Approved For Release 20
00789R002200670001 -4
SOC Reviewers’ Comments, Objective F, Task
(Applications Of Fuzzy Sets To Remote Viewing Analysis)
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
NAME:
Robert Morris
Comments:
This is a statistical protocol and analysis tool which seems to me an excellent step
forward, producing a
flexible tool albeit with
a
lot of initial
effort.
Recommendation:
Yes
November
4,
1988
NAME:
Brian Skyrms
Comments:
1.
More theoretical work needed here.
Recommendation:
Yes
November
3,
1988
NAME:
Mike Wartell
Comments:
1.
This approach appears to be a good attempt to solve the problem
at hand, but
refinement
is
critical, and the approach needs to be extended.
Recommendation:
Yes
November
4, 1988
NAME:
Phil Zimbardo
Comments:
1.
This continues to be one of the most promising developments from this project.
It has widespread applications across many disciplines and data domains.
The
work to date
is conceptually creative, thorough, insightful and clearly focused on
operational utility.
This should remain a high priority item for FY 89.
(Iam not
qualified to assess the mathematical component of this analysis).
2.
See page 8 - grammar.
3.
Agree with conclusion
2, page
8.
4.
Agree with conclusion
4 - who
is that person?
Recommendation:
Yes
November
4,
1988
A-23
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200670001-4
Approved For Release 200yEL^n789R002200670001 -4
SOC Reviewers’ Comments, Objective
I, Task
(Meta-Analysis of Forced-Choice Precognition Experiments)
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
NAME:
Robert Morris
Comments:
This report is a valuable application of meta-analytic techniques to an important
body of data.
Its extension to assessing favorable conditions and flaw analysis is
very important.
The
author
should
describe
the
basis
for
declaring
that
a
given
study
is
a
precognition study and warrants
its inclusion.
He should
also
clarify on what
basis he decided that experimenter’s expectation was for psi missing as opposed
to chance
or merely
less positive
results
for condition B
versus condition A.
There are some additional analyses that now could be done on these data, and
they are noted in the margins.
The data amendable to IDS interpretation could
also be added.
Recommendation:
Yes
November
4,
1988
NAME:
James Press
Comments:
A great deal of effort has been extended in this endeavor.
Mean 3 scores are
reported, and Std Dev from the mean which
is more than three times the mean,
so the mean doesn’t look very impressive.
Moreover, no standard deviations are
given for the various studies, nor other measures of the distribution of results in
the various
studies.
Only the mean 3 score
is given.
An effort was made to
study
quality”
of the
studies
(page
13), and each study was
giving
a
quality
rating.
But all studies were jointly evaluated in the meta analysis, good and bad,
so what s the conclusion?
What does
it mean to merge results of good and bad
studies?
Hard to evaluate this in available time.
Recommendation:
Yes
November
4,
1988
NAME:
Brian Skyrms
Comments:
1.
A careful review of the literature, but I’m not sure what
it proves.
What
is the
real theoretical status of the
“quality rating”?
Recommendation:
Yes
November
3,
1988
A-24
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200670001-4