a specialist in the area of neuropsychology.
Our purpose
was to begin laying the groundwork for eventual experiments in the area of brain function and
psychoenergetic phenomena.
*This report constitutes Objective C, Task 5, discussing neuropsychological assessment of participants in
psychoenergetic tasks.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300160001-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300160001-3
III
RESULTS
Using a
1 to 5 scale, where a
1 and 2 would be expected to do poorly on psychic tasks
and a 4 and S would do well, Dr. Kieman ranked each of the 95 subjects according to the
following WAIS criteria:*
(1)
Performance subtest scores (especially picture arrangement, block design,
and object assembly) should be higher than verbal subtest scores.
(2)
Similarities subtest scores should be higher than information subtest
scores.
(3)
Object assembly scores should be higher than block design scores.
(4)
Picture arrangement scores should be higher than picture completion
scores.
(5)
Picture arrangement scores should be higher than digit span scores.
(6)
In general, picture arrangement should be among the best performed of
the subtests.
(7)
In general, digit span or arithmetic should be among the lower subtests.
An informal test of the power of Dr. Kieman’s criteria was done by comparing his
rankings to the performance of subjects selected for two FY 1986 experiments: a pilot search
experiment, and a novice remote viewing training experiment.
Table
1 shows Dr. Kieman’s ratings of 29 subjects used in the pilot search experiment.
According to his criteria, those individuals in the High Middle and High categories would be
expected to do well on psychic tasks.
Four of the persons who showed overall p-values of
less than 0.05 ranked in the High Middle and High categories.
Subjects 570 and 933 were in
the expected direction, although not significant (p < 0.26 and 0.14, respectively).
Subject
111 showed significant (p < 0.05) target avoidance on both the time and space conditions.
Three persons who showed significant p-values (p < 0.05)
failed to
fall into one of the
expected categories.
The Appendix contains Dr. Kleman's review and critique of the PAS, his own theory of how WAIS data could
be used to predict psychoenergetic functioning, and recommendations of specific neuropsychological tests to
differentiate persons having psychoenergetic talent from the general population.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300160001-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300160001-3
IV DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The results of Dr. Kiernan’s WAIS criteria for distinguishing psychoenergetic talent, as
derived from his admittedly speculative frontal lobe theory (see Appendix), are encouraging in
several areas.
First, although the results are only suggestive,
it appears that the WAIS Criteria
effectively separated the abilities required for two different types of psychoenergetic
functioning, namely the computer search task from the remote viewing task.
The good search
subjects
fell into his top categories while the good remote viewing subjects ranked in the
bottom categories.
This result converges with PAS data showing different personality types
doing well on some psychic tasks as opposed to others.
To test this assumption further,
WAIS data from subjects in previous search and remote viewing studies could be blindly
ranked by Dr. Kiernan according to his criteria.
A second area for future research would be an experiment designed to test the
correlation of quantitative measures of psychoenergetic function with levels of positive frontal
function using the tests of positive frontal function recommended by Dr. Kiernan (see the
Appendix).
High correlations of these data could lead to a beginning understanding of brain
processes involved in psychoenergetic functioning.
Regarding Dr. Kieman’s criticisms of the PAS,
it should be noted that at the time of his
report procedural difficulties made
it impossible to give him access to our previous work with
the PAS.
His criticism of the empirical use of the PAS without the advantage of reviewing
these studies must be seen in this light.
In fact, we had decided to use the empirical method
as a way of testing the PAS, which had been used successfully in other applications. The
empirical approach
is a common one in an exploratory area.
If, at some point, enough
clustering can be found with repeated testing of calibrated individuals, the test gains predictive
value regardless of how the scores are derived.
The issue of whether we can make valid personality assumptions from PAS scores
is a
more substantive one.
Dr. Saunders has not had the opportunity to formally reply to this
critique.
However, we recognize that a part of the PAS
(the so-called fourth dimension)
is
still in a developmental phase and, also, that the PAS as a whole has not gained wide
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300160001-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300160001-3
Appendix
STATEMENT OF WORK ACCOMPLISHED FOR THE
SRI PSYCHOENERGETICS PROJECT
By
Ralph J. Kieman, Ph.D.
-
vi
,
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 0
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0003001 60001 -3
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300160001-3
TASK I: A REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF THE PERSONALITY
ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
In the late 1950s and early 1960s John Gittinger devised an innovative personality
assessment system based on scores obtained on a standardized intelligence test, the Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS).
He
felt that certain WAIS subtests could be used to
determine basic response styles of the individual which would have major implications for
personality development.
He defined three basic factors or “primitive level dimensions.”
These were thought to represent innate tendencies that the individual is bom with.
He then
added two additional layers of complexity based on other WAIS subtest scores.
The
first were
“compensations,” which represented evidence that an individual has partially filled in or
compensated for an area of weakness.
These compensations were supposed to be
accomplished early in development.
The second were “modifications,” again based on the
WAIS subtest scores.
These scores were thought to reflect later refinements or developments
that were less deeply rooted in the individual and were considered “surface qualities."
He
also considered an independent dimension called “activity level” which he based upon scores
on the Digit Symbol subtest.
The most central and indeed the most interesting aspects of Gittinger’s theory involved
the primitive level dimensions.
There are three such dimensions (1) extemalized-intemalized
—ssessed by the digit span subtest,
(2) regulated-flexible—assessed by the block design
subtest, and
(3) role adaptive-role uniform—assessed by the picture arrangement subtest.
The internalized individual
is someone who scores high on the digit span subtest and
is
theoretically oriented toward private or internal mental processes.
The externalized individual
scores relatively low and is generally oriented toward the outside world.
The regulated
individual scores high on the block design subtest and is capable of a narrow focus of
concentration.
The flexible individual scores low on the block design subtest and tends to be
distractable, responsive, and sensitive.
The role-adaptive individual scores high on the picture
arrangement subtest and is thought to be highly adaptive to external social demands.
The
role-uniform individual scores low on the picture arrangement subtest and tends to be more
individualized in social stance often to the point of being socially inappropriate.
These three
basic dimensions define -eight basic primitive types.
An example might be the EFA individual
who
is externalized (E), flexible (F) and role adaptive (A).
Gittinger’s basic model appears to have been modified only in a small way by Saunders.
The WAIS subtests, which determine compensation and modification, are now included in
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300160001-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300160001-3
nonverbal skills.
Certainly the broadest and most coherent factors associated with the WAIS
are the verbal and performance factors.
These have been shown to meaningfully characterize
the major classes of learning disability, and they have been shown to be differentially affected
by lateralized left- or right-hemisphere brain dysfunction.
The data have been so strong and
so consistent on this point that one might suppose that a personality system based on the
WAIS would start with these two broad dimensions.
The PAS system has a more fragile basis, the WAIS subtest scores themselves.
These
scores are less reliable than are the overall verbal and performance IQ scores, and they do
not have the expected advantage of representing isolated, pure
skills.
The WAIS subtests are
far from pure, and they often involve multiple factors.
Saunders himself pointed out three
different types of analysis that appear to be involved in the picture completion task.
Picture
arrangements, one of the important PAS primitive level determinants, has at least two aspects,
a simple recognition of physical action sequences and an appreciation of the human
implications of a given scene.
The former factor might well relate more to the PAS
dimension of regulated versus flexible rather than that of role adaptive versus role uniform.
At best, therefore, the subtest scores from the WAIS will only partially reflect the personality
variables of interest.
In addition, however, one must not lose track of the fact that the WAIS
subtests were first and foremost designed as measures of intellectual ability.
They are highly
intercorrelated with each other, and they each reflect specific skills for any individual.
The
fact that individuals have poor skill in a highly spatial task (such as block design) does not
imply that they are flexible in their thinking.
They in fact may be highly focused, regulated
individuals who simply lack good spatial abilities.
That
is why
it may be true that the very
high score on the block design subtest
is not a highly focused, regulated individual;
it need
not follow that low scores have the opposite personality style.
It may, in fact, be hoping to
extract too much information from a simple test of skill.
Despite these criticisms, Gittinger’s hypotheses about the primitive level type are
intriguing.
He has established a clear rationale that could easily have substantial validity.
I
have not even attempted to review the enormous PAS literature on this.
Nevertheless, there
are a number of specific hypotheses about the relationship between certain WAIS subtests and
personality that are potentially easily tested.
The problem arises with Gittinger’s addidonal
levels of compensation and modification.
He appears to be implying that a given individual
might well
fill in areas lacking in his inherent personality and assume a surface level style
dramatically different from his primitive type. When these two variables are added to the
model, the implications of the initial primitive types becomes unclear.
Indeed, now almost
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300160001-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300160001-3
have psychic abilities.
The PAS
is essentially a statistical system which can only determine the
cells that such subjects might occupy within the PAS and speculate that individuals in the
same cells should have similar abilities.
TASK 2: A GENERAL MODEL FOR PSYCHIC ABILITY
Background
I had become interested in developing a new idea to explain the functioning of the
frontal lobes long before my association with the SRI Psychoenergics Project.
I had been
attracted by a unique feature of the neuroanatomy of the frontal lobes; they represent the
only area in the cerebral cortex that receives direct external sensory information from
all
cortical association areas, as well as direct input from enteroseptors monitoring the internal
state of the organism.
The confluence of cognitive data from the one system and affective
data from the other could have important implications for the unique and important functions
of the frontal lobes.
It was clear to me from the research literature and from my own
experience in neuropsychology that the frontal lobes did not have a primary involvement in
simple cognitive functions such as are measured by standardized intelligence tests.
However,
they did appear to have a principal role in human affect and in the basic personal sensitivity
that defines us as individuals.
I knew also that intellectual tasks that were more open ended
and unstructured were affected by frontal lobe dysfuncdon.
Although
I understand very
little
about the nature of psychic abilities,
I thought that there may be some important similarities
worthy of further exploration.
With this in mind
I proceeded on my portion of the SRI
project.
I had to pose the question to myself about the nature of psychic abilities.
I judged such
skills to be subtle ones that are easily lost track of when everyday intellectual processes take
over.
Support for this idea came from my knowledge of the SRI subject training.
In training
for the remote viewing experiment, subjects had to give up specific verbalizing or visualizing
techniques.
That
is,
if they rushed too quickly to name what they were viewing, they would
more often than not select incorrect names and obtain poor results.
Similarly,
if they pushed
too hard for a specific visual picture, they would close off on a well formed incorrect image
and again lose track of the subtle signal.
In fact, they were trained to give up well established
intellectual structures and proceed in an almost totally unstructured way.
It impressed me that
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300160001-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300160001-3
and second
is to formulate rules based on the WAIS data already available to me for selecting
psychic subjects.
In order to select an appropriate test battery,
it was crucial to distinguish between
frontal-positive and frontal-negative tests.
By frontal-negative tests
I mean those
neuropsychological instruments that are easily performed by the normal individual but difficult
for the frontal-damaged patient.
These tests therefore are sensitive to dysfunction or negative
function in the frontal lobes.
The counts and sort test, the Strupe color naming test and
Milner Bolt Head Maze Ttst are three good examples of frontal negative tests.
These tests,
however, are of little use in a study of psychic subjects because they, in fact, have no
potential for distinguishing average individuals from those having high psychic ability.
This
is
why the concept of frontal-positive tests was postulated.
Frontal-positive tests are those that
require the special functions of the frontal lobe but which have wide range of functioning
within the normal population.
Assuming that the skill that produces this range
is precisely
that one that makes
it sensitive to frontal functioning, such tests might be positive measures of
frontal lobe function.
The Halstead Categories test and the Verbal Concept Attainment test
are two good examples.
Assuming that
I am correct in postulating frontal mechanisms for
psychic functioning, such tests should be particularly sensitive.
I am presently assembling a battery of tests that draws from three sources:
(1) commonly
used frontal-sensitive tests,
(2) other available tests not usually associated with frontal
functioning, and (3) new tests of my own development.
I have already mentioned the
Halstead Categories test and the Verbal Concept Attainment test;
I also plan to use the
Controlled Word Fluency test.
Available tests that are not typically associated with frontal
functioning are the whole class of productive operations tests designed by Gilford and his
colleagues.
These tests, most often considered tests of creativity, have been ordered and will
be available shortly for use.
The third source
is tests of my own development.
I have found
this work far more difficult than
I initially imagined.
It was easy to create frontal—negative
tests, but far a ranging frontal-positive test is much more difficult to design and, to date,
I
have made progress in developing only one such measure.
I plan to finish the development of
this shortly and use
it in my test battery.
Second, the frontal model was used to formulate criteria based on the WAIS subtests for
selecting subjects from the pool of 95 evaluated by SRI.
The following criteria were proposed.
1.
In general, the performance subtests should be better performed than the
verbal ones.
In this comparison primary weight was given to three of the
performance subtests (picture arrangement, block design, and object
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300160001-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300160001-3
6.
In general,
I wanted picture arrangement to be among the highest or
best performed WAIS subtest.
7.
In general,
I preferred digit span or arithmetic to be among the lower
subtests.
Based on all of these comparisons,
I made an informal summation in ranking of each
subject in terms of potential psychic
ability.
I kept to the l-to-5 scale and ranked each
subject accordingly.
I was surprised to discover that very few subjects in the pool of subjects
scored high, that
is 4 or 5 by my criteria.
Indeed only 2 of the 95 subjects received ratings
of 5.
These were subjects numbers 158 and 300.
Only 11 subjects received ratings of 4:
111, 415, 428, 432, 530, 615, 677, 697, 790, 854, and 933.
I expected that my selection
criteria would be, at best, weak in predicting psychic ability because
I had
little hope of the
sensitivity of the WAIS subtests in general.
However,
I did hope that they would at least
predict subjects in the right direction.
I had the opportunity to do a partial testing of these
criteria by reviewing with Nevin Lantz the results of his random number generator search
experiment. My predictions were surprisingly effective.
Although
I had only selected a few
of the 95 subjects in my two highest groups,
I had in fact correctly identified a number of his
best performers.
In summary,
I have reviewed the PAS, and
I feel that
it has tried to do far too much
on such a narrow basis (the WAIS).
Although Gittinger’s initial hypotheses are intriguing, the
present statistical model of the PAS (including the fourth dimension) impresses me as arbitrary
and unconvincing.
I personally would prefer some specific hypotheses about the
skills
involved, the skills possessed by individuals in certain PAS cells and how those skills might
relate to psychic abilities.
Instead, only statistical charts are offered.
I have also gone far in
developing my own model of the frontal lobe.
I believe that this model explains a number of
disparate facts in the literature that have previously been difficult to reconcile.
Lastly,
I have
used this model to propose a new battery of tests for use with SRI’s psychic subjects, and to
devise new criteria based on the WAIS for selecting subjects with psychic ability.
I expect to
continue using this model and testing
it over the coming year.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300160001-3