Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Final Report for Objective A, Task 4
(RV Evaluation)
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
NICK YARU
Exceptions:
None.
Comments:
Recommendations,
especially
In-House
Effort
are
logical,
intelligent
extensions of previous work.
Do more!
Recommendations:
I do.
11-7-86
MICHAEL A. WARTELL
Exceptions:
None.
Comments:
Time was too short to make adequate technical evaluation of this work.
I
agree with the approach taken and,
if mathematically
correct,
believe
that the formalism
is promising.
Recommendation:
Unable to comment on technical (mathematical)
issues.
11-7-86
S. JAMES PRESS
Exceptions:
Comments:
Page
Page
None.
General—Overall, the report presents an interesting & potentially useful
collection
of ideas & approaches
for evaluating RV experiments.
The
idea of calculating a
“figure
of merit”
is useful,
as
is the discussion of
vagueness
associated
with
trying
to
characterize what a
viewer
“sees,”
and what descriptor terms should be used.
Also useful
is the notion of
breaking down the “view”
into a small set of descriptors.
What the viewer
will see
if the
analyst were
to stand
in the middle
of
Golden Gate Bridge might or might not depend upon whether there were
fog that day or not, which could obscure the vision & the landscape.
Here
k
denotes
“response
number”
and
line
k
denotes
“target
number.”
Page
Here k denotes “session number.”
Page
(overview)—As
described,
the
assessment
of
an RV
response
is
subjective,
depending upon
the
analyst’s
interpretation
of
the
RV’s
picture.
I propose developing a descriptor
list with broad terms, & ask a
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Page
Page
Page
Comments:
Recommendation:
ROSS ADEY
Exceptions:
Comments:
remote viewer to complete a form with descriptor questions himself (no
intermediate analyst).
In advance the correct descriptor
list should be
defined.
Then,
a comparison
is easy &
is objective.
Section (b)
: Why should we do a regression analysis of “ figure of merit”
regressed on “session number?”
Unless we believe there
is learning from
experience
(increasing number of sessions), the slope of the regression
should be zero;
i.e., there should be no relation.
Bottom line:
The method developed by Fisher for combining p-values,
which
is
referred
to,
involves
combining p-values
from
independent
experiments.
But
here,
the
different
p-values
are
obtained
from
experiments
all carried out by the same person
(a
“single
viewer”), &
that
person’s
responses
must
all
be
correlated,
so
these
are
not
independent p-values. Why should we combine p-values at all? There is
much more
to
an
experiment
than
a
single
characterizing
value,
a
p-value.
There
are mean values
for
all subjects;
there
are standard
errors;
in
fact,
there
is
an
entire
distribution
for
all
outcomes
(replications) of the experiment.
The overall distribution
is much more
meaningful than just a p-value.
While the descriptors may be limited in ability, a
first step which would go
a long way,
is to
establish an RV
ability as a
fact, & not worry about
loosing the detail in the pictures as a viewer might be able to draw.
The
latter
is a much more complicated problem.
Let’s solve the simpler one
first.
The remote viewing project should be vigorously pursued.
The research
base should be expanded, & startling results should be clipped together &
a
file should be put together.
I do.
11-6-86
This study uses Figures of Merit (FM) and Mean Chance Expectations
(MCE) to evaluate RV.
These indices appear to offer no insights on the
sequence
of events
in RV
that was
a key development
in
earlier RV
research at SRI by Ingo Swann, et al.
Does the image build up, and if so,
how?
It
is not
clear how the present approach
will
establish anything
more than very rudimentary yardsticks about the
clear
reality
of RV.
Much wider acceptance
of
the
credibility
of
this phenomenon would
appear an imperative
goal.
This report cites but does not evaluate biases that may develop with this
protocol
relating
to development
of knowledge
(“learning”)
about the
pool of target images.
Use of Zadeh’s fuzzy sets in data analysis here requires justification. The
method is appropriate in
its assumptions about complexity, but cannot be
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
This
particular
report
does
evaluate
the
effects
of
development
of
knowledge from a number of known and unknown sources.
The end
result of the evaluation
is the MCE
line.
Lastly,
Dr. Adey questions our interest
in
fuzzy set theory.
Fuzzy set
technology
has
already
had
some
modest
success
in
environmental
psychology in describing natural scenes.
Our initial use of
it, however,
is
quite simplistic:
we will use
it to provide a continuous subjective scoring
of the response and target, whereas now the scoring is only binary.
As a
research issue, we believe we will improve the sensitivity of the descriptor
list technology by using fuzzy set theory.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Final Report for Objective C, Task 2
(Screening and Selection of Personnel:
The Personality Assessment
System—PAS)
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
PHIL ZIMBARDO
Exceptions:
Give traditional statistical information in rank correlation coefficients and
p-values.
See MS for places where elaboration/or justification
is requested.
Need more
information on
“
of
figure”
D.V.,
and
aspects
of
training—number of sessions
(duration,
task, feedback,
etc.).
Comments:
Well written report.
Good, concise overview of the PAS and personality
measures.
Can you
give
in
an
appendix
any more
information on how WAIS
subscores get used to form a PAS score,
i.e., one example.
A model selection and testing procedure.
I would state results as predicting 3/4 best and 1/3 worst cases and as 5/9
“hits.”
To answer Kiernan’s
criticisms, you need to
state SRI’s use of PAS
as
purely
an
empirically-based
screening
procedure
(without
buying
Saunder’s or Gittinger’s theory of personality).
Prediction about a fundamental perceptual difference between RV and
others.
Bit-map
training procedure
answers
remote
viewing
psychic
ability is one of bottom-up sensation process of just extracting elementary
signals from background noise; then combining,
integrating these simple
figures into ones of increasing detail and complexity, and
finally,
giving
the parts a whole framework, making them into a “percept.”
This is how
the
primitive
sensory
system
works,
but
is
quickly
over
ridden
by
perceptual-cognitive
top-down
processes
which
impose
structure,
meaning,
labels,
and
figures
on
elemental
stimuli ASAP
in
the
processing.
If the opposite
is true of good RV subjects, then
it should
follow
that
in
their everyday
functioning,
they
are more
likely
to be
“bottom-uppers” than “top-downers” (or less likely to be top-downers).
That
is, they should have more difficulty (than the norm group) or take
longer on
tasks
requiring
part ->
integration,
but
do
better
finding
embedded figures, or decomposing wholes into parts.
Just a prediction.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Recommendation:
I do.
ROSS ADEY
Exceptions:
None.
Comments:
None.
Recommendation:
None.
11 - 6-86
11 - 10-86
BEVERLY HUMPHREY
Response:
In the formal, edited version of the PAS report, statistical information for
viewer
performance
and
learning
will
be
presented
as
effect-size
estimates, Pearson’s
r,
rather than as p-values.
It was determined that
effect-size estimates appropriately take into account the number of trials
.that a viewer performed.
Detailed information on training methodologies and analysis procedures,
respectively, can be obtained
in the SRI FY 1986
reports, “A Remote
Viewing
Training
Methodology,”
(see
Reference
5)
and
“Remote
Viewing Evaluation Techniques.”
(See
Reference
1.)
It might be
of
interest
to note
that we
are
in
the
process
of
formulating hypotheses
about how
the
current
training procedures
(including
such
issues
as
duration, task, feedback, etc.) may only be effective for certain kinds of
cognitive
styles and not
for
others.
Exploratory work
is underway
to
“tailor” training procedures to the different cognitive styles of the various
PAS
Reference
Groups
that
have
shown promise
in
psychoenergetic
tasks.
The
psychometric
algorithms
used
to
generate
the PAS
profiles
are
proprietary to the subcontractor, MARS Measurement Associates.
It
is
likely, however,
that we can
enlist MARS’
cooperation
in providing
a
satisfactory overview of the PAS psychometric procedures,
as well as
a
model selection and testing procedure.
The PAS
is a highly complex system, and Kiernan’s criticisms are based
in large measure on lack of complete information about
it. A subsequent
meeting between Kiernan and Saunders has helped considerably to dispel
some
of
Kiernan’s
misconceptions
and
misgivings
about
the
PAS.
Further meetings are planned
for FY 1987
in an
effort to resolve any
possible remaining controversy.
I believe that all the researchers involved
in psychological screening technologies would support the opportunity to
collaborate on
a
formal
“position paper”
that would provide
a formal
evaluation of all methodologies (including the PAS) that are currently in
use.
A comparison
of perceptual
differences between remote
viewing and
other perceptual
modalities would be
a
very
interesting and important
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
undertaking.
The
PAS
program
is
anticipated
to
last
five
years;
presumably there
will be ample opportunity
to explore
these kinds
of
research issues.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
SOC Reviewers
Comments on Final Report for Objective C, Task 5
(Neuropsychological Assessment of Participants in Psychoenergetic Tasks)
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
PHIL ZIMBARDO
Exceptions:
Change title.
This is not neuro-psychological assessment, but a reanalysis
of PAS
in terms of different
criteria and suggestions
for
relationships
between RV good Ss and frontal lobe functioning.
Comments:
I would
like
to see
specific predictions made about neurophysiological
EEG measures of frontal lobe functioning and RV processing features of
RV “stars” and “no goods," & also hypotheses about differential frontal
lobe involvement in other psychoenergetic functions.
Recommendation:
1 d0 -
11-6-86
HERB LEY
Exceptions:
None.
Comments:
None.
Recommendation:
1 do -
11-6-86
PHIL SIDWE^L
Exceptions:
Strongly
recommend
pursuing
ideas
presented
in
this
paper.
An
alternative
approach
to
the
PAS
is
needed
to
determine
if
other
psychometric
batteries
can
successfully
identify
good
potential RV
candidates.
I agree with the author’s comments on the strong reliance on
a large number of cells or categories—96—my impression being that
it
is
much too cumbersome for practical-minded users to accept — I could be
wrong on
this, however.
Comments:
See Exceptions above.
Recommendation:
1 do
-
11-6-86
NEVIN LANTZ
Response:
In response to Dr. Zimbardo’s comment, the title of this report has been
changed
from
“Neuropsychological
Assessment
of
Participants
in
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
f
Psychoenergetic
Tasks”
to
“Neuropsychological
Exploration
of
Psychoenergetic Functioning.”
Regarding Dr. Zimbardo's additional comments,
his suggestions
will be
considered in experiments to be conducted in subsequent years. We will
be
exploring
central
nervous
system
correlates
of
psychoenergetic
function through the use of neuromagnetometry during FY 1987.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Final Report for Objective D, Task
(RV Training Methodology)
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
CHRIS ZARAFONETIS
Exceptions:
Comments:
None.
It would be helpful
if numbers were assigned to each protocol and
its
informed consent
statement, and
for
final
reports
to
include same
as
appendices.
The
final report should make a statement in
its summary
regarding any untoward events, their nature, etc.—or none during course
of the study.
(The Format of the report should include key points noted
in the protocol—number of participants, no. and kinds of tests,
etc.
Recommendation:
I do.
11-6-86
MICHAEL WARTELL
Exceptions:
None.
Comments:
Protocols appear to be far too complicated.
Simple experiments appear
to be possible using bit descriptions directly and should be pursued.
Data
is loosely presented and, what there
is,
is poorly analyzed.
Additionally,
procedures appear to be ineffective.
Recommendation:
I do.
11-6-86
PHIL SIDWELL
Exceptions:
Comments:
Recommendation:
This is a position paper by Gary Langford.
It presents his thinking, but is
not a research report.
I discussed with Scott Hubbard the need to add instrumentation (such as
EEG) to the RV session protocol to determine
if RV activity can be seen
simultaneously on an EEG,
etc.
I do not.
I would keep
it internal to SRI.
H_7_86
PHIL ZIMBARDO
Exceptions:
This
is flawed report—an informal experiential analysis of the variables
and
processes
that might
affect RV
Quality which
at
times
gives
the
impression
of
being
an
empirical,
scientific
assessment
of
training
effectiveness
An outcome - evaluation study remains to be done with
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
This conceptual approach was adopted for the following reasons:
•
If RA
exists,
it
is plausible to assume that a mental interaction with
matter might be mediated by electromagnetic
forces.
This assumption
is
partly based on many years of published claims in the parapsychological
literature that RA (more commonly known as psychokinesis or PK) can
affect electrical and mechanical apparatus.
•
An a-particle, consisting of two protons and two neutrons, represents an
extremely simple and well-understood electromagnetic target.
•
Macroscopic RA sensors (such as strain gauges)
are sensitive to many
influences such as mechanical vibration, acoustic energy, infrared
radiation, and electromagnetic
fields.
With a suitable vacuum
environment, the a-particle should be affected only by electromagnetic
and gravitational forces.
The four hardware elements that are crucial to this experiment are a suitable radioactive
source,
a position sensitive detector, an appropriate data acquisition system, and proper
environmental monitoring and conditions.
Figure B-2 shows a schematic layout of the entire
system.
Figure B-3 displays the actual hardware.
FIGURE B-2
SINGLE a-PARTICLE RA APPARATUS
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
FIGURE
B-3
HARDWARE SYSTEM FOR SINGLE a-PARTICLE RA EXPERIMENT
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4