Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : cS ReaRdi7b2R002200470001-6 (S/NF) Prior to FY 1986, little was known about how to select good viewers. There was little systematic research either at SRI or within the field in general, and what was available was inconclusive or contradictory. The effort that began in FY 1986 encompassed a broad approach to the problem. We initiated three different types of quantitative approaches: self-report personality tests, neuropsychological testing, and behavioral testing (i.e., the Personality Assessment System—PAS). In addition, we used one heuristic approach, which simply asked individuals to try remote viewing. (S/NF) The heuristic approach has been quite successful. The efficiency (i.e., the number of talented viewers found divided by the total number screened) is approximately 1% in the general population (i.e., groups of self-selected volunteers). Based upon the results of a mass screening effort, two individuals have been asked to be regular contributors to the project. (S/NF) One other heuristic source of good viewers is individuals who have noticed a psychoenergetic ability in their lives. Many viewers in group G/ came to the project in this manner, and a new viewer, claiming similar experiences, was identified in a recent screening effort. This viewer produced an effect size of 0.440 in 6 remote viewing trials, which contained many striking qualitative correspondences between targets and responses. (S/NF) Of the quantitative techniques, the neuropsychological approach was not successful at predicting performance. The PAS, however, predicted performance of 9 viewers to a significant degree. (S/NF) By far, the best way to select viewers as of this writing is to use individuals who either have abilities measured in other laboratories, or who have had strong personal experiences. (S/NF) One technique not mentioned above holds great promise for the future. Three individuals from group G/ who participated in a neurophysiological study of correlates with remote viewing produced unusually large central nervous system responses to light stimuli directed at the eyes. More work is needed to determine if this simple test might be the most effective way to screen for individuals with excellent remote viewing ability. SECRET Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : SIF-QUR9E-9o789R002200470001-6 2. (U) Targeting (S/NF) Targeting is a general term to describe the method by which a viewer is directed to the intended target. Common techniques that have been employed include the following: (1) Beacon—an individual at the site of the intended target. (2) Coordinates—the geographical or military coordinates of the intended target. (3) Abstract—a word or phrase (e.g.,“target”) or other abstract representation of the intended target. (4) Self—none of the above, the viewer initiates the collection of data. We examined these techniques in order to determine which provides the best access to a remote target. (S/NF) For these four targeting techniques, 183 trials were identified—the remainder, 13 trials, were listed as “unknown” targeting. The effect size for viewings initiated by these targeting techniques was 0.401, leading to a p value of 2.92 * 10-8. Thus, there is significant evidence for remote viewing functioning. The between-groups chi-square is significant (X@ = 12.58, v = 3; p < 0.0058), indicating that the effect sizes resulting from these targeting techniques are not drawn from the same population. (S/NF) It is difficult, however, to attribute the significant differences to targeting techniques alone. In none of the experiments could the targeting technique be used as a valid independent variable, because, in all cases, the viewers and experimenters were not blind to the targeting condition. Thus, it is possible, even likely, that the viewers’ scientific or emotional bias toward one technique or another confounds the interpretation. Other factors, such as feedback time and type, or potential physics models of information transfer, also confound the interpretation. (S/NF) Given these caveats, beacon targeting appears to provide the best and most stable results (n = 66, z = 5.305, p< 5.65 x 10-8, d = 0.653). 3. (U) Evaluation and Analysis (U) The evaluation and analysis of remote viewing data has undergone significant improvement during our 16 years of investigation. Beginning as a simple blind matching by judges, the techniques have been improved by the addition of concept analysis (the paraphrasing of a complex response), discrete descriptor analysis (defining targets and response as the yes/no answers to a predetermined set of descriptors), and fuzzy set descriptors (defining targets and responses as fuzzy sets). SECRET Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : SRO RPT’ 89R002200470001-6 (S/NF) The fuzzy set technique has also been applied to intelligence simulation experiments and found to provide a useful estimate of remote viewing accuracy (the percent of the intended target that was described correctly) and viewer reliability (the percent of the viewer’s response that was correct). (S/NF) For rapid evaluation of laboratory experiments, rank-order judging of targets within preselected (i.e., by fuzzy set techniques) target packets is recommended. For more accurate measures of remote viewing ability, however, the full fuzzy set analysis is suggested. Determining whether the fuzzy set technique can be applied to intelligence situations is a topic for further investigation. 4. (U) Training (S/NF) Six training efforts were conducted during the time period under consideration; three were qualitative and three were quantitative. There is no overall quantitative evidence that remote viewing can be taught to novice viewers. Of the qualitative efforts, two were conducted with client personnel as viewers, and one was conducted with SRI personnel. All three showed some qualitative evidence, however, that training improves remote viewing skill. (S/NF) Quantitative experiments were conducted with 18 novice viewers in three separate experiments comprising 481 trials. In the first group, the novices were self-selected on the basis of strong interest and previous personal experiences. None had participated in prior laboratory experiments. The six viewers in this group produced overall significant evidence for remote viewing (n = 169, z = 1.719, p < 0.043, d= 0.132). None of the viewers, however, individually or collectively demonstrated significant evidence that training helps a viewer to improve. (S/NF) The second group of 9 viewers was selected because the Personality Assessment System predicted that they would exhibit a wide range of remote viewing ability. Overall, their data did not reach statistical significance (n = 221, z= -0.971, p < 0.834, d = -0.065). While the best viewer produced an effect size of 0.170, none of the viewers’ data reached statistical significance. None of these viewers individually or collectively demonstrated significant evidence that training helps a viewer to improve. (S/NF) In the third group of 3 novice viewers, one demonstrated significant evidence for improvement (n = 26, z = 3.01, p < 0.0013, d= 0.590). (S/NF) While significant evidence for remote viewing has been observed, whether training can improve remote viewing skill has yet to be substantiated quantitatively. It is possible that knowledge has not yet advanced to the point where we know how to train. Since the data from viewers in group G/ have remained stable over time, we conclude that simple practice does not appear to improve performance. SECRET Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6