Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-0078
003200160001-9
II
INTRODUCTION
(U)
A.
(U)
General
|
AC
Che beginning
of FY
1981,
SRI Interna Ciona
made
a decision
Co develop and codify
a promising RV enhancement proc-
edure
that had emerged
from earlier work--a multistage coordinate
remote+viewing
training procedure developed
in conjunction with an
SRI
consultant,
.
In
this procedure,
coordinates
(latitude and
longitude
in degrees, minutes,
and seconds)
are utilized
as
the
targeting
method^
The method
is structured
to proceed
through
a
series
of well-
defined
stages
in
a particular order— hypothesized
to correspond
to
stages
of
increased
contact with
the
target
site
(see Table
1).
The
basic hypotheses
of
the procedure have been
investigated under strict
doublet-blind
testing conditions
to document whether,
and
to what degree,
the
training approach can provide
a viable vehicle
for RV
technology
transfer
,
For
this
effort,
selected
four
individuals
to be
brained
in
the
techniques
of
the
first
three
stages
(S-I
through
S-III)
of
the
procedure as
it stands
to date
(six
in all have been
developed).
B.
(U)
Description of Procedure
1.
(U)
Overview
(U)
We begin with
the basic premise
of
the
training procedure
under
study:
the major problem with naive attempts
to remote view
is
that
the attempt
to visualize
a
remote
site
tends
to stimulate memory and
imaginqtion--usually
in visual-image
forms.
As
the RVer becomes aware
of
\
i
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00769R003200160001-9
;as
i
Approved For Release 20j6i/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003^00160001-9
r o
)
I
OBJECTIVE
(U)
%
'
srx international
is
tasked with developing remote
viewing (RV)* enhancement
techniques
^
Par
ticular
interest
is
the development
of procedures
that have potential
j
~
application,
and
that can be
transmitted
to others
in
a
structured
fashion
(i.e.,
"training"
procedures).
^
—
Under particular
study
in
this effort
is whether
a
Coordinate Remote Viewing
(CRV)
technology,
a
technique
that utilizes
coordinates
to
facilitate acquisition
of
a remote-viewing
target,
can
be
successfully
transferred
^
•
*(U)
RV
is
the
mation blocked
acquisition and description,
by mental means,
of
inf or
from ordinary perception by distance
or
shielding.
Approved For Release 200(f/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R0&32O0160001-9
h
/
Final Report
Covering
the Period
15 November
1983
to
15 December
1984
December
1984
SPECIAL ORIENTATION TECHNIQUES:
S-l,
S-ll,
S-lll
(U)
\
SRI
Project 6600
Copy No
This document
consists of 27 pages.
941 /CL-0024
333
Ravenswood Avenue
'
Me/fTo
'5
•
U.S.A.
Approved For-Reteasen2O01>/03/G7i: iQIA-RDP96-OO789R0&3i$016OOO1-9
The emergence of ERA6 as a potentially psi-positive reference group
is
an especially encouraging event.
Of all the groups we have had reason to mention,
this one
is
normatively the most common, by
far, and
is especially common in
zations,
in which ERA6 individuals function well and comfortably as the middlemen in a chain
of command.
They are more loyal to individuals than to abstract ideas and are capable of
insulating themselves from philosophical and ethical questions.
In terms of psi, therefore, they
appear to be willing, able, and relatively likely to stick with
it. A problem for selection,
however,
is that ERA6 ranges over several MBTI types, reducing the potential efficiency of
first-stage screening.
The meaning of ERA6
is given by the following narrative description:
ERA6: Role-Player—These persons are proactive problem-solvers who are
naturally both involving (A) and involved
(E).
As an adult, ERA6 persons
have presumably found a socially functional role that requires them to be
active and apparently relating but depends upon a minimum of true
involvement.
In effect, ERA6 persons spend
life “proving” that they cannot
be tempted.
The tension that this implies
is relatively repressable because of
the R, but somatic symptoms may develop over time.
Members of this group
are relatively common and have included actors, dancers, musicians, waiters,
salesmen, policemen, teachers, and managers.
(U)
On balance, our efforts to cross-validate the important PAS patterns have yielded
only partial results.
There
is nothing strongly inconsistent with expectations, but the results
are not statistically conclusive primarily because of the low proportion of psi-talent estimated
to exist in unselected populations.
Future efforts to achieve cross-validation should be
planned so that approximately 50 percent of the experimental trainees are expected to show
strong learning curves.
This
will require excluding about 80 percent of an unscreened
population.
C.
(U)
Preliminary Identification of Promising PSI-Q2 Patterns
(U)
We report the
initial exploratory results of psi in relation to self-report personality
measures.
(U)
The
first level of RV analysis on the PSI-Q2 data involves a simple one-in-six
“guessing”
task.
Viewers were asked to pick which of six target categories best matched their
response.
No significant evidence of psychoenergetic functioning was found.
However, a
“forced choice” task
is shown throughout the literature as an ineffective way of eliciting good
Approved For Release 2001
i789R0032001 60001 -9
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-&0789R003200160001-9
2001
(u)
have three of the eight cases falling into “known” psi-positive categories.
Two of these (063
and 372) jare ERA6, now grouped with ERU6; the same two already have the strongest track
records represented in Table
4.
The third one (016)
is ERA8, now grouped with ERU8, he
is
still a trainee, but
is seen as “making the fastest progress” of anyone in his training group.
,
Without identifying any new categories,
it
is possible to relate six of the
eight
^iewers to the previous data.
Viewers 101 and 035, who are unambiguously
Primitive F. are
left over after this process. We have seen very few F personalities in the
whole coiirse of this project, and would be ready to write
it off but for Viewer 414 shown
in
Table
1.
Several of the viewers have spontaneously suggested that the PAS task that defines
this primitive dimension
(the WAIS Block Designs) seemed to them especially relevant.
Theoretically, we see this dimension as defining an individual’s signal-to-noise requirements.
R persons work with a relatively high threshold, and can count on the
reality
of percep-
tions that pass through their
filter.
The problem for them
is to make up for what does not
pass.
F persons operate with a lower threshold requirement and can count on not missing
much that’s real, but they also perceive a
lot of noise as though
it too were real.
Thus, an R
person
is typically better motivated than an F person to learn how to perceive more with
higher accuracy regardless of the use of psi
abilities.
(U)
Only two of the individuals in Table 4 (035 and 018) display the trend within the
time estimation task thought to be a hall-mark of psychic performance.
In view of the much
larger effect previously observed
in IRU2 as compared with ERU8, the present observation
may mean nothing at
all.
On the other hand,
it may relate to the need/use of technical aids
to
initiate psi conducive attitudes,
particularly for Level 6 viewers.
More than any other
groups,
Level
6 individuals are accustomed to making time work for them, and their time
estimates tend to be among the most accurate.
(U)
The self-report data in Table 4
illustrate the point that the PAS versus MBTI
correlation
is complex.
Two INTJ persons have very different PAS patterns; likewise, so do
two INFp persons.
It
is difficult to imagine that these eight viewers have,
in
fact, been
selected bartly on the MBTI; the only clear trend in the data
is toward intuition, but intuition
is common at high normal levels regardless of WAIS patterning.
A self-report analysis
employing a finer breakdown, perhaps along the lines of PSI—Q2
(see below), seems likely to
be necessary
if the goal of mass screening
is to be attained.
MBTI Form J, the form used
thus
far, contains enough items to support such a finer breakdown.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200160001-9
Approved For Release 2001/03/07^: CIA-RDP96-00789R003^00160001-9
(u)
already identified.
Either we may regard these training data as a fluke, or we may regard
them as suggesting that IRU7
is a
fifth group for which to watch.
The latter possibility
is
somewhat reinforced by the presence of another IRU7 in Table
1.
t
\ Perhaps the most important observation to make about the results of the
group (Table 4)
is that they represent the results of a selection process very
different from the “process”
implicit in Table
1.
We need be neither surprised nor
discomfited by the apparent absence of any IRU2, ERU8, ERU6, or IFU3 cases.
For one
thing, except for ERU6, we suspect that good examples of these groups simply were not
available in the pool from which the selection began.
(Part of this may be because IRU2
and ERU8 personalities, on average, might have difficulty
\
^
Also, we
observed earlier that our known IRU2 viewers
initially made themselves known, and our
known ERU8 viewers responded to
calls for volunteers explicitly for psychoenergetic research.
By contrast, the viewers in Table 4 were much more deliberately recruited; they are
all
“volunteers”
in the sense of “informed consent.” but the request for this consent was only
the
final step
in
a multistage process of testing and interviewing.
(U)
We regard the confirmatory signs in Table
4 as encouraging.
For example,
although we find no actual IRU2, we note that our IRU2 training monitor regards his IRU4
student as “having the most long-term potential" despite his also being the “most
difficult to
work with.”
Apart from the irony
in
this.
IRU4
is theoretically just an IRU2 with a
successful PAS contact pattern built on the surface.
As another example, although we find
no single unmistakable ERU8, we see four of these eight cases falling withm three standard
deviations of the ERU8 centroid according to ERU8 norms.
(U)
Although we have yet to see a bona fide star viewer in the IRU7 reference group.
Table 4 provides
at
least one (018) and possibly a second
(043,
a borderline IRU7) example
with affirmative precalibration,
reinforcing the context already developed earlier
(??? and
249).
(U)
Reasonable arguments can be made that self-generated interest
in psi flows from
Primitive U (17 of
19 cases in Table
1 are Primitive U) and that selection by interview will
tend to favor Primitive A
(five of eight cases in Table 4 are Primitive A).
On the other
hand,
it
is not obvious that A-U differences should affect psi performance.
(We think
it
is
obvious that E-I and R-F differences should affect psi performance.)
If we set aside the
A-U differences on grounds they may be artifactual and then reexamine Table
4, we now
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :/CIA-RDP96-00789R0032(10160001-9
\
Approved For Release 2)601 /03/07
CIA-RDP96-00789R0032001 60001 -9
currently upevaluated.
between
" * * " and
These measures are very subjective; for example, the difference
is somewhat arbitrary.
Table 4
J
.
RESULTS OF THE
j RV TRAINEES
Viewer
PAS
MBTI
RV Ability
Estimate
372
ERA6
INTJ
**
063
ERA6
INFP
*
016
ERA8
ENTP
+
099
IRU4
INTJ
+
043
IFA5
INFP
+
018
IRU7
XNXP
+
035
IFU5
INTP
?
101
IFA6
ESTJ
?
Note:
The RV Ability Estimate
is qualitative.
(U)
When we compare
all
IS of the training subjects with
all four of the potentially
interesting reference groups identified above, there
is only one trainee who can be properly
regarded as a member of any currently interesting group—Viewer 807.
Because of this,
much depends on how we perceive the training results for Viewer 807.
Actually, among the
seven trainees with quantitative data, Viewer 807 ranks as best on three of the six RV
measures and ranks as second-best on two more of them
(only two measures are shown
in
Table
3-
Puthoff and May8 and Humphrey8 contain complete details.)
The significant
positive slope for Viewer 807’s Figure-of-Merit
is what we might expect from an ERU8
personality. We have stated earlier that ERU8 personality should expect to experience at
least
initial difficulty with overcoming AOL.
(U)
The only other trainee
in Table 3 with consistently positive RV measures
is Viewer
249.
There
is simply no way to regard this person as a member of any of the four groups
%JL
Approved For ReleaseL2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96J-00789R003200160001-9
Jc
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R0032001 60001 -9
(U)
10 percent of the population.
We must expect that most of the trainees
in an unscreened
sample will have
little psi aptitude.
(U)
The results of the SRI training efforts and the personality measures are shown
in
Table
3.
Two measures of RV performance are shown.
The RV-Figure-of-Merit column
displays an overall level of RV ability.
(Because different target sets were used for the two
training efforts, the Figures of Merit are valid as relative measures within a training group
only.)
The RV-Learning column displays a
statistical assessment
(student’s t-test)
of the
slope of a line drawn through the session-by-session Figure of Merit data.
Although there
are other possible RV measures that could be considered, these two represent the current
state of the
art.
Table
(U)
RESULTS OF SRI RV TRAINEES
Viewer
PAS
MBTI
RV Learning
RV Figure of Merit
807*
ERU8
ISFJ
2.06
0.227
249
IRU7
ISTJ
1.43
0.239
997
IFA1
ESFP
0.70
0.194
454
IFU4
ENFP
0.52
0.199
309 t
IRA5
INXP
1.72
0.353
558
IFA8
XNFX
1.40
0.372
694
ERA2
IXXP
0.91
0.387
*
Track
II
SRI
training group,
t
Track
I
SRI
training group.
Note:
The
figure
of merits are only valid within
a training
group.
UNCLASSIFIED
{ u
)
f
i Table
4 shows the results for the
| trainees.
The
RV-Ability-Estimate column represents the best qualitative assessment RV abilities of the
trainees.
A “**”
represents a
"star viewer”, while a
represents an extremely good
viewer.
“+” represents "good” or "OK” viewers and “?” represents viewers who are
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :\CIA-RDP96-00789R003200160001-9
Approved For Relea
01/03/07
: CIA-RDR9fi=00789R0032001 60001 -9
(U)
—
I
have not yet seen enough exemplars to warrant specific discussion.
Certainly,
it
is important
to continue the process of gathering PAS data from known viewers in the expectation that
further exemplars will be recognized.
The meaning of ERU6 and IFU3 are given by the
following narrative descriptions:
ERU6: Manager—Proactive problem solvers who are forthright in their
dedication to constituted authority and decisively rational in their views, but
Who tend to be overcommitted to their work and tend to overcontrol their
Own feelings and emotions.
They are extremely competitive and ambitious
and seek to inspire and involve others through example.
Their social behavior
Often demonstrates a concern to show that they cannot be manipulated by
Others.
They are better at creating procedures than policies, but nevertheless
See themselves as intellectually creative and expect to be appropriately
rewarded for these efforts on behalf of their organization.
Members of this
group are found in the middle echelons of any major organization, such as a
bank, business, hospital, or government agency.
IFU3: Votary—Polyactive problem-solvers who are prone to be autistically
Self-centered, who recognize and
feel
guilt about this, and who combat the
implied threat by immersing themselves in a multitude of worthy
activities.
As
children they were permitted to pursue their considerable intellectual curiosity,
Without the imposition of either mental discipline or social conformity.
As an
adult, they remain intellectual and creative, and attach much importance to
their own and others’
right to be
“different.”
They have a strong conscience
and are likely to be politically “liberal” and to have well-developed aesthetic
judgment.
Their vocational interests are likely to be in the humanities and
Social science, rather than
in mathematics or physical science.
They may
function well as teachers, administrators, consultants, or team-members.
B.
(U)
Training Results
(
\
j As reported earlier, two training groups at SRI
\
served as the confirmation cases.
The PAS. including
its Fourth Dimension, and Form J of
the MBtTI were administered to each of the trainees.
None of the results of the PAS testing
were available to either the trainees or the trainers before the tabulation of the results.
(U)
The bunching of the precalibrated viewers in PAS-space, shown in Table
1,
suggests that outstanding psi ability
is not a widespread
trait.
ERU8 and IRU2 together may
represent as much as 2 percent of the general population and. allowing for a few other PAS
patterns
still to emerge, our ultimate interest
is estimated to be limited to no more than 5 to
Approved For Release 200^/03/07
:
1fclA-RDP9i-00789R003200160001-9
I
OBJECTIVE
The objective
of
this program
is
to investigate
the phenomenon
of
remote viewing
(RV)«
>
j
The
type of
counter-
measures
and
factors
that
inhibit
RV will
be investigated.
The work
effort will
involve gathering data
on specific geographic areas
throughout
the world and examining research pertinent
to improving
the reliability
of
the
data obtained via
the
RV process.
i
Approved For Release 2|0p1/03/07
: CIA-R^P96-00789R003200160001-9
ia-rcJf