Approved For Release 2(^|f^0|A$Sl|P|fOO789ROO22OO38OOO1-6
SOC Reviewers’ Comments, Objective A, Task 3
(Pinal Technical Report, Enhanced Human Performance Investigation)
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
NAME:
Robert Morris
Comments:
1.
This
report
essentially
is
a summary
of the
other
reports.
It seems
a
fair,
accurate representation of the information contained in them.
Recommendation:
Yes
November
4,
1988
NAME:
Michael Wartell
Comments:
1.
Straightforward oversight
description.
I
still believe that even more emphasis
needs to be placed on screening and focus should be brought to bear on that in
the main.
Recommendation:
Yes
November
3,
1988
NAME:
Chris Zarafonetis
Comments:
1*
This
is a good summary/overview and review of progress to date.
The Program
objectives and
resources
are
delineated and progress noted
briefly
since the
study findings are given in detailed, specific reports which are also available and
reviewed by me.
Recommendation:
Yes
November
4,
1988
NAME:
Phil Zimbardo
Comments:
.
This
is an overview only;
it
is a clear, concise summary of research progress.
2.
See page
for grammar
error
(last paragraph,
line
4,
data
changed to data do).
does should be
3.
There
should
be
added
a
section
on
problems
of
conceptual/empirical problems facing the
staff.
interpretation,
Recommendation:
Yes
November
4,
1988
A-4
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6
Approved For Release
f^p0789R002200380001-6
SOC Reviewers’ Comments, Objective B, Task
(Mass Screening For Psychoenergetic Talent Using A Remote Viewing Task)
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
NAME:
Herb Ley
Comments:
1.
Research design and statistical protocol were appropriate to the goal of the study.
As noted under “Method
of Approach”
screening
of
large groups
of people
poses both logistical and support problems, but those problems must be faced,
perhaps with an accepted penalty of missing a group of persons with RV talent in
order
to
identify the
small proportion
of persons from the group who have
significant RV potential.
The analysis of the results of screening was clear, and
the conclusions,
i.e., the selection of two persons, followed from the analysis.
2.
The “yield” from this screening effort was two of 154 persons,
or 1.3%.
This
seems to be a small yield, but lacking any good measures of the distribution of
RV talent in the general population,
I have to accept
it.
I have two questions
which
I doubt can be
answered,
but,
rather,
than be
bashful,
I’ll
ask then
anyway.
Do you have any measure of whether the four groups of subjects were
more sympathetic to the RV concept than the general population?
Have you
considered taking two more persons of the selected group of
18 with the best
scores for further tests?
I understand and admit my motivation:
I would like to
see the
“yield”
increased,
if possible, and not discard persons with RV talent
that could be further developed.
Recommendation:
Yes
November
1, 1988
NAME:
Robert Morris
Comments:
1.
The research design seems clean.
I have noted some places where additional
procedural descriptions would help clarify things.
Data analysis and
statistical
protocols seem fine.
I think the overall procedure
is probably conservative and
may exclude some potentially good RV participants.
2.
I think group testing should be eliminated where possible.
It
is not known as a
psi-conducive environment
(see Honorton Meta-analysis report) and does not
resemble the later testing or performance circumstances.
Note that for the one
group where individual testing was used, the yield
is higher.
Recommendation:
Yes
November
4,
1988
A-
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6
Approved For Release 20())|^(p^/)f3^|p{pg0789R002200380001-6
NAME:
James Press
Comments:
1*
Explain what a “carefully constructed target pool”
is
(page
2., A.).
2.
What were the “independent
trials,” were they
different subjects
or
different
trials with the same subject (page
2., A,).
3.
The 28 combined
trials
(page
4)
are not mutually independent.
The 20 are
correlated
(since
they
are
performed
by
the same
subject)
and
the
are
correlated.
4.
The p-value of 0.007 (page 4)
is problematical because of both the dependence
and “the visual correspondence method of judging."
5.
It was not clear how many viewers
total we
started with from
all
groups, and
successively eliminated until 2 were
left with
“significant level of ability
at p =
0.05.”
The ram of finding good viewers should be a fundamental output of this
research, and you didn’t report
it.
Recommendation:
Yes
October 31, 1988
NAME:
Brian Skyrms
Comments:
1.
This is not really an experiment but rather a search for subjects for experiments.
Two
were
found.
(It had been hoped
that
a
larger
population
could
be
screened.)
They
should
now
be
used
as
subjects
in
tightly
controlled
experiments, to see
if the effect persists and
if
it can be enhanced.
Recommendation:
Yes
November
3,
1988
NAME:
Comments:
.
2.
3.
4.
5.
.
7.
Yervant Terzian
Page
1 - See underlines in
first paragraph.
Page
1, paragraph 2 - Tested
in controlled experiments?
Hard to talk about
“natural”
given
first sentence!
Page
4,
first paragraph - “Of the 28 combined...”
More.
Page
5,
first paragraph
- Pool
of people should not matter
if phenomena
is
“human”
related.
Page
5,
last
paragraph
-
Re.
“...some
distance
from
the
screening
auditorium,...”
How far?
Page
7, Table 2 - Ok.
More quantitative needed??
Maybe not.
Page
8,
4.
- Did
individuals
in second
stage do
as
well
(better?
worse?)
as
during stage one?
A-
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6