Approved For Release 2003/01/09
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200480001-5
Table
STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR INFORMATIONAL CATEGORIES
Category
Perspective
n
z
p*
d
Forced-Choice
All
19,675
7.42
6.12
(-14)
0.052
Gl
9,487
5.82
2.92
(-09)
0.060
All-Gl
10,188
4.69
1.39
(-06)
0.046
RV-Lab
All
966
6.49
4.33
(-11)
0.209
Gl
196
5.39
3.49
(-08)
0.385
All-Gl
770
4.55
2.71
(-06)
0.164
RV-Ops
All
3.98
3.45
(-05)
1.326
Gl
3.98
3.45
(-05)
1.326
All-Gl
—
—
—
—
RV-Search
All
3,790
2.61
4.53
(-03)
0.042
Gl
—
—
—
—
All-Gl
3,790
2.61
4.53
(-03)
0.042
Powers-of-ten are shown
in parentheses.
For
the RV-Lab
category,
the
experienced
group,
Cl
,
performs
significantly
better than the novice,
larger group (X2 =
7.63,
v =
1; p < 0.0057).
As in the overall analysis, the data analyzed in Table 3 show a large heterogeneity
of effect
size
within each
category.
The heterogeneity
of effect
size, however,
is
significantly
reduced for the experienced subjects in the RV-Lab category.
This reduction may result from a
more
uniform
skill
level
of
the
subjects
in
group
GJ\
this
is
in
general agreement
with
our
qualitative assessment of their
abilities.
Only 8.5%
of the remote
viewing operational
trials were analyzed
as
a
formal
experiment.
The
effect
size
for
these
exceeds
Cohen’s
definition
of
a
large
effect.
The
intelligence requirements of operational remote viewing, however,
are
less dependent upon the
quality of the viewing than they may be on
other
factors.
Excellent remote viewing does not
necessarily imply good intelligence information.
Because
of
the
usual
sensitivities
associated
with
intelligence
data,
obtaining
evaluations of the operational remote viewing has continued to be
difficult.
Approved For Release 2003/01/09
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200480001-5
Approved For Release 2003/01/09
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200480001-5
In the RV-Search category, 91.3% of the data were collected under laboratory
conditions
by
novice
subjects.
The
remaining
trials
were
conducted
under
conditions,
and
analysis
is
not
available.
The
small
effect
size
(d =
0.042)
is
commensurate with that found
in other laboratories, and may reflect our lack of understanding
about how to
elicit this form of psychoenergetic functioning.
C.
Specific Results for Remote Viewing
In this section we address the specific questions posed in the SOW.
In any kind of an
investigation where the general results
fall under a statistical regime
(i.e., z scores less than about
5), no hard definitions exist for definitive conclusions.
The problem
is confounded in behavioral
science because many
factors,
beyond
the
particular independent
variable
in
question, may
significantly alter the outcome of an experiment.
In trying to assess a large body of literature, as
more constraints are placed on the outcomes, fewer within-group trials are available for analysis;
thus,
statistical conclusions become more difficult.
This
is also true for psychoenergetic research.
Yet,, it
is possible to describe trends, to suggest ways of improving experiments based upon earlier
results, and
to obtain
clear insights into factors that may
affect psychoenergetic functioning.
To ensure the most reliable interpretations of results in what follows below, group
Cl
has been used
for the
quantitative
discussion.
As was shown
in Section V.-B,
this group
possessed
the
most homogeneous
set
of
data
for
the RV-Lab
category and
demonstrated
a
significant amount of remote viewing
ability.
1.
Selection/Screening
The selection of individuals who are able to accomplish remote viewing both
in an
operational
setting and
in
the
laboratory
is
of paramount importance.
As
is shown
in
Section
V.-B.,
above,
group G1
provides the
best
results
for both
types
of remote
viewing.
Throughout
the
history
of the program
at
SRI,
individuals have been
able
to demonstrate
consistent
functioning over
a
long period
of
time.
This
does
not mean
that,
after vigorous
searching,
only
6 have been found.
Rather, given our applications-oriented charter for most of
the time
period
in
question, we had
little impetus
to
find
other
viewers.
During
fiscal
years
1986-1988,
it became
clear
that
a
greater number
of talented
viewers was needed
for both
applications and research.
Approved For Release 2003/01/09
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200480001-5
Approved For Release 2003/01/09
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200480001-5
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.
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.
One other heuristic source of good viewers
is individuals who have noticed a
psychoenergetic
ability
in
their
lives.
Many
viewers
in group Cl 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.
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.
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.
One
technique
not mentioned above
holds
great promise
for
the
future.
Three individuals from group G1 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.
Approved For Release 2003/01/09
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200480001-5