Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3 2 aheeecrseme: finished with the Buddha game, the next one would be called by number, and sit in front of the Amiga screen. I would then explain the Buddha game. There were some variations in instructional set, from subject to subject, as some people had already been there for a while, and had seen several demonstrations, while others were newcomers. Generally, subjects were told that the Buddha game tests their intuition, their ability to "sense" the right time for pressing the button, in order to obtain high scores. I used the analogy of a fast-spinning roulette wheel, with numbers on it, which the subject stops, through his button press; if they stopped it, say, on “odd" numbers, then the Buddha would advance, if on "even", he would retreat. It was stressed that the goal is to be consistent in finding "odd" or "even" numbers, and that the degree of consistency would be signified by the Buddha’s progress in one particular direction (advancing or retreating). I then showed the subjects how to use the “mouse”, and stayed next to them for the first few trials, until I felt they understood the relationship between the Buddha movements, and their scores. Following these instructions, I would either move back, and join the crowd behind the Buddha game player, or would turn to the next Volition player, i.e., the person who had already passed the Buddha game, and was waiting for me to start Volition. Meanwhile, the Buddha game player would go through the psi task alone, pressing the mouse-button repeatedly until the game ended, and the final z-score was displayed. I marked the score on their receipt, and then gave the person some feedback, modulating my comments according to the absolute z-score. If the score was below 1, I would generally reassure subjects that they were undoubtedly much more intuitive than the score suggests; but then I would add that the contest procedure demands a mi minimum score of 1 to continue. (In a few cases, in which a the z-score was over .%, and in which I sensed the person a was greatly disappointed that they had “just missed the i mark", I made an exception and allowed them to enter the a Volition test). With absolute z-scores of 1 or higher, I i generally created quite a fuss (the higher the score, the E greater the fuss), and concluded by telling subjects that they could now participate in the contest, if they wanted to, but that they were not in any way obligated to do so. Tf they did decide to continue with Volition, they went to the cashier, who collected the appropriate fee ($4.00), and Marked the word “Volition” on the receipt. The participant would then wait in the Volition queue, or come directly to me, if no one was currently playing Volition. At this point, I would start the Volition session by typing in my three-character password (these characters are not displayed On the screen), and then register the participant by name. Under "participant ID", I would type in the absolute z-score obtained in the Buddha game; this, however, Was only done 43 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3 after the first few sessions had been completed (thus Buddha game scores are missing for 7? subjects). I introduced Volition by stating that this test was somewhat more challenging than the Buddha game, but that their score On the Buddha test showed they were “up for it". I added that Volition was also more accurate: the person could trace his scoring patterns with great precision, and use these to test mental strategies. It was also explained that, whereas the Buddha game was strictly based on intuition, here, one could alternatively use a "mental force” (i.,e., PK) approach and "oblige" the line to move in the desired direction. When the Volition "aim" question came up, I used the analogy of "heads" or "tails", in a coin toss, to convey that subjects could choose either “hi-aim” or "lo-aim*". However, TI also stressed that this was merely a focusing device; if the feedback line insisted on moving in the direction Opposite to their choice, they should just "go with it", and try“pushing it even further in that direction. I emphasized that the winner of the contest would be the one whose feedback line departed maximally from the baseline, irrespective of aim. T then would input subjects’ "aim" choice myself, using the game~paddle, and would hand them the paddle when the complete Volition display had been drawn on the screen. The “mode” for all subjects’ first game was "Manual". Subjects were urged to press the button Once, so they could see the first segment of the feedback line, and understand its movement in relation to their "aim" and the baseline. Then 1 would leave them on their own. Following completion af the first game, I commented on the scores again the higher the absolute z-score, the greater the compliments. With low absolute z-scores (below 1) 1 sought to point to something promising in the feedback curve and attributed declines to a loss of concentration. In all cases, I offered subjects a second Opportunity, stating that they were entitled to a maximum of two games, i with the best score of the two being used for the contest, ' The great majority of participants did indeed choose to Play & second game. All were again asked for "high" or "low? aim$3 then the subject proceeded, as in the first game, using the "manual® mode. (In the case of 2 subjects, after having observed their frustration in the first game, I suggested they try the "automatic" Volition mode, to see if their Scoring would improve). In cases where subjects had high absolute z-scores (over 1.8) in either of the two games, they were told to make sure they return for the closing night of the fair, when the winners would be announced. Toward the end of each day (around 10:00 PM) the cashier was instructed to stop accepting payments for the Buddha game. Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RQQP96-00792R000700610001-3
i Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3 After "running" the remaining subjects, the equipment was turned off, and the front of the tent closed. The equipment was left in the tent overnight, but I took the Voltion program and data disks home with me. Guards were present in the area of the booths the entire night (as all vendors would leave their merchandise there), and one of the organizers slept in our tent, to ensure the safety of her Amiga (which she had lent me, for the screening test). At the end of the third day, all z-scores and subject names were printed out on a sheet, and the highest absolute z-scores singled out. With the help of the organizers of the fair, we announced the winners of the contest, and invited them to come collect their prizes. In instances where a winner was not present, the individual with the next highest z-score was called. This continued until the first prize (a small Canon computer) and three second prizes (some posters) had been distributed. A lapse in protocol occurred in one game, and I was forced to be the subject because I accidentally started the game myself. As mentioned earlier, I would set subjects’ aim. High aim is selected by turning the paddle knob fully clockwise, and then pressing the paddle button. However, this knob setting also sets the game which follows on *"sutomatic" mode, whereby the feedback line immediately starts moving across the screen without any further button presses. It was because of this that I always input the subjects’ "aim" preferences (hi-aim, in the vast majority of cases) myself. However, in this one instance, I must have been somewhat fatigued, because I forgot to immediately turn back the paddle knob, counter-clockwise, just after inputting the subject’s aim. The Volition display came on, and, as I was preparing to hand over the paddle, I saw (dumbfounded) the feedback line move all by itself. I immediately turned the knob counter-clockwise, but the damage had already been done, and a few runs had definitely accumulated, moving the feedback line in the wrong direction. Passing this situation over to the subject (who was dreaming about the first prize) would have been in poor taste, so I was forced to complete that game myself. It turned out to yield the highest absolute z-score in the experiment (-2.68). Simulations Simulation games: The second night after the closing of the psychic fair, I initiated a series of matched "simulation" games, provided with all Psilab II software. Generally, these simulate sampling and timing conditions of the game, but without a player pressing the button, and with no image on the screen. The Apple and RNG were situated in the room in which I was staying, and the simulation, involving a total of 118 games (the number of contest games accumulated 45 . Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
, 0700610001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R00 Over the 3 day periog) took place overnight, while I was Sleeping, Due to the logistical constraints, it would have been impossible to run the Simulations in situ. . Extended Simulations: Psilab 17 Comes with two Random Analysis Programs - the Frequency Analyzer and the Serial Analyzer, Prior to undertaking the present Study, it was attempted to run both of these Programs; neither of them worked.’ Later, however, an alternative @aPPproach was Suggested by Berger, who kindly Provided the Se0ftware necessary to Perform a Series of "extended Simulations* which could Serve as an empirical) background against which, the Present experiment and matched- Simulation could be juxtaposed, Quoting from Berger (1988): BASIC language. Extended Simulations test both the integrity Of the hardware and software used in the experiments, as any Systematic biases ip, G@ither Should be Magnified" (in Press), 0 3 % < on. a c mn < Q ot. ln od Q 3 3 o ui 0 ow 3 n > - oc a ! m 2 c -. < o n DB hen bm 4 Uv o | ed 3 re » a ce Q 4, ab 21 PER I RT I 47 €xperimenter’s expectation was that Similar effects might turn UP in the Present study. However, no explicit Predictions were made, Because of the unusual data-collection Circumstances, it seemed more @Ppropriate to adopt a "wait and see" attitude; the Study seemed best Conceived as €xploratory, rather than as a replication. Nevertheless, Certain Specific analyses were Planned. Insofar as both @nd-game and run-score measures have Shown Promise in past Volition Studies, both were used as dependent variables, Each M@ASUrE was assessed through a JOodness-of-¢ 44 test, Run-score variability WaS examined through a Chi-square 900dness-of-fit test, identical to that utilized by Berger (1988) ip, his own Volition studies, Essentially, this test involves Comparisons of the observed frequency Of each run-score value (e.9g., 48, 49, 50, 51, etc.) with the expected frequency for that Value, 1. Failure was due to an incompatibilitywith the printer hardware, which has since been corrected CaN tent 46 0700610001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R00 Le MREOMNE