Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
While the rank order correlation contrasting the top
five and bottom four
performers does not achieve
statistical significance,
it
is encouraging that the PAS correctly
identified two out of the three best performers.
The
failure to identify Viewer 137
is easily
attributed to lack of prior experience with ERU5 viewers.
Thus, the results tend more to
confirm than to disconfirm the FY 1984 PAS study.
Table
6 shows the PAS predictions for evidence of RV learning as measured
against actual evidence
for learning—i.e.
, each trainee’s learning-slope effect size as derived
from the
figure of merit slope p-values.
Table
PAS PREDICTION VS. EVIDENCE FOR VIEWER LEARING
PAS Prediction
Actual Viewer
Performance
Viewer
Profile
Prediction
Viewer
Number of
ID
ID
Sessions
(n)
891
IRA5
Most improvement
739
0.223
512
IRAS
928
0.213
928
ERU8
137
0.155
210
ERA 8
210*
0.082
739
ERUa
450
0.046
450
IRU4
891
-0.041
137
ERU5
176
-0.085
307
EFU5
r
307
-0.392
176
EFU6
Least improvement
512
-0.524
* PAS prediction coincides with the viewer's actual rank.
The PAS predictions concerning viewer learning are largely unsuccessful.
When the PAS predictions were forwarded to the SRI COTR, however, they were caveated
-
18 -
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
with the statement that evidence
for viewer learning
is the most difficult to predict, because
there
is no definitive evidence that the putative training procedures are actually training the
individuals.
Significant overall viewer performance may occur irrespective of training
procedures
(i.e.
,
a viewer may simply excel naturally) and
is therefore
less speculative.
MARS, therefore, expressed more confidence in
its overall viewer performance predictions—
a
confidence that appears to have been warranted given the relative success of the PAS as
evidenced in Table
5,
as compared to the relative lack of success as evidenced in Table
6.
4.
The Consistent PAS Traits
If the assumption
is made that the PAS shows promising predictive
ability in
identifying good remote viewers,* then there ought to be a meaningful distillation of good
remote viewing traits that the PAS has as
its basis for prediction.
Four such traits have been
identified to date:
1.
21 out of 25 good viewers, including seven of the eight stars, t are
classi-
fied by the PAS as Primitive R.
This appears to make sense in terms of
the signal-to-noise interpretation of the Primitive R/F dimension.
R in-
dividuals are persons who have learned that they can trust the reality of
whatever they do perceive.
At the same time, they should be prone to
make errors of omission rather than commission when seeking to de-
scribe a remote viewing target.
The exceptional case
is the one Primitive
F
star, but inasmuch as his/her reports are outstanding in their depth of
accurate
detail, his/her data reinforce the present interpretation.
2.
23 out of 25 good viewers, including
all eight of the stars, can be classi-
fied as Basic Level U (Role-Uniform primitive temperament) by the
PAS.
Essentially,
this means that they direct their attention inward
rather than outward—i.e.,
for whatever reason, they are not paying the
kind of attention to the external world that commonly leads to socially
effective behavior.
This
is an obvious aspect of social introversion.
3.
20 out of 25 good viewers, again including
all eight stars, can be
classi-
fied as Basic Level Internalizers by the PAS.
Interpretively,
this means
that they place the locus of “primary reality” internally—within their own
heads—rather than externally.
This subjective orientation
is shared by
two developmentally distinct groups—primitive Internalizers who have
been allowed to maintain this orientation, and Primitive Externalizers
who have been forced to reverse their natural orientation.
Both of these
“Good remote viewers" are indicated with
“ *
” or “1c" or
in Table 2.
+
“Star viewers” are indicated with “*
" or
in. Table 2.
- 19 -
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
developmental patterns are present in the data.
This
is a more subtle
aspect of introversion.
4.
All of the good viewers show more or less of an adaptation effect on the
PAS Time Estimation task.
The effect in question
is normatively rare
but not without precedent, and
is not routinely scored as part of the
PAS.
However,
it
is very reminiscent of Schmeidler’s (1982)
findings5
using the Eysenck Chained Time Reproduction procedure.
(Actually,
two of Schmeidler’s five gifted psychics are among our 25 good viewers.)
Both sets of findings make sense
if we
first observe that the two tasks
quickly lose their novelty and then assume that psi-gifted individuals’
sense of time
is “event driven,”
i.e.,
is readily slowed by boredom.*
B.
Correlations Between PAS Profiling and Self-Report Instruments
There are encouraging trends that suggest that important aspects of
psychoenergetic functioning can be predicted from the PAS, and there are also promising
indications that important aspects of self-report personality description
(i.e., the MBTI)f 6 can
be predicted from the PAS.
The latter proposition
is supported by the observation that there
is a most typical MBTI type for any given Reference Group.
Many of these specific
correspondences are
statistically significant with the available data, and they appear to be
theoretically sound.
This leads to the hypothesis that an instrument such as the MBTI could
be used as an efficient prescreening instrument—even prior to the administration of the
PAS—when searching for individuals with psi talent.
t
The task
is somewhat complicated, however, by two features of the data.
First, not
all good remote viewers come from the same PAS group.
Even
if,
for example,
precalibrated “superstar” viewers such as 002, 009, and 473 are categorized as “Ra”
(i.e.,
Primitive R and Fourth Dimension a), viewer 414
(also a superstar) does not belong in this
cluster.
Secondly, the PAS Reference Groups recognize significant within-group variability,
which
is typically strongly correlated with one or more of the MBTI dimensions.
This
is in
accordance with expectation: the MBTI tends to be a measure of the Jungian “persona,”
which corresponds to the PAS “contact level”
(i.e.,
level of modification), whereas the PAS
Reference Groups correspond more closely with the original PAS “basic level.”
This fourlh trait
is the most speculative of the group.
It has been included because
it
is an interesting
trend in the data.
A brief overview of the MBTI
is provided in the Appendix.
Preliminary results at the Psychophysical Research Laboratories (PRL) tend to support this hypothesis.
- 20 -
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Even viewers 002, 009, and 473,
for whom the data are complete, share only
one preference
(i.e.,
“Intuition”) on the MBTI, and even this could be a chance
result.
The
best guess
for viewer 414,
for whom the data are incomplete,
is that he/she
is an EFU3 and,
therefore, probably ESFJ according to the MBTI.
It
is also the case that viewers 002, 009,
and 473
all present MBTI patterns that are very atypical for IRUa, ERUa, and ERAa,
respectively.
At this point, no conventional scoring of the MBTI exists that would not
eliminate
at least one of the four precalibrated superstar viewers mentioned above.
This
would appear to be an unacceptable option.
Unconventional scoring of the MBTI remains a
possibility, but this can only be investigated in larger samples than are currently available.
- 21 -
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6