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. Asa research issue, we believe we will improve the sensitivity of the descriptor list technology by using fuzzy set theory. 43 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 PHIL ZIMBARDO Exceptions: Comments: System-~PAS) (verbatim transcription——not edited) 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.). 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. 44 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4 Recommendation: I do. 11-6-86 ROSS ADEY Exceptions: None. Comments: None. Recommendation: None. , 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 45 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. 46 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) PHIL ZIMBARDO Exceptions: Comments: Recommendation: HERB LEY Exceptions: Comments: Recommendation: PHIL SIDWELL Exceptions: Comments: Recommendation: NEVIN LANTZ Response: Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4 (verbatim transcription--not edited) Change title. This is nor 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. 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. I do. 11-6-86 None. None. I do. 11-6-86 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--9 6--my impression being that it is much too cumbersome for practical-minded users to accept -~I could be wrong on this, however. See Exceptions above. I do. 11-6~-86 In response to Dr. Zimbardo’s comment, the title of this report has been changed from “Neuropsychological Assessment of Participants in 47