{
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
5.
Basic Research Summary
The basic research program to date has been spread over a number
of subjects and over number of activities,
generating a considerable amount
of data.
It was deemed desirable
in the
first half of the research program
to cover as much material
as possible in a horizontal development
in order
to determine
the best subjects
and the fruitful directions for concentrated
effort
in the
second half of the
program.
We intend to concentrate on analysis of the
large amounts of data
already obtained while subjects are involved in extramural medical and psy-
testing.
Based on the
findings,
a few carefully -chosen items
will be culled for final specific testing following discussion with client
representatives.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
APPENDIX
Randomness Tests of Four-State Electronic Random Stimulus Generator
The design objective was
to build
a four-state machine
, with each
state equally likely
to occur on each trial,
independent of
the
past
sequence of states.
If
the machine meets this objective,
it should not
be possible
to devise
a rule for future play that significantly differs
from chance.
A simple example of such a rule would be
to select
the machine
state observed in
the preceding trial;
if this strategy were
to produce
scores significantly above chance
(25 percent hits),
we would reject
the
hypothesis of randomness of the machine under test.
Before experimentation,
four machines,
purchased from Aquarius
Electronics, Albion,
California,
were' extensively tested for randomness.
Data were analyzed on
a CDC-6400 computer,
and three machines finally
selected for use
in screening met established criteria for randomness.
In developing randomness
tests,
we:- are guided in part by
a knowledge
of the machine
logic.
When one of the four choice keys or the pass key is
depressed,
the current machine state
is displayed;
then a brief time after
release of
the
key,
a new machine
state
is established
(but not shown to the
subject)
by sampling the instantaneous
state of
a high-speed four-state elec-
tronic counter.
For the machine to be random,
the times of dwell
of
the
counter in each of the
four states must be precisely equal;
otherwise,
the
distribution of outcomes will be biased.
The
first randomness
test
is thus
based on tallying the number of occurrences of each of the
four states.
This
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
this second possibility we also tally the distribution of outcomes in each
group of 100
trials,
then compute
a likelihood ratio test statistic
(see below)
for each group.
Under the null hypothesis of equal
likelihood of the four
states,
these statistic values are distributed approximately as chi-square
with three degrees of freedom and their sum for m groups distributed approxi-
mately
as
chi-square with three m degrees of
freedom.
This test may also detect
stable bias,
but is not
as powerful
for this purpose
as the first test.
Variable bias of still shorter period,
if substantial,
can be tested for by
tallying the frequency with which the previous machine state
is repeated;
an
overall repeat ratio
("all")
significantly above 0.25 is indicative of such bias
If for any reason the machine were
to fail
to sample the counter to
establish a new state,
the previous machine
state would be repeated.
To test
for this possibility,
we tally the number of repeats following the depression
of each key.
A repeat ratio significantly greater than 0.25 should be con-
sidered
a danger signal.
We also tally the
initial machine
states following reset and the tran-
sitions between states.,
In each case,
the number of occurrences of each of
the
four possible outcomes should be approximately equal
.
When repeats are
deleted from the sequence of trials
("nondiagonal transitions")
,
the four states
should also be approximately equal in frequency.
In testing
the null hypothesis
of four equally likely outcomes of
a
trial,
a likelihood ratio test
is used.
The statistic
t
Alexander Mood,
Introduction to the Theory of Statistics
(McGraw Hill,
New York,
1950).
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
under the null hypothesis
is distributed approximately as chi-square with
three degrees
of
freedom,' with rejection for large values
of this
statis-
tic.
The computer program used
in testing randomness
includes
a subroutine
for computing
the probability of
a chi-square value as
large or larger
than
that observed.
In testing the null hypothesis
that
the probability of
a
repeat
is
0.25,
the binomial probability of obtaining
the observed number
K or more repeats
in N trials
is computed.
For K greater than 1000,
a
normal distribution approximation
is computed,
assuming the statistic
0 . 25 \ pr
V
s
/ v 3/16
to be approximately normal with mean zero and standard deviation one.
The typical test pattern used was six passes
followed by
twenty-five choices
of one color,
repeating
this for each of the four
colors.
In this way each of
the five keys other than rest were given
approximately equal use.
Typically,
2,000
to 6,000 trials were made,
»•
in each sitting.
In the absence of any unusual results
in the randomness
tests,
a minimum of 10,000 trials were made before using
a machine with
experimental subjects.
With 10,000
trials,
the expected fraction of re-
peats
is 0.25 with a standard deviation of 3/200 = 0.00866.
A
sample computer listing of
the results
of randomness
tests on Machine 4
is
included
in Table
1.
Of the four machines
tested,
three were
found suitable
for use
in screening activity.
The fourth machine
was returned to the manufacturer for adjustment.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
Table
RANDOMNESS TESTS—MACHINE 4
Yellow
107
728
777
776
787
3175
2340
Key-
Buttons
Green,
Blue
116
113
764
765
784
773
796
'810
852
803
3312
3264
2412
2341
N-Trials
Number
Red
of
Trials
128
464
790
3047
863
3197
'
773
3155
805
3247
3359
13110
2426
9519
Ratio
Chi-Sq.
Binom,
Prob,
1.996
0.57
2.573
0.46
6.745
0.08
1.158
0.76
2.877
0.41
5.667
0.18
2.630
0.45
Binomial
Prob.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
Appendix
PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE USE
OF THE FOUR-STATE
ELECTRONIC RANDOM STIMULUS GENERATOR
*
The following notes are based solely upon my experience and
I
there-
fore make no claim that they are generalizable
to other persons.
Since
I am still learning about ESP phenomena,
I am confident
that additional
work
in this area will
expand,
modify,
and refine
the perceptual processes
discussed below.
While
I have
tried to describe these experiential
processes with
as much precision as possible,
the use of seemingly precise
language should not leave
the impression that
the perceptions themselves
were equally precise.
To
the contrary,
I
found these perceptions
to
be
delicate,
transient and ephemeral—and
yet,
at
the same time—and somewhat
surprisingly—unmistakably real.
Perceptual Processes
Working with the ESP machine proved to be a venture into unfamiliar
perceptual territory which functioned according
to new and different
rules.
It took some time
(five hours or so with
the ESP machine)
to begin
to learn not only which perceptual processes would work
but,
equally
important which would not work.
There was clearly
a learning process
in finding those delicate and subtle internal cues
that would allow me
to make perceptually based choices.
After approximately 1000 trials
with the ESP machine,
five dominant perceptual modes emerged.
Subsequent
*
Prepared by a policy research analyst at SRI,
who
subject
(p < 10
) with the
four-state electronic
was
a high-scoring
random stimulus generator.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200010007-4
with
the machine seemed
to essentially expand and refine these
perceptual processes
that emerged
initially.
Di rect Knowing
(Used approximately
to 15 percent of
the timel-Thi,
perceptual
cue came as
a "gift”
that
I did not have
to work for.
This
is not
to say that
this
"cue" was always
right,
but when there was
a
direct perception of
the appropriate response unmediated by any of the
other cues described
below,
my chances of being right seemed quite high
(say 75 percent of
the
time).
Internally,
this was simply the feeling
>
that
I
should push one specific button and the knowing was almost
immediate.
If
it were not immediate
then,
typically,
one of the other
cues would
be used.
^Closure Cues"
(Used perhaps
75 percent of the tlmel-TM. cue
manifested
itself
in
a variety of .ays;
a sense of "fullness" with respect
to a particular button,
an internal anticipation of the
bell ringing,
a
sense of "hardness" or "firmness" and a sense of being "locked
into"’ the
correct response,
The validity of this cue could he tested
by acting
and thinking as
if
I .ere going to push a particular button and
then
noting the extent to which these "closure cues" became present,
mi.
sense of active intentionality-both physically and psychologically-
Seeins important
in that
it allowed me
to sort out many real fro. imagined
perceptions.
Also,
this cue often gave a
kind of veto power;
i.e.,
it
did not necessarily assure me as
to the right answer but it would tend
to tell me if
I had picked the wrong one,
i.e.,
I would not experience
the aforementioned cues.
Pattern Recognition
(Negligible use initially,
but
th.n
approximately
75 perc ent
of
the time during Phase
IV ) -Al
j, used
this perceptual mode very infrequently during the initial stages of the
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
experiment,
it emerged rather naturally
toward
the end.
This was similar
to
the
"direct knowing"
but not isolated
to
a single button;
rather,
there
was
a
sense of
the next
two to
three buttons that would
be the correct
responses.
These perceptual cues were obtained
in
a less objective/
rational way and
in more of a meditative
state,
highly concentrated
but
without
specific
focus on
a particular button.
Interestingly,
in using
this perceptual process,
I was able
to go somewhat faster and have greater
access
to all
of the
buttons
in an equivalent way
(see the second point
under Section
2 next page).
Thus,
this mode had
the advantage of loosening
habituated perceptual patterns
but
it also made selections less amenable
'
to conscious control and testing.
This process proved
to be either highly
accurate or highly inaccurate.
Accuracy seemed
to
be a function of
the
degree to which
I could become synchronized with
the evolving pattern of
machine selected choices—and
it was easy to get out of phase/sequence
with
this
pattern.
'nal
Gue g sj-ng
(Us ed approximately
5 percent of
the
time)—Although
I virtually never did try
to superimpose some rationally predicted pattern
upon
the
random,
machine selection of buttons,
I would
sometimes
temper
my selections
(very seldom for the
better)
by noting that one button had
come up too often for
it
to be likely on the next
trial
or,
conversely,
it had come up so seldom that
it
should
be given special consideration
as
a likely possibility on the next
trial.
Again,
although this was
a
tempting strategy,
I found
that random processes were not amenable to
rational anticipations and my rational guesses seemed often
to
be wrong.
Tension/Vector Analysis
(Used approximately 75 percent of
the time)—
Here the cue was manifested as
a sense of tension(s)
pulling in one
direction or another with
the selection buttons
as
the locus
for that
tension.
The cue was also manifested as
a feeling of "emptiness" and
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
conversely as a sense of
"fullness."
To describe this process
further,
it
felt analogous
to vector analysis
in physics where,
in sorting out
competing tugs and
pulls,
one
finds
the
"dominant" vector;
i.e.,
the one
with
the strongest
"pull" or the one that
best "balances"
the other vector
tensions.
Figure A-l
illustrates
this phenomenon.
Although the tension/vector cues were very useful and among the
most reliable of all
the
cues,
I
found them to be at
times quite mis-
leading.
The source of confusion stemmed
from the role of
time as a
variable rather than a constant in extrasensory reality
(discussed in
more detail under section "Comments on Perceptual Processes").
If my
assumptions as
to the temporal nature of my perceptions did not
fit with
the actual nature of those perceptions,
then the perceptions were quite
misleading.
(Recall
that precognition refers here
to
a button that will
be selected
in the future—typically the next trial).
The nine-cell
matrix shown
in Figure A-2 may clarify the complexity of the perceptual
process,
the need
for discriminating awareness and the possibility
for
error.
Out of nine possible combinations of
the assumed/actual nature
of perceptions,
only three are matched or congruent and yield accurate
understandings.
Each of these primary cases
is discussed below:
•
Clairvoyant—Here the feeling which allows sorting and
selection
is
like that described
in Figure A-l.
•
Precognitive—The
feeling,
sorting,
and selection
is
like
that described
in Figure A-l with clairvoyance;
the primary
difference being
a shift
in the time dimension
to
refer,
not
to the present
target of
the machine,
but to
the one to be
selected next.
To act on this perception
I would press the
pass button to bring the future
into
the present and then
press the button that corresponded to my precognitive per-
ceptions.
•
Clairvoyant
and Precognitive—The perception
is of a pattern
of buttons,
distributed through time,
that are and will be
selected
by the machine—the "pattern" usually Consisted of
two
to three buttons.
Again,
the time variable was most
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4
FIGURE A-1
ILLUSTRATION OF TENSION/VECTOR ANALYSIS
IN OPERATION
With Button C
being
the one
selected
using
these
cues.
ACTUAL
NATURE OF PERCEPTIONS
ASSUMED
NATURE OF
PERCEPTIONS
SA-2613-22
\
FIGURE A-2
MATRIX SHOWING CORRECT PERCEPTION AND MISPERCEPTION
IN THE USE
OF TENSION/VECTOR CUES VIA THE INTERFACE BETWEEN ASSUMED AND
ACTUAL NATURE OF PERCEPTIONS
Clairvoyant
.
Precognitive
Clairvoyant
and
Precognitive
Clairvoyant
Correct
Perception
Misperception
Misperception
Precognitive
Misperception
Correct
Perception
Misperception
Clairvoyant
and
Precognitive
Misperception
Misperception
Correct
Perception
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0007-4