Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
Introduction
in the
Recede
ceeputerUed ^“^“'^SSIly
increasingly popul
.
rior
generations,
like
replacing the standard tools ^ ar
*
om
nulnber generators
Zener
cards,
dice,
*" d ,*™iv due to the
-fact that computers
(RNGs)
.
This trend
is
large
y
.
.
while
introducing
enable considerable ^fJJ^^h^ln ^po^elis testing
previously
ther
the trend
toward computerized
pst-?^s
are^ct; a growing interest
in
inter-laboratory
cooper at i on
The release
of
’PsiLab
II'
(Berger
h «°norton
198dl
Psychophysical Research Laboratories
(PRU^
l^9B5
>
tr oduced
standardized
cotl'bor^ion and
tor systematic comparisons
Furthermore,
because
nnW H?y^rb‘i??^
S
sL? gi^; ^siLab’ II can be
^ansportabte^test^ng^enWronmen^wh'ich can
be’ taken outside
the" laboratory
to potentially promising environments.
.
•en.rfv, mnstitutes
the first
known attempt
to
utt 1 i z^Psi lab^s^automated^computer-RNG tasksunjer
circumstances
quite removed from
conference
in Montreal,
ssr?J
h^n
c
t:ii .r;»\ £
: -t^rr^T^hic
tarot-readers,
palm-readers,
\ *
[
iaa*
it seemed
to
regressors,
and other colorfu
P
exDe riment,
and,
about
a
be
an
interesting setting for
a p*i
a -piychic
month prior
to my arrival,
I
P^°P®B®
overjoyed with
contest-
for
the fair.
The organizers were ovjy
the
idea
(thinking,
no doubt,
of
the asB°C
;
a
Ji° cEunt .
and agreed
to rent out
a sizable booth
at
a discount.
The
-contest-
involved
two tasks,
eachmiscreated for*the
computer.
The first,
a computer
psi -game
I
ci
^Je^ice!
The
occasion,
served as
a screening/m
"Volition-
second,
the
-official-
psi
task,
was P*lL*b*Vo\l*ion
game.
Volition
is a computer
psi
^ame experiment
In whi
subj ect-init iated button presses “"Si?-
i
Jrlle
a
press
(run)
samples
100-bits of
RN
bits
designated as
graphic feedback display.
Another
100-bits,
designate
-hiSden-
or
-silent-
data,
are
« »
a
e fd^.
I chose
displayed to the subject who
is blin
f
"?
avau able
Volition partly because,
from among several
Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
tD
fT
XP
i
ain '
ln
a 'hu”y,
to
a
been used
in
a number
of
studies' ^
ntlcell
"***>
frior researc h_with Voiitjrm
.•* Pm >'ch‘>Physical
participants,
each
J PRL >
19841
Involved
each containing
iSo bltL)
JiH?.}?
"??mee "
lMith
1°0 runs
for
psi
in the Msedback’'sf»M!l V
t
.
h*re "" BO »vidence
Of
subjects obtained
i *rf£»r,
Ba
!?
Pl f?’
but
a
Bi 9nificant excess
the
-silent-
datl? ? h l sUan^]*
leant results
in
game outcomes deviated significant5!V
#r# "°"- d * rect ional
consistently with
the pylon's
-aJm-.
"* ChanC *'
but
<
ihS
'i*j«?
r
o5
d
d?#y°
1 1
on Btudy with 30
sets
(instructions emphisizino
/it
di f* erent
instructional
extremeness of
scortnS)
mI?*! I***
1 ??* 1
cont^l
vs.
difficult
to
interpret
du!
fi ?K
frDTn thiB Btudy
undertaken,
but
the most salient fin^
PliCity
°
anal yBBB
with PRL results:
game-senr**
v, a «i* lndln9 Beemed consistent
was relatively high with
instrn
+fnCe
»
ln
the silent samples
scoring,
and
relatively
low wh^ ^K®
f* tB
* Dr
"^treme-
the
"chance-
line.
n
subjects were aiming for
based
D
upon°run-score
U
varTabi
P
ty^T
d
l*
<1988)
’
and
variance)
produced conceptual ly^iwf^®''
than ^ame-score
+ irst,
involving
10 sub?ec?s
,?
* !"*
ar
In the
significant
run score variabiiit
lud ing
the
investigator
)
data,
whereas
no effect was evident*?
ob
Jained
in the silent
removal
of
the experimenter 9 * dff
the feed back data}
change
the
results.
In
ths sJen!^* ?*?
n0t Bubstantial ly
investigator was the only =!!
Bt “dy *
in which
the
variability was again found
i * fJl !
?
ni f icfnt run-score
feedback samples. V^tT.L
ts 2M! £??{,
bU ‘
"0t
the
results
of
two earlier studii.
w
»
Volition replicated
the
dlmilar RNG sampling ^procedurl. a ?®r 9,,r
<19881
'
usi "9
feedback
task
CP.il.2b?, ”2? “vS5irS“
° n
*
<“ tterent
e?u??^4 "2“2S“cu2„2r;n222
t
d
l
2 t
Bho^
pro"' i« for
fiven
that many RNG-fledba?k '??.?,? ata effects.
Naturally,
intentional
pai,
one uondera
B®ve demonstrated
epecial
about Volition
(and „^ Ufr ther*
is something
silent- condition?
fT"" Whic:h ‘"“'“"e *
psi
effects.
Does
the me?e
ly
,.
nvIt*s “"intentional
distract
from the
intentional*?? I!"
* silent condition
displacements-? Sc2?2£?2? n 9?;?‘
,
,,
and
ot
a -displacement-
l2t.?2r2{Ifrin? ????'?. <Ut* *“PP°"tiv.
to
-miss-
in
the feedback^?
!?
ln? Ivl4“» 1 » "ho tended
contrary
to their chosen
Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
On
the other
hand,
it
is also possible
that silent e++ects
are,
in
-fact,
no more than experimenter effects.
Fir*}'
tne
investigators’
own
psi
could
be shaping the silent data
during the session
(through psi-mediated data sorting or
through
“conformance behavior"),
or retroactively
(as
suggested
by Observational
Theories).
Alternatively,
the
investigators’
expectations may create tacit
"demand
characteristics"
in
the study,
which unconsciously
influence
subjects’
psi
performance.
The reported Volition studies
have been based upon
intensive
laboratory work with
self-selected volunteers--people who have prior
interest
in
psi
(and
in
psi
research),
and
whoi are given
a fair amount
of
attention
prior
to,
and during the testing
(through
repeated
laboratory visits,
interchanges with
lab members,
extended task-explanations and demonstrations,
etc.).
Under
such circumstances,
it
is plausible
to believe
that subjects
might simply
"give
the experimenter what
he wants
-
if
not
feedback effects,
at
least silent effects.
The question
of
the experimenter’s role
is particularly
pertinent when
it
comes
to automated
tasks
like Volition.
Such tasks hold
promise
as self-contained,
experimenter-
independent
procedures.
But
to be used
in
this manner,
they
must be motivationally
(and
not
just methodologically)
self
contained}
they cannot
depend
too much upon
inspirations,
investigators and special
interpersonal
settings.
The
"psychic
fair"
Volition contest
thus seemed
to be
a way
to determine whether effects similar
to those alrea y
reported would
be obtained
in situations
in which
individuals’
motives for participation and
interactions with
the
investigator
are
quite different from those typical
of
laboratory research.
Though participants would still
interact with
the
investigator,
and could
not be considere
100%
"off
the street"
(not
in
a psychic fair.), B1
*
*
several
factors rendered
the setting much closer
to the
•real
world"
than
to the world
of
the
laboratory.
To mention
a few:
the billing of
the
psi
test
as
a contest,
****
..
market-place ambience of
the
"psychic
fair",
the necessarily
brief
(and business-like)
subject-experimenter
interactions,
the concrete possibility
of winning
a prize,
and,
the stiff
price each
person
had
to pay to have
a shot
at
i
.
Subjects,
Because
it was
impossible to know,
in advance,
^ow many
individuals would be drawn
to the
"contest
,
and how many
would meet
the screening criteria set,
the number
of
subjects could
not be defined
in advance
(though
an upper
limit
of
100 subjects was set).
To avoid accusations of
"optional
stopping",
the
limits of
the experiment were
defined
temporally:
it was decided
to run
all
subjects
meeting the screening criteria,
from the opening of
the fair
Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
Mppruveu rur
^uuu/uo/
i
i
. UH-nurao-uu/ ^r\uuu/ uuo iuuu i-o
until
closing time earn
j,
,
.
"ou,d be allowed
.
subje“
reaS^oU«, P^°^ u “>’ “>
**>• testing
*$•££& ^;^::
ei^err
ctr
220 people paid
to tli.
p a^*,‘ h:r? dayB °*
the f.ir,
over
these,
62 participants IlnloMsaH^ screening task.
Of
Sav rr
aln
r
d ’
",et •cr.ening ^riir?.
0 n.»r
d ' r
brei,<d °“" ««
pay the extra fee
to oarticinJ-
.
/.
f
d were willing to
exception
of
one
InJiSriii?
1^: ir Vol
? tlon -
With
th!
°
researcher,
none
of
the L hh?
fS
?
* ell °w
P*i
tested
for
p5 i
(until
then)!
n
P?™
S
h&d been
* Dr">ally
have
had spontaneous
experienr-!,
fe ’
man >'
of
them may
intormal ly,
but
thiB ^Hot "p.^ed
Ste<l the">sa'«B
Setting
The experiment
took niaro
the
"Sommet EsoteM qSe-“t
? h
b"!L?Y
he b°°ths
“P tor
Montreal.
Because
the environment
°me
01 Wique
of
noisy,
a special
tent wa! co!!!!*
quite bright
and
closing
in
the testing area
Wlth dark
fabrics,
"" Under
th *
’tent-
was about u'UlUVs^r!? ^
Th *
other,
on s^patlte^bl!!^^ ^th
&t
ri9ht
an9 les
to each
the opening of
the
tent.
’
th
th* color' computer facing
Hard ware
-MCr:r.is°2
a
d i6k
was
isedt
r
t h SCreenin9 task -
For the^miga
W3S ****
f ° r
the
reseeded * by ^the^ompu ter * 8% Toe k.
baSed
i^° nr
'
an
^
a !sor i thm^
-paddfe^
I
Itd
W
^prfnte^wa^u^L
S^
een ’
tW° disk drives,
tw
The source of
random digit! !!!
f,!° r
A the ^Ticial
psi
tisk.
S!
1^
1 noise-based
RNG,
fitted*** ?PPi e
pSi
task was
a
T
!f S RNG had bee n given
to
the
=
4.i[ nto Slot
5 °f
the Apple
after having passed
a Lltery
^
in
1985 b* PRL »t!ff f
°nt%
r
^i‘?y
n -
t ?ErtaUed
pr°p* r
randomness checks'is^avai lablYel
as shield ingl
,
“and*"
1984!
PRL,
1985).
avai l*ble elsewhere
(Berger
fc Honorton,
Approved For Release 2000/08/11
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3