et he \C- ate | siX ts, en ee he to of te~ he yn he 10 at- sy my it, rtf and wy: and and af cn: hal, cA, vho hief ‘wy. ical _ Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200650001-6 PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE | * | chological abilities allowing them, for example, to leave ‘heir badies and to walk through walls, (See, e.g... | |Squires, [988.} These ideas and enhancement lechniques ofthe sort mentioned above were advanced by an infor- '' mal group of some 300 army officers known as the Delta Furee (not to be Confused with the antiterroris! umt hav. ” ing the same name). Several other task forces in the army were organized in the (970s ta ¢Xamine and promote the | lechniques, , Aninfuentisl memo pulling much of this together for (ihe army was written in 1982 by General Thurman, then Mieutenant general and deputy chief of staff for person- , ad (Thurman went on to became a foursstar general und weechief of staff, and Wax an architec! of ihe army's very successful recruiting campaign with the slogan of "Be all | ‘hal you can be."’) He subsequently led the army's irain- | ng effort as cammunder of the Training and Doctrine i | Command, His memo identified ‘accelerated iearning. \oferential focus, previsuatizasion. psychokinetics and ‘siokinetics, remote viewing, biophysical stress preven: (in, etc,” as techniques that Should be considered.“It wis based in part on a half-dozen Commercially avuiiable [lechniques that may be characterized us fallows, Sugrestive accelorative learning and teaching techs vigues (SALTT) combine physical relaxation, mental aacentration, guided imagery, suggestion, und baraque music to improve classroom performance, The Journal of ‘the Suctety for Accelurative Learaing aad Teaching pud- iyhes evaluations of applications of SALTT to language raining, typing instruction, high-school science courses, ind so forth. Concentrix designates a specific procedure for training visual concentration on a target, broadly defined, and ‘|maximizing hand-eye coordination. bulunce, body con- {i na, and sensory and visualization skills. (tis intended ir application nol only to marksmanship but to the op- | intion of complex equipment. movement over Jong dis: j ances With the objectives of reducing fatigue, and intel- [gence gathering. ') Hemi-Syae,%® short for hemispheric synchronization, wasists of presenting tones of slightly different fre- quency to each car to produce a beating sound, An EEG- neasured brain response fallaws changes in the beat fre- gueccy and changing sound pafterns are (huught to ishange statey of awareness. Recommended applications /ve for language learning, stress teduction, reading skills, seblem solving, creativity, and sleep control. ‘| Svesssmanagement techniques are designed to allevi- deanxiely and tension und are implemented by self-help [|oks and groups and by clinics. They often emphasize ifiness, nutrition, and life styles, as well as urategies - - ch as progressive rolaxation and image rehearsal. Pro- | waters claim an interuct(ye effect and put forth a partic- | ; Har package of techniques. ~ — rea ates ieee l | VOL. 1, NO. 2, MARCH 1990 John A. Swets and Robert A. Bjork Neuronnguistic programming (NUP) (s intended pri- marily to be a means of exerting influence over others. | The skilled pructitianer is supposed (o be able to deter- | mine What representational system (e.g., visual, audi tory. or kinesthetic) another person is using at the mo- ment—by observing his or her specch, eye movements. and posture-and then te frame communications to that person in terms of the particular representational system in-use. A national association is reported to have a mem- bership of abaut $00 persans. fn 1983, an ad Ave subgroup of the Army Science Board. formed in response (o General Thurman's memo, issued @ report supportive of further consideration of theye techniques, The group had been expased to them in | an “experiential workshop format’: during a four-day meeting at the Monroe Institute of Applied Sciences, developer of Hemi-Sync. [t recommended that formal mechanisms be established to undertake a major effort on “human technologiey,”’ that “technologies should be ° sorted into those which require a scientific base and need verifiable, repeatable data for evaluation versus those which are more anulyti¢ representing principles of good | practice and are evaluated by consensus, acceptance and overall effectiveness,” and, further, that research efforts be managed jointly by the Army Research Institute and the Mcdicul R&D Command. In 1984. ARI, which reported than to General Thur: man, hired a program manager, commissioned review pa- pecs on five techniques, and requested of the National Reéeséurch Couneil that a committee examine the area, In 1965, ARI initiated research or several of the techniques and reviewed urmy research in progress elsewhere. THE COMMITTEE'S SPECIFIC FINDINGS Learning During Sleep The committee recommended that the army give sleep learning a ‘‘yecond laok,"’ Considering only the sleep- learning literature, there seemed little basis for any kind of positive recommendation, This conclusion was rein- _ forced in a detailed briefing by LaVerne Jahnson of the Navui Health Research Center, When all possible criteria are applied to verify that the learner {8 {ruly asleep, there uppears to be no evidence of conscious recognition or review, yee Aacons, $976). In fact, since the mid-1970s. research activity on sleep learning has nearly stopped, at least in this country, : The committee, however, was influenced by recent developments In basic research on “implicit memory,” “stimulus-driven processing,’ ‘‘learning without awares ness,’ and related lopics (for reviews, yee Richardson- Klavehn & Bjork, 1988) Schacter, (987; Shimamura. 1984; and the commissioned paper by Eich, footnote 2). 87 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200650001-6 | | | ' recall of muater‘als presented during sleep (for a thorough |
Approved For Release 2000/(^pfc )L<GIArtRER9fi-00789R002200650001-6
Enhancing Human Performance
pared
for
the Army Research
Institute by John Palmer
and from a review of the same
studies
that
it commis-
sioned Alcock to make. The committee also reviewed the
-other main body of experimental research, namely, on
Ganzfeld experiments,
in which
a homogeneous
visual
field
is used
to
alter
states
of mind
in
the
interest of
receiving psi signals. A paper on intuitive judgment and
the evaluation of evidence was prepared for the commit-
tee by Griffin (see footnote
2).
With
particular attention
to the three
sets
ot experi-
mental studies, but including its other reviews and expe-
riences.^ihfijjornmiiteejoundjKtj!^
^existence of naransvchological phenomena. C ‘No scien-
"tlTic justiflcalion'' wasThe phrase agreedon with NRC
editors for the committee's report, but “warrant
cap-
tures better the intended sense.) Though the committee
therefore saw no reason for direct army involvement,
it
felt
that monitoring by
the army
ot
the main,
current,
experimental work would be prudent and suitable
.
If that
monitoring
led
to
the proposal of specific
studies,
the
recommendations were that army and outside scientists
arrive at an agreed-upon research protocol, that the
re-
search be conducted by proponents and
skeptics, and
that attention be given to the manipulability and prttclica
application of any effects found to exist.
assigning merit and meeting needs, likelihood ol transfer,
i
and contrast with alternatives.
The committee acknowledged the differences between
rational decision making in science and
in practical con-
texts. for example, differences
in the benefits of correct
decisions and the costs of incorrect decisions and in what
is viewed as a timely decision.
It recommended that the
army acknowledge such differences explicitly
in connec-
tion with
decisions about
particular
techniques,
it
set
forth an
analysis of the
unreliability of testimonies
as
evidence for enhancement effects. And
it stipulated what
it thought would be useful mechanisms for advice to dif-
ferent parts of the army as well as bidding procedures
it
felt would
facilitate informed choices
ot
programs and
j
vendors.
I
The committee recommended that the army continue
to examine vigorously enhancement techniques that ap-
pear promising.
It added the advice that the examination
should
be
systematic and
should
include
techniques
drawn from mainstream research as well as packages pro-
moted by vendors. A main concern of the committee was
to link more closely the army's great interest
in enhanc-
ing human performance and
its substantial resources for
conducting tests to evaluate techniques. The committee
remarked on the potential for transfer to the civilian sec-
tor.
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The committee observed a pervasive army tendency to
accept and implement enhancement
techniques on
the
basis of personal or clinical experience and marketplace
popularity instead of on the basis of research evidence
that could establish the existence and usefulness
ot an
enhancement effect.
In expressing
its concern about
t
is
practice, the committee issued a
list of questions about
presumed enhancement
techniques
that
had been
pre-
pared by scientists at the Walter Reed Army Institute for
Research: What
changes
will
the
technique
produce.^
What evidence supports
the claims
for
the technique?
What theories stand behind it? Who will be able to use
it.
What are its implications for army operations? How does
it
fit
with army philosophy? What
are the
cost-benefit
factors'? (Hegge, Tyner. & Gcnser,
1983).
Because strong claims of support trom basic reseaich
have been made for some of the techniques the commit-
tee examined, the committee reviewed
in
its report what
it takes to justify a scientific claim. Specifically,
it high-
lighted the need io conduct basic research so that
infer-
ences could be drawn in accordance with scientific stan-
dards-— inferences about
novel
concepts,
causation,
alternative explanations ot causal relations, and the gen
eralizabiiity of causal relations. Standards for evaluating
field tests of enhancement programs were also reviewed,
I
including such factors as immediate effects, side effects.
COMMITTEE PUBLICATIONS
!
The committee's final report was published as a book
by
the National Academy
Press
in early
1988,
entitled
Enhancing human performance:
Issues,
theories, and
techniques, edited by Druckman and Swets. (A second
priming was made a year later.) With preliminary copies
available, a briefing was given army officials and a press
i
conference was
held
in December
1987,
with
Swets,
i
Bjork. Hyman, Singer, and Druckman
representing
the
I
committee. The press conference was attended by some
fifty reporters who heard a 15-minute prepared statement
j
and then raised questions for an hour or so, Primary ar-
:
titles appeared
in
the Sew
York Times
(Leary,
1987),
:
Washington
Post
(Squires,
1987a.
1987b),
Washington
j
Times
(Price,
1987). and Los Angeles
Times
(Gillette.
:
1987). and articles based on them appeared in many other
,
local and regional newspapers. Other news articles were
j
published
in
Science
(Holden,
1987).
Science
\
(Greenberg.
1988),
Science and Government
Report
\
(Greenberg,
1987), APA Monitor (Hostetler,
1988), Psy t
chtilog y Today (Roberts.
1988), The Chronicle of Higher
j
Education (Wheeler.
1987).
Beijing's Science and Tech-
nolvgy Daily
for June
29,
1988. and
the NRC
s Pew
\
Report (Jarmal, '988). Swets and Druckman co-authored
|
an op-ed article that was printed in 25 daily newspapers.
The press conference was videotaped by NBC, CNN.
I and
the
United
States
Information
Agency. CNN
re-
VOL.
I. NO. 2. MARCH
1990
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200650001-6
Approved For Release 2000/0870ff^OA^R'DP
19Bc-00789R002200650001-6
John A. Swets and Robert A. Bjork
ansfer.
otween
al con-
correct
in what
hat the
:onnec-
It
set
nies
as
:d what
; to dif-
.lures
it
ms and
ontinue
hat ap-
iination
iniques
^cs pro-
tee was
;nhanc-
rces for
nmittee
i an sec-
a book,
entitled
cj .v
, and
second
) copies
a press
Swets,
ting the
>y some
itement
narv ar-
.
1987 ).
hington
Gillette.
IV other
es were
< News
Report
8), Psy-
' Higher
d Tech-
s News
uthored
.papers.
, CNN,
NN
re-
tCH
1990
played small segments for a few days. NBC's camera did
not operate properly
.so Tom Brokaw's evening news
used
tile footage representing some of the Army's more
lurid
past
interests,
for example,
in
walking through
walls, and he commented
in kind, National Public Radio
presented for a few days an interview-' with Robert Bjork
an learning techniques,
PUBLIC REACTION
The committee's book was reviewed descriptively un-
der
the
heading
"Briefly Noted"
by Sheldon Zedeck
( 1988 ) in Contemporary Psychology
.
It was reviewed ex-
tensively by Philip Morrison (1988)
in Scientific Ameri-
can. We appreciated
his summary: "Among
the most
difficult lessons in science is how not to deceive yourself.
This patient and judicious overview offers genuine help”
ip. 109 ). Irwin Child
( 1988 ), in a review for Choice, com-
plimented the exposition of general principles of evalua-
tion but noted what he called the report's "bias against
exploration of apparent anomalies not yet well attested"
Ip. 536). Kendrick Frazier (1988) reviewed the book ex-
tensively
for
the Skeptical Inquirer,
with emphasis on
paranormal phenomena.
Druckman and Swets received several phone calls and
letters, many of them complimentary (wanting more
in-
formation and making suggestions),
for example, from
(he Los Angeles Police Department, and many of them
expressing concern over negative treatment of particular
techniques.
In
an interchange of several
letters. Wilse
Webb argued that we had been too generous to one tech-
nique,
that
sleep
learning was
not
worth
a "second
look."
The strongest reactions came as expected from propo-
nents of the paranormal and these tended to be in letters
addressed to Frank Press. Chairman of the National Re-
search Council. Robert Jahn, former Dean of Princeton's
School of Engineering and Applied Science, wrote that a
biased committee made
factual
errors
in reviewing
his
experiments on mental biasing of random number gener-
ators. A copy from Jahn to Senator Claiborne
Pell was
fallowed by a ietter from
Pell to Press. The senator was
concerned, among other things, about
the possible im-
pact of the committee's report on the National Science
Foundation, which was said to be reconsidering support
of parapsychological
research, and he no doubt had
in
mind his plans
to sponsor a
bill
to create
a commission
m studv^^aTisvchologv
and~oTHer performance^*
Tnhancement techniques, a bill co-sponsored by Senators
Gore and Kassebaum and now in committee (e.g,
, News-
week. June 26,
1989,
p.
8). Not
satisfied by the corm
iT^Vxie i HilarUaplies tn
. l ahn's lelter&Jaiuijifl^^
Iried their case
to the undersecretary of thfe army, who
I responded that
it would be improper for tht\army to
in-
VOL.
1, NO.
MARCH
1990
Approved For Release 2000/08/0
sert
itself in this argument and
that
failing direct resolu-
tion with the NRC, resolution could be pursued through
scientific forums and journals.
The
President of the
Parapsychological
Association,
Inc.
.
Rich ard
S.
Broughto n,
also wrote
to chairman
Press, emphasizing what
he and
his
associates saw
as
bias in the selection of the committee and an attempt by
The"committee’s chair to suppress a positive evaluation of
a set of parapsychology studies. Upon what
it considered
an inadequate response from the NRC,
the association
published a lengthy report as a "Reply
to the National
Research Council Study on Parapsychology." That reply
was reviewed
in the The Chronicle of Higher Education
(Wheeler,
1988) and
in Omni magazine (Huyghe,
1989).
Similarly, R.A,
McConnell
of the
University of
Pitts-
burgh wrote Druckman and Swets and then mailed ex-
tensively a set of his materials, including his correspon-
dence
wiih
the NRC and
an
earlier
article by
him.
Colonel John Alexander (Ret.), one of the briefers at the
committee's
first meeting, challenged the
validity of its
report in the periodical New Realities (Alexander,
1989).
We should add that the NRC's executive office consis-
tently supported
the committee's conclusions
(and, we
understand, put off a potential donor as a result).
THE ARMY’S REACTION
Army
leadership was
initially concerned about
the
.early publicity, primarily the negative treatment by NBC
News. Concern was expressed to and within the army by
advocates of specific techniques that had received nega-
tive evaluations. Field leaders at
first showed limited
in-
terest.
largely
through
calls
by
users
or opponents
of
specific techniques. As time went on. the army received
favorable comments from several sources about the com-
mittee's report and the interest of field leaders increased.
One apparently influential event was Druckman’s brief-
ing of the army’s Human
Factors Technical Group
in
May
1988; another was the favorable mention of the re-
port
in the chief of staffs monthly newsletter.
In September
1988, Bjork. Druckman, Johnson, and
Swets went
to General Thurman’s headquarters
at Fort
Monroe, Virginia, to brief him on the study and to pro-
5. Colonel Alexander, who co-hosted the committee at Cleve Huck-
ster's laboratory test of the emotional responses!' Posner's leukocytes,
wrote
that the committee denigrated such
scientific research by men-
\(ioning also the scientifically unsupported ideas of psychic warfare and
Jpsychotronic weapons.
Meanwhile,
R.A.
McConnell
wrote
that
the
t committee's mention of Baekstcr's
research was an attempt
to
taint
legitimate research on parapsychology. We noticed
that
the
Partipsv-
chological Association.
Inc., did not collaborate with McConnell
in
its
complaint about the committee's report and that Robert Jahn chose to
keep Ids adverse reaction separate from that of the Parapsychological
Association,
Inc.
CIA-RQ^96-00789R002200650001 -6