Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200150001-1 UNCLASSIFIED Table 6 (Continued) (U) ENHANCED HUMAN PERFORMANCE INVESTIGATION--FY 1987 QUARTER Objective G-—Computer “Search” Task 1 Objective H--RA Parameters Task 1 Task 2 Task 3a Task 3 - B EEL EE |. Q BAAALAAAATLA IL Objective I--IDS Model / Task 1 Conferences Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Objective J--Administrative / Task 1 Hardware TTT MIM AE ETE Task 2 * Task 3 a P Begin Key _ task 4 qa End With Deliverable | _ ® Deliverable _ Task 5 © End w/o Deliverable _ Task 6 Task 7 UNCLASSIFIED “ Tasks with no beginning indicator ( P») are continuations of an FY 1986 effort. 49 Approved For Release 20OPRAR ACOs ERT PTS 0789R002200150001-1
SGFOIA2 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200150001-1 Next 2 Page(s) In Document Exempt Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release UNCL, CIA-RDP96-00789R002200150001-1 DP NCLASSIFIED REFERENCES (VU) 1. Humphrey, B. S., May, E. C., Utts, J. M., Frivold, T. J., Luke, W. W., and Trask, V. V., Fuzzy Set Applications in Remote Viewing Analysis, Final Report, Objective A, Task 3, SRI Project 1291, SRI International, Menlo Park, California (December 1986) UNCLASSIFIED, 2. Neter, J., Wasserman, W., and Kutner, M. H. (1985), pp. 94-96, Applied Linear Statistical Models, 2nd Edition, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., UNCLASSIFIED. 3. Radin, D. I., and May, E. C., “Testing the Intuitive Data Sorting Model with Pseudorandom Number Generators: A Proposed Method,” Proceedings of the 29th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association, pp. 537-535, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California (August 1986) UNCLASSIFIED, 4. Hubbard, G. S., The SRI International Cognitive Sciences Conference at Princeton University, Final Report, Objective I, Task 4, Project 1291, SRI International, Menlo Park, California (December 1987) UNCLASSIFIED. 53 Approved For Release 209 NPETEA SS RFP FO 789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/ 74X31] 41 <p aeeeemmaanaaaaaas pp UNCLASSIFIED APPENDIX A ! A POSTERIORI ASSESSMENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE* (This Appendix is Unclassified) eee The SOC members were requested to complete a “Reviewer’s Comments” sheet (see example on next page) for each task that they had elected to review. This Appendix provides a verbatim, unedited transcription of the reviewers’ (mostly hand-written) comments on a task-by-task basis. SRI responses have been appended to the reviewers’ comments where appropriate, A-1 Approved For Release 2OPIPETRSA S'S FERED 00789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release UNCL : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200150001 -1 LASSIFIED REVIEWER’S COMMENTS The attached report titled: eee eee has been reviewed by the undersigned. My assessment of the research design, statistical protocols employed, the analyses of the data, and conclusions reached in this report is as follows: Additional comments: eee SIGNED DATE A-2 Approved For Release 2OP APEBSA S'S FFA EIS 00789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release “UNCLASSIFIED NAME: Comments: 1. 10. 11. SOC Reviewers’ Comments, Objective A, Task 3 (Fuzzy Set Applications In Remote Viewing Analysis) (verbatim transcription~-not edited) S. James Press The research is very interesting and is clearly very fruitful. It is so promising it should continue to be pursued with vigor. Page 12, line 10. “Lowest p-values” - should be deleted. It’s not necessary for the argument—-“figures of merit” is enough. Then you’re not involved in the issue of interpreting p-values. Page 13, line 1. You should include 0 < i <S 1. I would put the Sth paragraph about “the assigned y’s,...” up with line 2. Page 12, bottom line. Explain how the consensus decision was made. What happened when there was disagreement? Were they ever at an impasse? How far apart were they to start? Did you record this information? Would 5 analysts make a difference? Would 2 analysts make a difference? What was the variance in assessments? Page 14. In the equations, Rs and Ts are not defined; fuzzy set intersection is not defined; how would we set the weights, Wk? Are the equations correct? Page 14, last paragraph. It would be substantially clearer if you gave a numerical example, with a threshold, to show how aw — cuts are used, and how Accuracy and Reliability are actually computed. Page 16, line 8. How stable is the value “37,” the average number of non-zero values? If you did the evaluation many more times what would the variance in the 37 be? Page 17. Formula is not correct. Page 19, paragraph F. “Ground truth” is a term appropriate in “remote sensing.” Since RV is a kind of remote sensing, the term seems entirely appropriate. This might be explained. Page 21. I would not know how to record my answer to the “Belief in ESP” question, nor do I know how to interpret other’s responses to that question. To me, the biggest issue is binary belief: it it possible at all? I don’t know what degree-of-belief means here? What does “complete” mean? Page 22, line 6. How do you know the scores are normally distributed? Do you need them to be normally distributed? A-3 Approved For Release 2E9 N97 AGS FFE P90789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release NEL; ; ee] -00789R002200150001-1 ASSIFIED 12. Page 22, Figure 5. Aren’t the 6 subjective evaluations by a single analyst correlated? All biases of a given analyst are bound to influence each of the 6 assessments 13. Page 23, line 4. What are the definitions of “experienced,” “expert,” and “novice” analysts? 14. Page 23, Figure 6. I am confused by this figure. Are the entries correlations? If they are correlations, why are some numbers greater than 1.0 and less than -1.0? I am not clear what the entries in Figure 6 are. Line 7 asserts that 15 differences were computed. I’m not sure, but I guess these are differences between figures of merit for each response-target combination and degrees—of-correspondence obtained from the PMT series. If so, the numbers aren’t really comparable. 15. Page 24, line 3. The correlation coefficient computed is only meaningful for significance computations if the data are normally distributed. But are they? It is not likely. 16. Page 28, References. Why not delete “unclassified” for references i, 2, 4, 6 and put “classified” for the remainder? It calls less attention to the classified nature of this work. Recommendation: Yes 11-24-87 NAME: Brian Skyrms Comments: 1. This is a careful and well-thought out use of fuzzy set theory. I agree that the important point is the identification of “orthogonal” target sets. 2. I doubt if use of fuzzy sets with fuzzy elements (page 26) would really lead to greater accuracy. 3. The suggestion made in session that RV subjects use descriptors to do their own classification after drawing, is a good to isolate fewer experimenter effects. Recommendation: Yes 11-13-87 NAME: Mike A. Wartell Comments: 1. This method* seems to be an extremely powerful means by which to analyze the results of experiments. It is the most promising formalism I have seen for use on ambiguous data of the type provided by these experiments. I am slightly 1 Fuzzy sets and cluster analysis and appropriate universe of descriptors and “ground truth” assessment. A-4 Approved For Release 200 PRECE ASSTP TED 0789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release 209 R948 4 Ge FIER 00789R002200150001 -1 concerned (but only slightly) by the small size of the sample used for determining “ground truth.” 2. The described methodology must be published in some legitimate outlet so that it gains external validation and is made available for other uses. (But I can’t overemphasize the need for external validation of every aspect of this project.) 3. Suggest future research directions are appropriate. 4, Also, choice of orthogonal targets as decoys makes analysis more straightforward. 5. This may be the most significant secondary achievement coming from the project. Response To 8. James Press’ Comments: NAME: Edwin C. May 1. Most all of Dr. Press’ comments have been attended to in the published final report for Objective A, Task 3. A-5 Approved For Release 2A9RQ ROB ACTS RPP P9789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200150001-1 UNCLASSIFIED SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Objective C, Tasks 2 and 3 (Review of the Personality Assessment System) (verbatim transcription——not edited) NAME: Brian Skyrms Comments: 1. This careful review concludes that the PAS will not be useful for the purposes envisioned. The conclusion appears warranted. Recommend: Yes 11-18-87 NAME: Mike Wartell Comments: 1. Good descriptive report on PAS methodology. Does not really detail usefulness or lack-of same to the project. Does not really report correlation of results, and is, therefore, functionally different from other reports. Recommendation: Yes 11-11-87 NAME: Philip Zimbardo Comments: 1. This is an excellent review which could be published in a professional journal with minor revision. 2. Need to mention that the PAS has also been rejected by psychologists because it is a type theory at a time when typologies are not in vogue. 3. I accept the conclusions reached that there is limited utility of PAS for RV screening. It should also be noted that a reason for the obscure status of PAS is the fact that early research was probably classified, since it was part of the CIA’s program of identifying target individuals for various mind/behavior modification attempts 4, Five characteristics of individual’s that might correlate with RV ability: 1. Openness to new experiments (paper and pencil test). 2. Remote associates test (paper and pencil test). 3. Tolerance for ambiguity. A-6 Approved For Release Z2P9NPE4EA SS TRIE N° 789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200150001-1 UNCLASSIFIED 4. Tolerance for frustration. 5. High self esteem — high ego strength. 6. p. 4 Bem is Daryl not Darrel Recommendation: Yes 11-13-87 A-7 Approved For Release 2009 REEF A SSR TEESO 7 89R002200150001-1