Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Since that time, one participant (WE) has withdrawn because of the demands of his JFK
courses, one participant (RS)
will be dropped because of poor RA performance, one (HW)
will be working in Argentina for three months, and two (SN and JA) may be dropped on
account of poor RA performance, unless this improves within their next three RA sessions.
SN, JA, and RM have
all shown
a powerful negative effect from the
first phase of use of the
evaluation devices, and RM and JA have made only a slow recovery.
In this context,
it
is
interesting that both RM and JA have been trained by Julian Isaacs, who was probably most
directly affected by the effects of the nonfunctioning evaluation devices.
One of these
less successful participants (JA)
is currently undergoing remedial
biofeedback training during his experimental sessions under the control of another
experimenter (MM)
in order to explore the possibility that those RA agents who perform
poorly, apparently because of excessive
striving, may be able to improve their RA performance
after supplementary training at a biofeedback task.
e.
Overall Session Results
Although no formal data are available from this phase of research,
certain conclusions
can informally be suggested.
Table A-2 shows the number of sessions performed by each
participant.
Referring to Table A-2, the basic postulate
(that repeated trial sessions produces
increments in performance for some participants) seems to be upheld by the results.
Five of
the 10 participants showed definite increases in Piezo-RA output per session (WA, CR, HW,
ZK, and JM)
.
These results are significantly better than the English results, 4 which suggested
that perhaps only one in seven participants in training would show marked increases in RA
performance with training (the English participants were also much less carefully selected).
Of
the
five less successful participants,
it seems that three may yet show a learning effect,
although
it seems likely that the other two
will probably not.
Second, the results seem to suggest that session number
is an important determinant of
performance.
Referring to Table A-2,
it can be seen that the successful group of five
performed a total of 94 sessions, whereas the less successful group of five performed 58
sessions—only just over half of the successful group’s sessions.
Although this difference in
performance with increasing
number of sessions may partly reflect motivational factors as well
as learning,
it certainly appears to be an important variable, whatever interpretation
is given to
it.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Experimenter
Participant
Number
of
Sessions
R. C.
W. A.
R. C.
C. R.
J
.
I
.
R. M.
J
.
I
.
J
. A.
J
. J
.
H. W.
J
. J
.
R. S.
D. M.
Z. K.
D. M.
S. N.
( +5) ##
J
. M.
W. E.
M. M.
J
. M
.
( + 12)*
Estimated
sessions
conducted
prior
to Remote Action Project
Previous
sess ions
run
by
M.M.
and
J. J.
TABLE A- 2
PARTICIPANT PIEZO-RA TRAINING SESSIONS
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
IV INSTRUMENTAL DESIGN
a.
Psychological Requirements
The specifications for the functional design of the SD and the ED were outlined in detail
in the description of the devices’
functional designs, which has already been tendered to SRI.
Because the psychological requirements of the training instrumentation are crucial to the
Piezo-RA training process,
a recent paper by this author5
is quoted here; these paragraphs
specify some centrally important considerations relating to the feedback properties that are
necessary for RA learning.
“...The phenomenology of DDPK training appears closely to conform to the
principles of operant conditioning where
a behavior which
is an approximation to
the required behavior must be emitted
first, and then reinforced, before further,
more optimal behaviors, are then emitted and can be reinforced.
In practice this
leads to what at
first sight appears to be a paradox, that subjects should essentially
be presented with a “noisy”
system, but the rationale for this relates closely,
in my
view, to the reason why
it seems relatively easy to obtain PK on REG types of
systems.
If we ask the question of what behaviors should be reinforced in order to
start the
process of operant conditioning in the PK training process,
clearly the answer must
be PK behaviors,
or at least PK-like behaviors.
Typically,
a DDPK agent may
at
first produce only relatively few PK events, or even none, over the threshold which
defines events as candidate DDPK
(in practice the threshold
is
set high enough for
some under-threshold events to be
likely to be PK rather than noise or artifact4
)
.
But
if feedback
is only supplied for the over-threshold events, the operant
conditioning process
will be very slow and a
risk
is generated that due to lack of
frequency of reinforcement, motivation may
fail and the PK response may even be
extinguished.
It thus becomes necessary to provide a feedback signal which
is
sufficiently sensitive to the state of the system to be able to relay the intrinsic noise
of the system in perceptible form to the DDPK agent in training.
This
will ensure
that however slight the trainee’s PK responses may be, reinforcement will occur.
Usually, what happens in DDPK training
is that the agent’s signals start out by
mostly being in the range of the noise of the system, but over the course of several
DDPK training sessions
[typically
six sessions in the English studies2
4 with
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
successful subjects, the signal magnitudes climb out of the noise until many
over-threshold events occur in each session.
This kind of phenomenology
is very
compatible with the operant conditioning paradigm, and the crucial point to
appreciate, from that perspective,
is that in order for the subject to emit a PK-like
behavior, the feedback system must be sensitive enough to be able to signal
perturbations which are
at,
or very near, the
intrinsic noise level of the DDPK
detection system.
The psychology of DDPK training can be examined
at different levels of discourse,
using different models, since there are other non-paranormal learning models
which can be applied as analogues to DDPK training in addition to operant
conditioning.
So
far,
I have used the language of operant conditioning, but a more
cognitive approach
is possible.
K.J. Batcheldor’s formulation
falls into this
category
. 6
His principle hypothesis
is that PK
is elicited by a particular type of
situationally triggered “instant”
belief state which
is induced by the subject being
exposed to a stimulus which they interpret as indicating that PK
is already
occurring.
This
is the rationale
for Batcheldor’s “artifact induction
(of PK)
hypothesis.”
...From this cognitive perspective, relaying the noise from a DDPK
detection system allows the PK trainee to construe
(or misconstrue) the system’s
fluctuations as being due to his or her influence, analogously to the situation
I have
hypothesized as occurring with the REG.
This then may create the “instant”
PK-producing belief state, which creates more reinforcing feedback, and so on.
Diana Robinson has discussed the possibly psi facilitating role that a subject's
felt
sense of control could have in maintaining high levels of motivation in the absence
of high anxiety or high striving . 7
In support of this analysis,
it should be
mentioned that an apparently universal preference shown by DDPK trainees
is that
they must, through experience of the feedback signal,
feel “in touch” with the
piezo crystal
itself, which
is interpretable as implying that the feedback system
should be responsive to the
slightest alteration in state of the piezo sensor.
...In terms of DDPK methodology the lessons from this analysis seem clear—the
feedback system must be capable of wide excursions from the instrumental “noise
floor” up to several magnitudes above noise— yet
still provide sensorally
descriminable and aesthetically pleasing results.
Presumably too,
for motivational
optimization, the feedback modality should
fit the preferences and cognitive
style
of the PK trainee, although this too remains unverified by experimentation.”
The current ED instrumentation does not yet
fulfill these requirements, because
its
“white noise” audio output does not seem to be aesthetically acceptable to participants, nor
does
it provide accurate and
fast information regarding the occurrence or magnitude of
under-threshold RA events.
This deficiency was ameliorated in both the SRI-based sessions
and the JFK ED training sessions by the use of supplementary audio feedback from devices
(one was loaned to SRI) modified
for this purpose.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
fws*#r«w!
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Additionally,
it
is clear, comparing the ED with an analog audio feedback system, that
the response time of the ED
is presently too slow to allow
its audio feedback to accurately
track complex incoming RA
signals.
Psychologically, participants are faced with a device that
fails to provide essential and motivating feedback at the low end of the RA range and that
does not give a smooth and well-graded response to RA
effects.
These properties are crucial
in a device intended for training purposes.
b.
Recommended Evaluation Device Modifications
JFK recommends the following modifications to the ED produced by SRI:
(1)
Software
(a)
If software modification can increase the speed of response of the
feedback,
this would be useful.
It may be that no significant increase in
feedback response speed can be achieved by software modifications,
given that the STD system uses an interpreted BASIC.
In this case,
substitution of an analog feedback system driven by the chart recorder
output would definitely correct the problem.
(b)
All data,
especially the system status check information, should be
displayed by the terminal.
At present the system check data
is only
output via the
serial printer port,
(c)
The printer output becomes unreadable under conditions of RA
activity
because the print becomes displaced from
its normal position and
overprinting occurs.
Perhaps buffering of printer output might correct
this without incurring a
significant overhead.
(d)
The “white noise” feedback
is very unpleasant to listen to because
it has
a “pumped”
quality,
in which increases in volume occur as discrete
steps, happening at irregular intervals (because of program execution
time variations due to competing tasks for the CPU)
.
Finer gradation of
volume increases, or an analog feedback system,
is necessary to remove
this characteristic.
(e)
The white noise also
still contains 60-Hz components.
Substitution of a
true white noise source and the careful sculpting of
its
amplitude/frequency characteristics would correct the problem of the
subjective acceptability of the white noise.
(f)
At present, only three
trial periods per session are allowed by the system
if automatic timing of sessions
is required.
It was originally requested
that up to six
trial and six rest periods be software selectable per session.
At present, the printout does not seem to consistently label printed-out
events as “R” or “T.”
(g)
The software clock providing the automatic timing
is clearly inaccurate,
even over short periods.
Substitution of hardware clock would correct
this.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
(h)
The “beep” must go! The automatic timer beep
is annoying to
participants and experimenters.
(i)
The date should be input as a normal date, not as
a Julian date.
(j)
The system should be restartable under software control.
Having to
switch
it off and on to reset
it probably shortens the system’s
life.
(k)
As a substitute
for the beep,
it would be helpful to have an onscreen
display of available time
left per trial or rest period.
This display could
be updated
at minute intervals and
left onscreen until the next update.
(l)
Documentation for the system outlining the generic operating system
commands would be helpful.
(m) A
facility allowing comments to be input to the data
set generated during
the session,
in an online mode, would also be helpful, because the
system
is not automatically self-validating, necessitating the commentary
of a human witness to assure that the events are not due to fraud or
artifact.
(2) Hardware
(a)
As recommended in
(a)
of the preceding “Software”
section, provision of
analog feedback
(certainly
at sub-threshold levels) would greatly improve
the system’s feedback characteristics for RA training purposes.
(b)
Longer optical fiber links are needed to enable the ED systems to be
located at longer distances from the participants.
(c) A cooperative JFK/SRI attempt to improve the isolation of the ED would
be of great benefit.
Construction of a multilayer vibration-resistant
mounting would be helpful.
It would also be possible to construct a
sound-attenuating shield in which to enclose the ED.
(d)
The JFK group
is considering the possibility of locating the ED target
systems in nonadjacent rooms—locations where a “buffer” room
is
interposed between participants and the target systems.
This should
reduce problems of artifact to vanishing point.
(e)
An extension of Item
(c) above would be to attempt long-distance RA
training, using telephone lines to convey the feedback from the ED
system to the remote participants.
This would require inclusion of
telephone equipment and expenses as part of the budget.
c.
Screening Device Characteristics
The SD seems to be successful in
its application environment.
The noisiness of the
strain gauge front end remains a problem, because
it creates a zone of uncertainty in
interpreting the scores obtained with
its use.
However,
it well
fulfills the important
requirements of robustness,
portability, and ease of use.
Psychologically, the SD seems to be
well accepted.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
Several tentative conclusions seem to emerge from consideration of the period under
review.
The mass screening technique does seem to work in the United States and can be
adapted for use by a screening team, rather than an individual screener.
The student
population of JFK appears to show some considerable potential as a source of “psychic”
profile individuals, some of whom may be suitable for Piezo-RA training.
There also appear
to be several individuals,
at least, who
live near enough to SRI to consider as experimental
participants (who were identified as possible RA trainees by the Trellis screening).
The Piezo-RA training technique also seems to function effectively in the United States,
and the preliminary informal results look very promising, with the American RA trainees
showing a response to training that
is superior to the English RA trainee group.
The
techniques for RA training also seem successfully transferable to other individuals, and there
seems good reason to expect that Scott Hubbard,
for example, would easily be able to learn
the RA training technique.
The preliminary data indicate that performance
is dependent upon
the number of training sessions performed.
The relevance of the
elite PIF “PB”
profile to
good RA performance has not yet been clearly demonstrated, but the results so far certainly
do not appear to contradict the use of this profile as one of a number of factors to be
weighed in selecting possible RA trainees.
Changes in training conditions that disrupt the
participants’ environment have been shown,
at least informally, to be detrimental to RA
learning.
The crucial importance of appropriate feedback from RA detection instrumentation
also
is indicated by the results.
For formal studies,
it seems essential that the Piezo-RA agents be trained to the point
where they become capable of affecting instrumentation that
is distant from them.
Because
some participants prefer to make noise while producing ostensible Piezo-RA effects, good
isolation
(by distance and shielding)
of Piezo-RA detection systems from environmental noise
and vibration seems essential.
The development of methods of improving the efficiency of participant selection certainly
seems worth investigating.
The present PIF represents a
first attempt to develop one element
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
of this approach.
The further development of participant profiling might well prove
fruitful.
Equally, there may well be remedial or
facilitating techniques that could improve the learning
performance of Piezo-RA trainees, and these would be worth investigating also.
An
examination of the effects of feedback system characteristics and RA psychological induction
strategies might also lead to the development of superior feedback and RA elicitation
techniques that might improve RA performance.
Of special interest would be the application
of behavioral therapy techniques (used for ameliorating phobic behavior)
for reducing RA task
anxiety and inhibition due to formal, witnessed, or novel conditions.
The characterization of
RA production states seems an important goal.
Electrophysiological studies of RA agents
when producing effects could be very useful, because
if characteristic states correlated with RA
production, biofeedback devices could then be produced to train individuals to achieve the
requisite
states.
Finally, the major challenge faced in the upcoming cycle's activities
is to retain the drive
and motivation of the participants and the experimental team.
This
will require careful
goal-setting and the provision of carefully graded, but successively more challenging Piezo-RA
tasks for participants, which
is consistent with the overall aim of achieving increasingly
high-quality evidence of the existence of the Piezo—RA effect.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
REFERENCES
1.
SRI International,
Services Contract No. C-11488.
2.
Issacs,
J., “A Mass Screening Technique For Locating Pkmb Agents,” Psychoenergetic
Systems,
4, pp. 125-158
(1981).
3.
Houck, G., “pk Party Format And Materials Required,” Unpublished Monograph, New
Port Beach (1982).
4.
Isaacs,
J., "Some Aspects Of Performance At A Psychokinetic Task,” Unpublished
Ph.D.
Dissertation, University Of Aston, Birmingham, England (1984).
5.
Isaacs,
J.,
“Directly Detectable Psychokinetic Effects: A New Category Of
Psychokinesis,” Paper Presented At The 1986 Parapsychological Foundation Conference
(“Parapsychology And Human Nature”), In Press.
6.
Batcheldor, K.
J.,
“Contributions To The Theory Of Pk Induction From Sitter-group
Work,” Journal Of The American Society For Psychical Research,
78,
2, pp. 105-122
(1984).
7.
Robinson, D., “Motivation In Parapsychology:
Competence, Control, And The Choice
Effect,” Journal Of Parapsychology,
45,
3, pp. 215-232 (1981).
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Annex
THE PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FORM
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
j
Mv\m&2mimwuw&-mp9b-(mmm2mmGGof-W D
1 ES
REMOTE ACTION PROJECT:
PARTICIPANT
INFORMATION
Thank
you
very much
for
aiding
our
study
!
Please answer
all
the
questions
on
the
top
half
of
this
page
and
on
the
other
pages
now.
Your
answers are
strictly voluntary
and
will
be
kept
confidential
-
no
information
you
have
given
will
be
released without
your
written
permission.
If
you
have
any
questions,
please
feel
free
to
ask.
Name
Date
Address
Phone Number(s)
31.
If
you
are unsure whether
to answer
the question below
"yes",
please
answer
this
question after
you
have
heard
the presentation,
and
participated
in
the
remote action
session.
Please don't
forget
to
answer.
May
we
have
your
permission
to
contact
you
regarding
participation
in
the Remote Action Project
or
other
parapsychology
studies
at John
F.
Kennedy University?
YES
NO
Please
Indicate
your Availability
NOW TURN
OVER THE PAGE
AND PLEASE CONTINUE
TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS
ANSWER THIS
SECTION AFTER THE METAL-BENDING AND REMOTE ACT
I ON _SESS
I ONS
Please
check
the appropriate answers.
NO
Did
you bend
any
cutlery
?
If
yes,
how much
physical
force
did
you
have
to
use
to make
it
bend
?
Great
Moderate
Little
None
_
Did
you experience any
of
the
following
while bending
?
Metal
getting
hot
?
Suddeness
of
bend
?
Metal
going
soft
?
Feelings
of
bodily heat
?
Tingling
in hands
or
body
?
Was
your
attention
on
the
metal
when
it
happened
?
On
Off
What
was
your
mental
state
when
the
bending occurred
?
Laughing
?
Distracted
?
Concentrating
?
Other
TO
BE FILLED OUT BY THE EXPER
I MENTER -
Screening:
Screener:
Ref erral /Other
:
Machine
No.
Macro Events
Machine Results
_
Intuitive
Hi t/
I mpress ions
:
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/Q3/07J CIA-RDP96-0Q789Rpp22001 00001
you
ever
practiced
or
felt
that
you
nave
DeneirtTreu
14.
Have y&G
ever
p
from
spiritual
or
psychic healing
?
15.
Have
you
had
an experience when
you were
thought
to
be
dead and
them came
back
to
life,
and
had memories
of
experiences
such
as
voices,
light,
other
beings
?
16.
Have
you
ever
experienced unusual
ecstasy
, "oneness
with
nature",
or
the
phenomenon
of
"unity"
?
17.
Have
you
had
any
other
unusual
experiences
you
feel
might
be
of
interest
to
us
?
Please
briefly mention
the
type:
Please
circle
the numbers
on
equals
’Definitely
Yes’,
that
que s t i ons
:
the
scale,
from
equals
’Definitely
No’
to
best
represents
your answers
to
the
two
Definitely
Definitely
No
Yes
16.
Do
you
think
its
possible
to affect
physical
objects without
touching
them
?
19.
Do
you
think
that
you can affect
physical
objects without
touching
them?
.
Please
check
the
mental
techniques
affirmations
concentration
relaxation
visualization
yoga
bodywork
therapy
p
which you
have
used,
if
any:
meditation
biofeedback
hypnosis
or
se
I f -hypnos i
s
sychotherapy
or
counseling
Other
21.
In what
sport,
dance,
or
martial
art
do you actively
participate,
i f
any
:
22.
To which
religion
do you
feel
closest?
—
23.
Date
of
Birth
(Month,
Day,
Year)
24.
Sex
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Annex 2
THE JFK COMMITTEE FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS
The JFK Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects (CPHS) was created during
the period under review so that the university
will have an internal review board (IRB) that
conforms to the DHHS requirements for IRBs.
It has held two meetings to date and
approved the research described in this report at
its second meeting.
The membership of the
committee reflects a wide range of JFK faculty and local representatives.
Continuing liaison
has been maintained with Marvin Ziegler, the CPHS chairman.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6