d For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Final Report- -Objective
C,
Task 2
December
1986
Covering
the
Period
October
1985
to 30 September
1986
SCREENING AND SELECTION OF PERSONNEL:
THE PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (PAS)
By:
BEVERLY
S. HUMPHREY
DAVID
R. SAUNDERS
NEVIN
D. LANTZ
MARS Measurement
Associates
SRI
International
Prepared
for:
PETER
J. McNELIS, DSW
CONTRACTING OFFICER'S TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE
CONTRACT DAMD
17-85-C-5130
SRI
Project
1291
Approved by:
ROBERT S. LEONARD, Executive Director
Geoscience and Engineering Center
This document
consists of 29 pages.
-SRI/GF-02H3
s-mmi PR i-^
333 Ravenswood Avenue
•
Menlo
Park,
California
9402(5
•
U.S.A.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
ABSTRACT
In the continuation of a promising FY 1984
effort, the development of remote
viewing (RV)
subject selection criteria has continued to center, primarily, on
performance-based psychological testing and secondarily, on the use of self-report
instruments.
The particular performance battery that was used both in this study and in the
earlier FY 1984 study
is the Personality Assessment System (PAS).
The PAS provides a
comprehensive interpretive framework for profiles of subtest performances that have been
generated by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS).
The principal self-report test
under examination
is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
.
A subject pool of 95 candidates, who had completed the PAS and the self-report
tests, was created by the end of FY 1986.
On the basis of hypotheses formed from the
previous FY 1984
effort, nine participants were selected from the pool of new candidates for
inclusion
in SRI International’s novice RV training group. A protocol was established to
maintain SRI control over subject anonymity and to ensure that
all participants involved in the
PAS/self-report testbed remained blind to the predictive
criteria.
At the conclusion of the FY 1986 novice RV training program, the predictive
ability of the PAS was assessed.
Results indicate that the PAS provided a conceptual
replication of the earlier FY 1984 PAS
effort,
i.e.,
in the earlier study, the PAS was used
successfully to predict the top performer out of each of three different training groups.
In FY
1986 the PAS was used effectively to predict two out of the top three performers in a single
training group.
*
ii
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
ii
LIST OF TABLES
I
INTRODUCTION
II
METHOD OF APPROACH
A.
Overview of the PAS
1.
The Fundamental Principle
2.
The Role of the WAIS
3.
The Role of Reference Groups
B.
The FY 1986 PAS Program
1.
Overall Hypotheses
2.
Protocol for Subject Selection
HI
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A.
Results of the PAS Program
1.
Selection of Novice RV Training Participants
2.
Prediction Criteria
3.
Results of Predictions: Correlations Between RV Performance
and PAS Profiling
4.
The Consistent PAS Traits
B.
Correlations Between PAS Profiling and Self-Report Instruments
IV
CONCLUSIONS
APPENDIX-BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR (MBTI)
REFERENCES
iv
.
.
iii
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
LIST OF TABLES
Tentative Names
for 96 PAS Reference Groups
Distribution of Precalibrated Remote Viewers as of Subject Selection
Distribution of 49 Cases in the SRI Subject Pool as of Subject Selection
Changes in PAS Assignments
PAS Prediction vs. Actual Viewer Performance
PAS Prediction
vs. Evidence
for Viewer Learning
iv
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
I
INTRODUCTION
Self-report personality inventories* provide the most commonly used measurement
approach in psychological practice, not because inventories have proven able to deal with
every situation, but because they are convenient to administer and often provide a reasonable
“return on investment,”
(the latter being measured in terms of subject time plus cost of
administration and scoring). A wide. variety of inventories are on the market, most of which
are more or less tailored for specific applications.
Among the general-purpose inventories,
the Eysenck Personality Inventory, the 16PF Questionnaire, and the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI) have previously been used in psychoenergetic studies, but with only modest
success.
The assessment of personality through performance measurement
is relatively less
common in psychological practice; the relevant techniques are frequently not even taught, are
relatively time-consuming at best, and are viewed with skepticism by many practitioners.
In
this connection, although there
is certainly room to improve the prevailing interpretive
methodologies, there
is substantial evidence that performance assessment of individuals often
elicits important information about their personality that otherwise may be
difficult to obtain.
Two personality measurement approaches not systematically employed in this study
are “behavior ratings” and “indirect assessment.”
“Behavior ratings”
are often easy to obtain,
but they are very difficult to objectify
(i.e., to eliminate the effect of interjudge differences)
and are rarely able to achieve
fine distinctions.
“Indirect assessment”
refers to the possibility
of inferring personality from the work products of target individuals, such as their paintings or
speeches or decisions;
in connection with remote viewing (RV),
this
is
still a
strictly theoretical
possibility.
Our decision to study both self-report and performance measurement of
personality, each having potential advantages and disadvantages, may ultimately lead to a
two-stage screening process:
a
first stage employing self-report techniques and seeking simply
to identify promising candidates for second-stage screening; and a second stage employing the
This report constitutes Objective C, Task 2,
detailing the current use of psychological instruments in
predicting psychoenergetic performance.
-
1 -
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
more labor-intensive performance measurement methodology, but aiming to isolate promising
candidates
for serious training.
The particular performance measurement chosen was the Personality Assessment
System (PAS).
The PAS
is a comprehensive interpretive framework for profiles of subtest
performances that have been generated by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS).
In
an FY 1984 SRI study,
1 *
the PAS was used successfully to predict the top RV performer in
each of three different training groups.
The study reported here represents an attempt at
replication of that earlier work.
*
References can be found at the end of this document.
- 2 -
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
II METHOD OF APPROACH
A.
Overview of the PAS
1-
The Fundamental Principle
The fundamental basis of the PAS resides in the premise that every individual
can be characterized by a distinctive profile of measurable
abilities—some
abilities more or
less developed and others more or less latent.
The individual differences in behavior that
psychologists
call “personality” can be derived from this profile simply by recognizing that
it
is
easiest for individuals to try to capitalize on their, strengths and to avoid their weaknesses.
The term “cognitive style” may be suggestive
in' this context.
For example, people who perceive analytically, rather than in holistic patterns
(or Gestalts), tend to perform better on certain standardized spatial tasks.
In “real world”
situations, however,
their natural reliance on structure
is helpful only in certain situations and
is likely to prove a
liability in others—e.g.,
in picking up subtle interpersonal cues.
This
particular trait might be viewed as a signal-to-noise bias.
Analytical perceivers can only
recognize the stimulus when the signal-to-noise ratio
is high; they avoid false signals at the
expense of frequently
failing to recognize true
signals.
Gestalt perceivers, on the other hand,
avoid missing anything, but frequently misinterpret noise as
if
it were true
signal.
While no one or two dimensions can realistically hope to elucidate human
personality, the
12 appropriately diverse measures of the PAS begin to afford a realistic
picture of what happens as individuals endeavor to exploit their assets and to minimize their
liabilities.
2.
The Role of the WAIS
Most PAS practitioners regard the PAS as a theory that can be
operationalized in more than one way—i.e., the concepts are seen as transcending particular
measurement tools or methodologies.
Clinical observation and self-report questionnaires are
potentially legitimate sources of PAS data.
However, the nature of the PAS theory and
its
- 3 -
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
constructs suggests that actual performance measurements ought to provide the most efficient
data.
Thus,
the subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
(i.e., WAIS or WISC)
comprise
a convenient battery and provide the most commonly used input data.
The PAS,
therefore,
consists of 10 of the
11 conventional Wechsler tests* and two additional subtests,
Color Naming and Time Estimation.
3.
The Role of Reference Groups
The PAS
is most easily understood within the concept of “Reference
Groups.’
In the current evolution of the PAS, 96 Reference Groups serve to encompass a
possible 4,096 combinations; these comprise a relatively manageable number of meaningful
families of patterns
(i.e.,
profiles)
that can be generated from the extended WAIS.
When the
data are clustered in this fashion, there
is
still an important amount of within-group
variability.
It
is necessary to master the between-group variability
first, however, because the
psychological “meaning”
of the same operational measurement can vary considerably from one
Reference Group to another.
It
is a
relatively defendable approach to apply conventional
linear correlation or regression analysis on a within-group basis but not on a between-group
basis.
The 96 groups can be arranged
in a table
(see Table
1) that serves to
highlight the most important relationships among them.
The
first salient observation
is that 96
is exactly
3 x 4 x
8,
i.e., each Reference Group represents a combination of one of three
“problem-solving styles"
with one of four patterns of “brain-hemispheric development” and
one of eight
“primitive temperaments.”
Each group can be defined operationally by specifying
a
list of real individuals
as exemplars; the test data derived from these exemplars are then
reduced to a convenient “key” by which a computerized procedure
is able to determine the
relative
similarity of various individuals to one group, or to determine the relative similarity of
one individual to various groups. f
Each group has also been given a name, which
is easier to
remember than the key, but which
is in no sense a replacement for the key or
its underlying
list of exemplars.
The greatest difficulty
is in generating and refining the
lists of exemplars.
The Wechsler tests used in the PAS include Digit Span, Arithmetic, Information, Block Design,
Similarities, Comprehension,
Picture Arrangement,
Picture completion, Object Assembly, and Digit Symbol
(the vocabulary test
is not used).
It
is beyond the scope of this discussion to provide the details of the computerized psychometric analysis.
- 4 -
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Table
TENTATIVE NAMES FOR 96 PAS REFERENCE GROUPS
Teacher
(5)
Conservator
PRO-ACTIVE
Programmer
(5)
Iconoclast
Acolyte
(5)
Physician
Philosopher
(5)
Mediator
Coach
(4)
Nurturant
Manager
(6)
Pragmatist
Specialist
(4)
Consultant
Exemplar
(6)
Technician
Individualist
(4)
Counselor
Professional
(6)
Tactician
Pastor
(4)
Catalyst
Auditor
(6)
Analyst
Disciple
(a)
Dogmatist
Mystic
(a)
Sophist
Dedicated
(a)
Aristocrat
Puritan
(a)
Spartan
POLY-ACTIVE
Showman
(3)
Booster
Performer
(3)
Volunteer
Devotee
(3)
Entertainer
Director
(3)
Player
Seeker
(8)
Theorist
Dilettante
(8)
Activist
Voyeur
(8)
Perceiver
Naturalist
(8)
Spectator
Implementer
(7)
Aide
Organizer
(7)
Leader
Advocate
(7)
Entrepreneur
Politician
(7)
Salesman
Exhibitionist
(b)
Empiricist
Enthusiast
(b)
Chameleon
Perverse
(b)
Polymorph
Chauvinist
(b)
Speculum
RE-ACTIVE
Authoritarian
(9)
Achiever
Obsessive
(9)
Controlled
Detached
(9)
Autocrat
Counterdependent
(9)
Counteractive
(2)
Adherent
Rulekeeper
(1)
(2)
Compliant
Team-Member
(1)
(2)
Narcissist
Opportunist
Cl)
(2)
Hedonist
Competitor
CD
Yeoman
Automaton
Possessed
Gladiator
(c)
(c)
(c)
(c)
Reactor
Actor
Actress
Contrarian
ERU
ERA
Key to PAS
IRU
IRA
Primitives
IFU
IFA
EFU
EFA
-
5 -
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
The three problem-solving styles encompass 32 groups each, and are called
pro-active (Reference Groups contained in
4,
5,
6, and a); poly—active (Reference Groups
contained in
3,
8,
7, and b); and re-active (Reference Groups contained in
2,
9,
1, and
c).
Poly-active people
find
it easy to do more than one thing essentially simultaneously; they may
even require the
stress of
too much to do”
in order to be
fully activated.
Pro-active people
find such parallel processing more
difficult, and they prefer to deal with multiple tasks by
planning how to handle them sequentially; the strategy works except when they are caught by
surprise by two things at once.
Re-active people also find parallel processing difficult but deal
with this problem in another way—namely, by looking to and relying on other people for
guidance as to what to do next.
This strategy also works,
as long as the guidance
is
realistic.
The general population includes large numbers of all three of these problem-solving styles.
The four patterns of “hemispheric development” encompass 24 groups each.
Referring to Table
1, they may be loosely identified
as:
1.
Left-brained—Reference Groups contained in
6,
7, and
1.
2.
Right-brained—Reference Groups contained in
4,
3, and
2.
3.
Both-brained—Reference Groups contained in
5,
8, and 9.
4.
Relative absence of internal control
(i.e., externally
controlled)—Reference Groups contained in a,
b, and
c.
In general,
left- and both-brained people are seen as skilled in logical reasoning, while right-
and both-brained people are seen as skilled in pattern recognition.
Individuals characterized
by a relative absence of internal control do not typically exhibit special
skill in either logical
reasoning or pattern recognition.
The eight “primitive temperaments” encompass 12 groups each
(see the key
at the bottom of Table
1) and comprise
all of the possible patterns formed by three
dichotomies:
1.
Externalizer versus Internalizer
(E/I).
2.
Regulated versus Flexible
(R/F).
3.
Role-Adaptable versus Role-Uniform (A/U).
For example, an Externalizer who
is Regulated and Role-Adaptive would be denoted by the
ERA Primitive.
Conceptually, these dichotomies are very close to the dimensions of Carl
- 6 -
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Jung’s personality typology, and they are also very similar to three of the four dimensions as-
sessed by the MBTI.
Each of these represents a continuum, but
for clarity we
will outline the
polar opposites for each dimension in the following paragraphs.
The natural frame of reference
for Externalizers
(E)
lies in the world outside
themselves.
Externalizers are perceptually dominant, environmentally sensitive, and more
responsive to external than to internal cues.
They are behaviorally active and more interested
in interacting than in thinking.
Their perception
is relatively specific and concrete, and their
emotionality
is directed outward.
Internalizers
(I), on the other hand,
are ideationally
dominant,
self-sufficient, and more responsive to internal than to external cues.
Internalizers
are behaviorally passive, tend to withdraw, and are more inclined toward thinking than doing.
They perceive
in abstract terms, and emotionality
is directed inward.
Regulated (R) and flexible
(F) people represent the two poles of the R/F
dimension.
Regulated persons react to a limited number of specific, well-defined stimuli on
which they can concentrate and focus.
The range of their reactivity
is narrow, and because
their threshold for confusion and distraction
is high, they are characterized by their ability to
concentrate.
Flexible persons have a wide range of reactivity.
They tend to be aware, almost
simultaneously, of a wide variety of stimuli.
As a
result, they have
difficulty concentrating and
their threshold for confusion
is low.
They are characterized by sensitivity, empathy, and
insight.
The role adaptive-role uniform (A/U) dimension
is more complex.
Briefly
stated,
the
ability to shift roles easily
is a talent of the Primitive A, but other components of
the personality may influence role
flexibility as well. A Primitive U,
at the other polar
extreme of the A/U dimension, experiences special problems as he attempts to respond or
react to social cues.
Although the social response style of the A child may mask, obscure,
and even inhibit development in the other dimensions of personality, the response style of the
U child tends to accentuate or even to
facilitate such development.
To the PAS, each possible primitive combination directly implies the probable
quality of any pressure
for change emanating from the childhood environment
(i.e., from
parents,
siblings, peers, or teachers).
Because
it
is constrained by different workable options,
each PAS primitive temperament faces different developmental problems and challenges.
There are,
in
fact,
12 ways for each one to evolve, leading to the 96 Reference Groups.
- 7 -
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
There are two adjustments to the primitive dimensions explained above.
These adjustments, termed compensation and modification,
are defined in the 1973 Winne
and Gittinger PAS Monograph2 as follows:
A person s need to adapt to a variety of situations requires various adjustments in
relation to each of his original personality tendencies.
There are two kinds of ad-
justments available to him.
The
first, more fundamental adjustment
is called com-
pensation,
a term referring to long-range and comparatively stable adaptations de-
veloping in early childhood.
Modification, the second level of adjustment, includes
the
less stable adaptations an individual makes in the later phases of his develop-
ment...”
Compensatory activities are not inherent in the primitive personality structure.
They are learned or acquired tendencies, externally induced and environmentally
determined.
They are long-range developmental adjustments that,
in combination
with the person’s original tendency,
result in characteristic external and internal
frames of reference.
When compensation has been achieved, usually by adoles-
cence, the person
is believed to have reached the second, or basic
[our emphasis]
level of personality development...”
“Modification, defined as the second phase of adjustment,
is achieved during the
later stages of development.
These new adjustments are not applied directly to the
primitive tendencies and so do not achieve the powerful masking effect of compen-
sation.
However, the fundamental differences between compensation and modifi-
cation do not
lie in direction, but rather in the temporal sequence of their develop-
ment and their effect on adaptation.,.”
'
“...primitive orientation and compensatory processes interact to form the basic
level of personality structure.
Modification interacts with the basic level to form
the surface
level of this structure.
The surface or contact personality
is the least
tenacious of the three
levels of personality and
is subject to breakdown quite easily
under stress...”
Within the Reference Group scheme, patterns of “compensation”
are roughly
equivalent to patterns of “hemispheric development,” while patterns of “modification”
are
roughly equivalent to “within-group”
variation.
B.
The FY 1986 PAS Program
!•
Overall Hypotheses
The FY 1986 PAS
effort was designed to test the following hypotheses:
•
Individuals selected for participation in the novice RV training
group, according to their inclusion in particular PAS Reference
- 8 -
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Groups,
will have significantly higher figure of merit scores than
individuals selected from other groups.
•
Self-report tests will show significant correlations with PAS
Reference Groups.
Protocol for Subject Selection
Potential participants for inclusion in the overall FY 1986 subject pool were
recruited primarily from SRI International employees and their close family,
friends, and
relatives.
This recruitment procedure was implemented in order to maintain a modicum of
control over the participant selection process.
All candidate participants were asked to
complete the self-report measures [which included the MBTI, the Strong Vocational Interest
Blank, and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)] and to undergo PAS
testing.
A protocol was established to maintain SRI control over subject anonymity
and to ensure that
all participants involved in the' PAS/self-report testbed remained blind to
the predictive
criteria.
To achieve
this, the following procedures were established:
•
The PAS administration was performed by the Palo Alto Medical
Clinic (PAMC), an independent contractor,
to eliminate the
possibility of biasing SRI staff who were conducting and evaluating
experiments in which PAS hypotheses were under test.
•
SRI maintained a data base that contained the link between
candidate subject names and identification
(ID) numbers only.
•
Score sheets from
all tests,
identified with candidate subject ID
numbers only
(i.e., no names), were forwarded directly from the
PAMC to MARS Measurement Associates for evaluation and
assignment to PAS Reference Groups.
Therefore, the MARS data
base contained the link between PAS/self-report information and
subject ID numbers only.
Using this protocol,
a subject pool of 95 tested candidates was created by the end of FY
1986.
On the basis of hypotheses formed from the previous FY 1984
effort, MARS
selected nine participants from the pool of new candidates*
for inclusion in SRI’s novice RV
training group.
At the conclusion of the FY 1986 novice training program, SRI supplied a
*
°nl y 49 of the 95 cases had been collected at the time of novice RV trainee selection.
-
9 -
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
third party
(the in-house Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative)
with the trainee ID
numbers and individual evaluation
results of the training effort; at the same time, MARS
supplied the COTR with the trainee ID numbers and RV performance predictions based on
prior PAS experience.
All of these necessary pieces of information were combined and
evaluated; the specific
criteria governing the selection of trainees, and the overall efficacy of
the PAS
in predicting novice RV performance are discussed in Chapter
III.
- 10 -
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
III
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A.
Results of the PAS Program
L
Selection of Novice RV Training Participants
The choice of the nine participants for the FY 1986 novice RV training
program was based on two
criteria:
(1) the distribution of precalibrated* remote viewers in the
PAS data base
(see Table
2)
at the time of subject selection, and
(2) the availability of
“promising”
profiles
(derived from the precalibrated viewers)
in the pool of new candidates at
the time of subject selection
(see Table
3).
On the basis of these two
criteria, MARS originally selected 12 individuals
according to the following algorithm: two pairs of individuals were drawn from the ERU8
profile group and one pair of individuals was drawn from each of the ERA8, IRA5, ERUa,
and EFU5 profile groups.
The overall “blanket” prediction governing the selection process
was that the ERU8’s, ERA8’s, ERUa’s, and lRA5’s would perform relatively well in training.
Actually,
at the time of selection, ERU8, ERA8, ERUa, and IRA5 were
all groups that each
included more than one precalibrated viewer, and for which new cases could be found within
the subject pool.
The two EFU5 cases were chosen with the expectation that they would
perform relatively poorly, even though EFU5 was seen as a good group for Intuitive Data
Sorting (IDS).
ERU6 and/or ERA6 cases would have been selected but did not exist in the
subject pool.
IFU3 cases were available but were seen as relatively unlikely to respond to the
planned training method.!
“Precalibrated” as
it
is used here means a qualitative assessmnt of the viewers over many years of
experience.
Later,
at the time when formal predictions were supplied to the SRI COTR,
the definitions of the
Reference Groups
(in terms of lists of exemplars) had evolved considerably, and several of the selected
subjects were now seen differently than they had been.
At the same time, evidence had been developed that
ERUa was probably a very good group— it was now the only group.
-
11 -
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Table 2
DISTRIBUTION OF PRECALIBRATED REMOTE VIEWERS
AT THE TIME OF SELECTION
PRO-ACTIVE
(5)
-
+
(5)
+ + +
(5)
(5)
(4)
(4)
+
(4)
-
(4)
+
*
(a)
+
(a)
+
(a)
-
(a)
*
(6 )
*
( 6 )
(6 )
+
"
(6 )
-
POLY-ACTIVE
(3)
(3)
+
+ +
(3)
(3)
RE-ACTIVE
+ +
(8 )
*
+ +
(8 )
(8 )
(8 )-
(b)
*
(b)
(b)
(b)
+
(2 )
(2 )
(2 )
(2 )
-
( 1 )
Cl)
( 1 )
( 1 )
Key to PAS
Primitives
Key to Viewer
Ability
= superstar
*
= star
+
= good
-
= poor
-
12 -
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Table 3
DISTRIBUTION OF 49 CASES IN THE SRI SUBJECT POOL
AT THE TIME OF SELECTION
PRO-ACTIVE
(4)
x
xx
(4)
x
(4)
x
x
(4)
xxx
(5)
x
(5) xx
(5)
x x x x
(5)
xxx
(a)
•
(a) xx
(a)
x
(a)
(6 )
x x
(6)
x
(6)
x
(6)
POLY-ACTIVE
(3)
x x
(3)
x x
(3)
(3)
X X X X
(8)
XX
x
(8)
x
( 8 ).
(8 )
(b)
(b)
(b)
x
(b)
(7)
(7)
(7)
(7)
RE-ACTIVE
(2 )
(2 )
(2)
x
(2 )
Key to PAS
Primitives
(9)
*
(9)
x
(9)
x
x
(9)
x
(c)
(c)
(c)
(c)
ERU
IRU
IFU
EFU
ERA
IRA
IFA
EFA
( 1 )
( 1 )
( 1 )
(1)
x
Key
x = assignments
are
unambiguous
• = assignments
are
ambiguous
-
13 -
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
It was originally intended that each of the two RV monitors would have a
novice training group consisting of two individuals from ERU8 and one individual each from
ERA8, IRA5, ERUa, and EFU5.
Two of the original selectees
(an ERA 8 and an IRA5) were
diopped from the
original selection of
12, however, because they were RV analysts whose
primary responsibility was to provide the evaluation for the training program.
A third selectee
(the other IRA5) was eliminated from the program because of pregnancy and was replaced by
an IRU4.
A fourth selectee
(the other ERA8) dropped out of the training program after only
two sessions and was not replaced.
A total of nine individuals, therefore, comprised the
final
selection for the novice training program.
Descriptions of the
five PAS profiles that formed the basis for the original
trainee selections are provided here to afford an overview of their personality attributes:
ERU8:
Seeker—This
is an intense,
alert individual who
is likely to be seri-
ously conflicted about the meaning of life.
He sees other persons enjoying
life
and achieving satisfactions that do not come to him even when he does the
“same”
things.
In particular, he
is prone to envy the intense sensual experi-
ences of the EFA and the fantasy
life of the IFA, which are inherently alien.
Looking for “solutions”
to these problems, he may develop an unusual interest
in psychology, and readily volunteer for studies of drug effects and other
esoterica.
Also,
as part of his search for “real” experience, he
is likely to
explore homosexuality.
He can be reasonably productive simply because he
is
bright, but he has
difficulty maintaining commitment and
is an underachiever.
ERUa:
Disciple—An ERUa
is an externally-oriented
(socially dependent)
individual who ordinarily perceives only that which
is unmistakable
(high
sig-
nal-to-noise requirement) and whose spontaneous social responses are out of
step with conventional expectation.
His early experiences have done
little to
teach him techniques for dealing with the implied problem
(foot frequently in
mouth), and he remains essentially dependent upon real-time external control
rather than having developed any effective self-control (s)
.
These external
controls are most likely to take the form of personal identification with a
model personality, and
will be maintained with religious tenacity.
Hence disci-
ple.
Wrapped in the mantle of his mentor, ERUa appears supremely self-
confident.
He
is a good student, and happily exercises any talent he may
have discovered or acquired.
At least in his youth, he has experienced hostil-
ity and rejection but has also learned that he cannot comfortably respond in
kind;
his whole adjustment
is a response to this issue.
ERA8:
Theorist—The ERA8
is a poly-active individual having well-
developed and well-balanced internal controls, which makes him a potentially
very versatile individual.
The bad news
is that this may lead him to ap-
proach-approach conflicts,
in which the individual puts off action in any direc-
tion.
In any event, because of the “A,” people are prone to expect even
more from an ERA8 than he
is capable
of.
Measures of within-group position
(either PAS or self-report) become relatively critical for proper interpretation.
- 14 -
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
The best and most likely possibility
is for the individual to strive away from
the ERA primitive and toward an INFP*
self-report; this person
will be seen
as actively dealing with complex abstract material.
An STJ self-report suggests
movement toward the Primitive ERA, implying probable intra-psychic conflict;
such patterns have been found,
for example, among ineffective managers and'
from members of SWAT teams.
IRA5:
Iconoclast
The IRA5
is a future-oriented person who seeks to bring
about change (s) that will benefit both individuals and the system (s)
in which
these individuals must operate.
At the same time, IRA5
is predisposed to be-
lieve that this cannot be accomplished gradually—rather,
it
will usually require
a “break with the past.”
For this reason, the implications of any change (s)
must be carefully thought through before implementation.
His insistent open-
mindedness
is often annoying to others.
Research and application are both
important;
i.e., IRA5
will seek both to perfect his research and then to urge
its reduction to practice.
He
is comfortable with numbers and other abstrac-
tion, and
is often adept with
statistical reasoning.
EFU5:
Philosopher
This person
is a pro-active problem-solver who adopts
a particularly global view of the world and
its problems.
He
is not merely
educated; he
is broadly intellectual.
He
is as much interested in what can be
as in what
is, and aligns himself with others who share
his view of a more
ideal future.
He
is more concerned with who he
is than with any conven-
tional view of who he should be.
However, he
is easily disillusioned and dis-
couraged and does not function well in an organizational setting unless he can
respect his superiors and colleagues.
It
is difficult for him to take responsibil-
ity for others and,
in turn, others find him
difficult to understand.
Obviously,
the success of his adjustment depends on a very high level of innate
ability.
2-
Prediction Criteria
The PAS
is a system that
is constantly evolving as the number of cases in the
PAS data base increases.
Therefore, a subject's “goodness of
fit”
in any given profile may
change, because Reference Group membership
is empirically derived.
The PAS trainee
selections were made in April,
1986.
The PAS predictions about the RV performance of
these trainees, however, were not registered until October,
1986.
Consequently, some of the
trainees
profiles shifted in the interim as a result of enlargement of the PAS data base; these
changes are summarized in Table
4.
It
is important to note that
all of the prediction criteria
pertain to the right-hand column—i.e., the trainees’ profiles as they were seen at the time of
prediction.
Important aspects of self-report personality descriptions in the MBTI can be found in the Appendix.
-
15 -
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Table 4
CHANGES IN PAS ASSIGNMENTS
Viewer
ID
Profile as of
Selection
(4/86)
Profile
as of
Prediction
(10/86)
137
ERU8
ERU5
176
EFU5
EFU6
210
ERU8
ERA 8
307
EFU5
EFU5
450
IRU4
IRU4
512
ERU8
IRA5
739
ERUa
ERUa
891
ERUa
IRA5
928
ERU8
ERU8
Formal predictions were requested according to two
criteria:
(1)
overall
performance, and
(2)
slope of learning curve.
It was apparent that the members of poor
groups
(i.e., EFU5 and EFU6) had to be ranked at the bottom of both lists—-accounting for
the two bottom ranks shown
in Tables
5 and
6.
The IRU4 and ERU5 trainees were ranked
next to the bottom simply because there was no evidence that they should be ranked higher.
Among the remaining cases, the ERUa was seen as most likely to have come into the
experiment on the basis of self-knowledge that he/she could already perform RV
i.e., he/she
had the least need to learn anything from the training and could start out at a high level.
At
the other extreme,
the learning of the IRA5 was seen as the most problematic, and therefore
least likely to occur within the
finite context of the experiment.
-
16 -
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Thus, the groups of interest were ranked as ERUa > ERA8 = ERU8 > IRA5
when predicting overall performance and were ranked as the reverse of this when predicting
the significance of the learning within the experiment.
Results of Predictions: Correlations Between RV Performance and PAS
Profiling
Table 5 shows the PAS predictions for overall RV performance
as measured
against actual performance—i.e., each trainee’s performance as measured by an effect size
estimate
(Pearson’s
r) 3 derived from the
figure of merit analysis4 p-values.
An effect size
estimate
is used to normalize
for number of sessions.
Table
PAS PREDICTION VS. ACTUAL VIEWER PERFORMANCE
PAS Prediction
Actual Viewer
Performance
Viewer
ID
Profile
Prediction
Comments
Viewer
Effect
Number of
ID
Size
(r)
Sessions
(n)
739
ERUa
best
\
739
*
0.170
210
ERA8
best
very
137
0.110
928
ERU8
best
\
/
'L
close
T
in
928
*
0.082
ranking
512
IRA5
best
512
*
-0.131
891
IRA5
best
l'
450
-0.139
450
IRU4
middle
307
-0.159
137
ERU5
middle
T
might
do well
210
-0.220
k
in IDS,
307
EFU5
worst
j
but not
in RV
891
-0.267
176
EFU6
worst
clearly the
bottom
*
176
-0.279
* PAS prediction coincides with the viewer’s actual rank.
-
17 -
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6