- R000700610001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000° ppr ) A "Psychic Contest” Using a Computer-RNG Task In a . Non-Laboratory Setting Mario Pp, Varvogligs Interface-Psi Abstract An exploratory, computer-controlied RNG stud non~ laboratory Setting ang represented as & "psychic contest” is described, The Study was Undertaken to examine used to explore intentional or nonintentional Psi in the Setting of g "Psychic fair", Sixty two Subjects were Selected out of a larger Population, On the basis Of their Z-Sctre in a Preliminary Psi test, Subjects were allowed up to two Volition 9ames each; 118 games were Collected Over the three day period Of the fair. An equal number of “simulation*® games, in whith no Subjects were Present, was also COllected, In each game, both "“feedback* RNG Samples {determining the Progression Of the feedback display), "silent* Samples (Which do not affect the game’s feedback = . be I % n Oo 3 uu 3 ~ - D Qa 4:17 RRR IRREON ERE LET otaNRCe teen ecLtCRoEmaeNNED “ 3s o 3 » » 8nd Suggests the feasibility of Employing Well -standardized Computer PSi-tests for "field" investigations Of psi. 36 pS i - 000700610001-3 ed For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R Approv é me .
ie Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3 i‘ {introduction In the last decade, computerized psi tasks have become increasingly popular in research laboratories, gradually replacing the standard tools of prior generations, like Zener cards, dice, and stand-alone random number generators (RNGs). This trend is largely due to the fact that computers enable considerable experimental control, while introducing previously unimaginable flexibility in hypothesis testing and data analysis. Further, the trend toward computerized psi-tasks reflects a growing interest in inter-laboratory cooperation. The release of "Psilab II" (Berger & Honorton 19645 Psychophysical Research Laboratories (PRL), 1985), a standardized computer -RNG psi-testing system, has introduced a new level of sophistication in collaboration and + replication efforts. Gne major advantage of PsiLab II is : that, because of its standardization (e.9-, in hardware, 7 : data-collection protocols, and subject feedback), it allows a for systematic comparisons of results across different ; investigators and subject populations. Furthermore, because of its portability and built-in safeguards, PsiLab II can be considered a self-contained "laboratory", i-@., & transportable testing environment which can be taken outside the laboratory to potentially promising environments. The current study constitutes the first known attempt to utilize Psilab’s automated computer -RNG tasks under circumstances quite removed from those of laboratory research. The occasion was & 3-day conference in Montreal, where I had been invited to give talks on psi research. In addition to the formal presentations, there was a "psychic fair", with holistic health merchants, New Age artists, tarot-readers, palm-readers, astrologers, past-life regressors, and other colorful personalities. It seemed to be an interesting setting for a psi experiment, and, about a month prior to my arrival, I proposed creating a "psychic contest" for the fair. The organizers were overjoyed with the idea (thinking, no doubt, of the associated publicity) and agreed to rent out a sizable booth at a discount. The "contest" involved two tasks, each involving a separate computer. The first, a computer psi-game I created for the occasion, served aS @ screening/motivational device. The second, the “official” psi task, was PsiLab’s “Volition” game. Volition is a computer psi game experiment in which subject-initiated button presses sample the RNG. Each button press (run) samples 100-bits of RNG data which drive a graphic feedback display. Another 100-bits,; designated as "hidden" or "silent" data, are also sampled but not displayed to the subject who is blind to these data. I chose Me Volition partly because, from among several available 37 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
01-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R0007006100 choices, it seemed the easiest to explain, in a hurry, to a subject "off the street": and Partly because it has already been used in a humber of Studies, with some BUCCeSs. Prior research wit ] The first Volition study, conducted at Psychophysica} Research Laboratories CPRLJ (PRL, 1984) involved 20 Participants, each contributing 10 "games" (with 100 runs @ach containing 100 bits), Overall, there WaS ND evidence: for psi in the "feedback" Samples, but a Significant excess of subjects obtained independently Significant results in the "silent" data, The silent effects were non-directional: game outcomes deviated Significantly from Chance, but not consistently with the person's "aim", subjects, examining the effect Of different instructional sets (instructions emphasizing directional control vs. extremeness of scoring). Results from this study are difficult to interpret, due to the multiplicity of analyses undertaken, but the most salient finding seemed consistent with PRL results: Jame-score variance in the silent Samples Was relatively high with instructional Sets for “extreme” scoring, and relatively low When subjects were aiming for the “chance” line. based upon run-score Variability (rather than game-score removal of the experimenter’s data did not substantially Change the results. In the second study, in which the investigator was the only subject, Significant run-score variability was again found in the silent, but not the feedback Samples. These results with Volition replicated the results of two Carlier studies by Berger (1988), using Similar RNG Sampling procedures but based on a different feedback task (PsiLab’s "psj Invaders), In short, Volition has consistently shown some promise for eliciting hon-directional Silent data effects. Naturally, gJiven that many RNG-feedback Studies have demonstrated PSi effects. Does the mere existence of a Silent condition distract from the intentional task and invite *displacements"? Schechter (1987) reported data Supportive Of a "displacement" interpretation: individuals who tended to "miss" in the feedback task {i.e., to obtain end-results contrary to their chosen aim) tended to "hit? in the silent task, 38 01-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R0007006100
Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3 © dS yes Gn the other hand, it is also possible that silent effects i are, in fact, no more than experimenter effects. First, the 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 5 subjects’ psi performance. The reported Volition studies have been based upon intensive laboratory work with self-selected volunteers--people who have prior interest in 3 psi ¢and in psi research), and who are given a fair amount : of attention prior to, and during the testing (through repeated laboratory visits, interchanges with lab members, i extended task-explanations and demonstrations, etc.). Under 4 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 inspirational investigators and special interpersonal settings. The “psychic fair" Volition contest thus seemed to be a way to determine whether effects similar to those already 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 considered 100% “off the street" (not ina psychic fair'); still, 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, the market-place ambience of the “psychic fair", the necessarily brief (and business-like) subject-experimenter interactions, the concrete possibility of winning a prize, and, above all, the stiff price each person had to pay to have a shot at it! ves Subjects Because it was impossible to know, in advance, how 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 39 _ Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3
0610001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R00070 until Closing: time each day (i.e., 10:00 PM). Each subject would be allowed a maximum of two Volition games. Generally, Subjects either came purposefully to the testing booth, after having read notices for the Contest elsewhere in the fair, or wandered in, attracted by the crowds and/or the computer displays. In the three days of the fair, over 220 people Paid to take Part in the screening task. oF these, 62 Participants (information On gender breakdown was not retained) met screening Criteria, and were willing to Pay the extra tee to Participate in Volition. With the exception of one individual, who was a fellow psi researcher, none of the Participants had been formally tested for Psi (until then); of Course, many of them may have had Spontaneous experiences or tested themselves informally, but this was not explored, the "Sommet Esoterique* at the Velodrome Olympique of Montreal, Because the environment was Quite bright and area under the, "tent" Was about 12 meters square, The two Computers used were placed at right angles to @ach Other, on S@parate tables, with the color computer facing the Opening of the tent. Hardware weraware An Amiga 1000 with a color screen, a "mouse", two disk drives, and a 2 megabyte memory extension Was used for the Preliminary Screening task. For the Amiga, no hardware RNG WaS used; the random digits were based upon an algorithm, reseeded by the Computer’s clock, An Apple Ile with a Sreen/black screen, two disk drives, two “paddles®*® ang & printer was used for the Official PSi task, The source Of random digits for the Apple Psi task was a Psilab IT noise-based RNG, fitted into Slot 5 Of the Apple, This RNG had been given to the author in 1985 by PRL staff integrity tests, Safeguards (Such as shielding), and randomness checks is available elsewhere (Berger & Honorton, i 19845 PRL, 1985), 40 10001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R0007006
SoAppaeed For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3 Volition: In Psilab’s Volition test, subjects are provided with continuous visual feedback as to their cumulative RNG scores through a graphic line which moves across the screen, in short segments. Each time the subject presses the button of the Apple game paddle, a 100-bit RNG Sample is taken and compared to an alternating “target” bit streams this yields a run-score with a mean chance expectation of 50 and standard deviation of 5. The run-score is added to previous scores and the cumulative z-score calculated; this determines the direction (upward or downward) and slope of the new feedback-line segment. Thus, above chance scores tend to direct the feedback segment upwards, below chance downwards. With the help of trend lines demarcating chance, and plus and minus 2- and 3- standard-deviation thresholds, the evolving feedback line represents clearly the cumulative performance of the person at each moment. In parallel to the feedback RNG runs, each buttonpress results in a 100-sample silent run, as well. The designation of relative order (whether the first of the two samples is “feedback” or "silent") is alternated on a run by run basis. The Volition task used in the study was practically identical to that described in full in Berger & Honorton (1984), and Berger (1986). Only two differences were introduced. First, through the Design option, the game length was set at 20 100-sample RNG runs (in contrast to other investigators’ setting of 50 or 100 runs). Second, at the beginning of each game, subjects were only asked if they prefer "“Hi-aim® or “Lo-aim". They were not offered any other options for “tailoring” the feedback to their preferences; these options had been set previously (with "graphic designs" off, and all other options on). Buddha Game: The Buddha Game was written for the Amiga computer, in the C language, by a programmer who followed the author’s instructions. As in Volition, the subject’s buttonpress results in a series of random bits; the subject attempts to “sense” the right moment, so as to obtain the maximum run-score possible. Unlike Volition, however, the random bits are not obtained from a hardware RNG, but are derived from the built in Amiga random function, “reseeded" by a digit from the Amiga clock. Essentially, the game consists of a series of digitized images depicting a golden Buddha statue surrounded by an electric blue aura. Depending on the random score obtained, the buddha image either grows in size (giving the impression of an advance toward the user) and then turns clockwise, or turns counter-clockwise and then diminishes in size (giving the impression of a retreat). Accompanying these movements is a digitally sampled sound, vaguely resembling “Ahhhh”", which decreases in pitch with “advances” and increases in pitch with “retreats”. . 44 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000700610001-3 acolo sn maine ci dig nes ig imctdNUbARL pf Heg-
"ORE Rea, ‘i 0700610001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R00 At the beginning Of the game, the Buddha is POSitioned at the "mid-point; half way from the first and last images, Of the two eng POints. The complete game consists o¢ 22 buttonpresses runs). Following the last run, a sampled (digitized) Sound of Children laughing is heard, the screen 9068 blank, and the overall game z-score is displayed. At the time Of the fair, this program was not finished. No Procedure for entering subject names, or for storing subject Control runs, Thus, I decided in advance that this game’s outcomes Could not be USed to assess psi Performance; instead, they would Just serve as & motivational "Prop" for Volition, i.e., as a means for Persuading the Person that they are ready for the "real* test. i Procedure Procedure As it turned out, the Contest was the most popular eGevent of the fair, and Our booth was literally deluged with People Crowding around, Waiting for their chance to test their Psychic muscle, The UNnanticipated POPularity of the contest resulted in a a rather hectic atmosphere, Clearly removed from the Sanguine, Well-disciplined atmosphere Of the laboratory, Though an effort Was: made to keep the Bituation under Control, some variations in testing Conditions and ©xperimenter-subject interactions were inevitable, Ee eS Me am me AR oF rat ee a Upon arriving at the tent, People would Cither reag the posted explanations Of the Contest, or Would inquire further as to what’s 90ing on. IF 7z was momentarily available, 1 would briefly explain the general idea; Otherwise, I would direct individuals to the posted explanations, and ask them to await their turn, for more details. (No attempts were made to SsOlicit Participants; it Was. completely unnecessary, at any rate), In general, Volition was Presented as the “official” task to which Subjects had to "9raduate*: they first had to Participate in the Buddha game, and obtain a Minimum z-score of 1, in order to qualify for Volition. If interested, the person would pay the Cashier the fee for the Buddha game ($3.00), and a ticket would be 9iven, with the word "Buddha" and the corresponding fee written On it, 85 well as the Person’s name, address and phone number. The receipts were numbered, and &5 soon as one Participant 42 0700610001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/11 : CIA-RDP96-00792R00