Mf .
W 1 '03'26
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0Q^000800^1
2f)
_
197 ,
Proceedings
of the
IEEE
measure,
therefore,
becomes potentially even mo re unrenlinblc when one recalls
that only
one
judge was used
for each subject's
data,
and
he performed only one
judging
(a
series
of
nine evaluations)
for
a given
target.
The report
tells
us nothing
of any efforts
to "train"
the
judge
in
this procedure,
or otherwise
to determine
some
initial
re 1 inb i li
t
v coef Cl c lent
for
this kind of
task
for
a naive
judge.
This question
or
doubt
about
the
status
of our measuring instrument,
our
"nenaor"
ns
it were,
is
especially preplexing
in
light
of
the highly refined and
instrumentally sophisticated
dependent variables
the authors
surely use
in all
their other research
in
the physical
sciences;
why
they have avoided use
of such techniques
in
this
so-called
"remote-
viewing" research,
and
furthermore
not
used
the appropriate control procedures
expoii-
mcntal psychologists
and psychophyoicists have
laboriously developed starting with
Wundt's work
in Leipzig
in
1879,
remains rather enigmatic,
to
say
the
least.
3.
Were
the
Judgments Independent 7
After
the
first
"target"
site was visited,
we know
the
judge was
taken,
according
to
some unspecified procedure
(the authors
say
"in
turn," but
"in turn" of what--dcmarca tion team visits,
random sequence
just
for
the
purposes
of
judging,
or simply
(and necessarily)
"one after
the other?")
to anothci
Was
he
then given
the
same
nine descriptions
in precisely
the
same way?
If
precautions
taken
to prevent
cues associated
later matches,
since,
•
'
"It")
target
.
no,
how was
the procedure handled?
Were
with previous correct
'hits'
from subsequently influencing
obviously,
information that
a previous description had been correctly matched
(a
hi
reduces by one
those descriptions
in the pool
that
he draws
from to
"match,*
thereby
significantly increasing
the probability
of making subsequent
hits.
Ihiu
could easily occur
if an informed
iK drove
the
judge
to
the different
sites
foi
the
judging,
and
then,
having noticed whot wo would assume
to be
an accidental
1 hit
by
the
judge,
indicated as much through perhaps an unconscious cue
to
the
judge.
The
point
is,
not
that we
think
the authors
really overlooked
such an obvious
source
of
bins,
but
rather
that we need
special reassurance
specifically
that
a
with explicit
driving instructions was used
to merely drive
the
judge
locntions-~nnd
that
is
all.'
After all,
he cannot
cue
the
judge about
the
naive driver
to
the differen
previous
judge may have
of confounding
accomplishments,
if "ho knows nothing of the research.
Of course,
driven himself
to
the
site, which would
largely eliminate
this
source
in
the measurement
scries,
but we do
not know what happened here
since
those pertinent
details
aro omitted
from
the
report.
To summarize our concerns with
the dependent variable
to
this
point,
we may
any,
first,
it appears
to need considerable specification,
a detailed operational definition
second,
its
reliability should be ascertained,
and doubt
that
it
is
inherently very
unreliable
removed;
third,
it
should
be used
for determining experimental, condition
("Clairvoyance")
hit
rates
in
the matching
task,
as well
as
for appropriate control
'conditions,
("No clairvoyance,"
"no clairvoyance and
no demarcation team,"
and
so
on)
hit
rates,
‘so
that an appropriate statistic based
on
the
net
d i f fcrcn_ce_a
in
"hit
rates'
could
bo
tested
for
the degree
to which
this difference measure
is statistically
signficant
.
Since
this
idea
of an appropriate controleondi tion seems
to be
so alien
to
the
pa rnpsycho logical so-called "experimental"
literature,
but
is everywhere else
in
experimental
science recognized
to be
of
the essence of
the
logic
of experimentation
in
the
first place,
let us consider
in
some detail what
the minimal
requirement!! would
be
in order
to actually run an
experiment
on this
"remote viewing" hypothesis
,
rather
than merely report curious observations
of possibly purely coincidental events,
Approved For Release 2001/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080043-7
Rtf
Hi:
Proceedings
or
the
1/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-OO787ROQ02OOO8OO43-7'
A
'
'
.
-t
I’QgG
Apparently,
"clairvoyance"
seems
to be viewed or interpreted
ns
some kind
of
non-acnaory "seeing clearly"
of an object
not immediately available
to sensory
surveillance and
scanning.
It would
seem,
therefore,
that
for objective experi-
mental purposes
it may be operationally defined cither
by specifying instructions
to a
subject concerning his potential
task of envisioning distant
objects,
or
by
controlling
the very existence of
a
target
to be
seen "remotely"
(or any other
way
for
that matter).
Therefore,
each. of
these procedural details
can serve
an
an
IV in
a well controlled
2-factor design.
For
the "target"
IV,
we would
seem
to need
only
the
two basic
levels
of
this
IV,
namely,
a condition
in which
a
remote
target
is available
for alleged
"remote viewing," hypothetically
facilitated
in
some
inscrutable
fashion by
a
"demarcation team" actively observing
the
target
according
to explicit,
replicable directions,
and
a condition
in which no
such
remote
target
or
team exists.
The
former instance would
theoretically permit
clairvoyance
to operate
(if
it exists),
since one's reported
imagery could
be matched
or compared
to
the actual
selected
target,
os discussed
in detail above;
the
latter
control condition would
not,
since
there would bo
no selected
target
to sco
clairvoyantly or otherwise.
Furthermore, on
the
basis
of an operational definition of remote-viewing
in
terms
of
the
instructions
to
S establishing his
remote-viewing
task,
we
can proceed
to require him
to draw pictures
or verbally describe any t iling
he. can imagine
for,
say,
a
5-minute period
(commons ing and ending at
our
signal),
but
in
the experi-
mental condition
further telling him
to attempt
to view a remote
target,
whereas
refraining
from such a demand
in
the control condition.
The overall design then
would
be
s
•
INSERT DIAGRAM HERE
i > at M m m
t»
i
Proccdurally ,
this would mean we begin by creating
a
large
pool
of nearby
geographical
sites
to
function as potential
"targets"
(This
in
an attempt
to
persorvo
the authors procedures wherever
feasible
,
since
it would hardly otherwise
be very advisable
to use
such complex
stimuli
an
these
targets when
little
in known
of
these effects with simple
stimuli),
and
then randomly assign
targets
to
the
h
cells
of our experimental design until,
say,
each
coll
has
five
(5)
targets
(or
perhaps more
depending
somewhat
on resources and
the
type
of
statistical
test
to
be used).
As
for
our "instruction" variable,
wc will basically
require.
S
to give
a detailed phenome-
nological
report
of his
"stream of consciousness" experiences
at designated moments,
but,
for half
of
the
targets
(cells
A
and
11)
we would have
in addition asked
S
to
attempt
to "visualize"
some geographical
scene
(wo would provide
our renders
in
the
later
report with detailed,
replicable
,
instructions
so
the
reader could evaluate
the degree
to which we may have given our
_S any information about
the
type,
condition
or
location of
the
target,
all of which information may help diminish
the population
of total
targets
S
thinks might
be under consideration,
thus significantly increasing
the probability oi making
a hit--a circumstance
that may help account
for
such out-
standing "hits"
in
the authors'
report
as
that of White
Plaza),'
The dif ferential
Approved For Release 2001/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080043-7
Approved For Release 3£p1/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0^200080043-7
&I
OJ
W
'4b
CD
<q
m
Eh
Eh O
fr,
rd
W
Eh
00 ^
PO o
«aj O
*"->1
<t;
<t;
Eh
Eh
fa
ST.w
CO
k—*
•<M
w
C<
Ph
w
&w
EhOM
04oo
Ono
Pi
fP
ft
I.
Eh
t-H
o
i,-i
«
f'-'N
to H
<ij
Ch
Eh s
r
M
IH
h1
O
o
r
\
k.-^H
SS
w
E-i
[-H
w
EH
O
Qh
<5
o W
P-i
Q O O
V.' J
V
O
X
W
pc;
04 w
•w*
Approved For Release 2001/0302$!; ClWRD^^OOT¥7R000200080043-7
CIA^DP96<0787R(H^000800^y
i’aga
presence
of
ouch information,
varying with
the
"instruction"
IV,
would
be
nn
excellent
example of a confounding variable
in an experiment
of
thin
type.
In any
case,
the
use
of
these control conditions
(no
target,
no remote-viewing demand
in
various combinations designated by cells
A,
C and
D)
permits nn empirical deter-
mination
of
the extent
to which such "hits"
in matching may occur simply by virtue
of
the
similarities
judges may read into
this matching material due
to
its
inherent
unstructured
subjective quality,
much as human observers
of Rorschach
ink blots
nee
n map
of Ireland
or
a bust
of Caeser,
nn organization imposed
on perceptual materia la
that
perceptual
theorists refer
to as
"Gestalts," often reflecting unconscious needs
of
the observer
(such as,
"I have psychic powers
I.
must
demonstrate.'").
As
for
the
sequence
to
be.
followed
in actually running
S>
through
these different
treatment combinations,
a
simple randomized arrangement would
suffice,
that
is,
assuming
targets, with numbers
1-5
in cell A,
6-10
in cell
11 and
so
on,
we
simply
run
the
treatment combination according
to the next
number
in
the random series
(e.g.,
if
is
the
first
random number,
we
run
S according
to
the conditions
obtaining
for cell
C)
.
Later
the
judge
can
in random sequence consider
one cell block
of descriptions and
targets after
the
other,
until
all
four cells have been
"matched,"
where naturally
the
judge
is
not
informed
of
the
treatment combination condition.
Hit
rates
arc determined,
for example,
and
then appropriate statistical
tests
for
simple
effects,
main effects,
and possible
interactions determined.
The
"remotc-viowJ ng"
hypothesis would
be confirmed
if cell
"11" had
significantly more
hits
than cell
"A"
(no
target), cell
"C"
(target,
no R-V instruction),
and certainly
than cell
"11"
(where
both
target and appropriate instructions
arc absent).
The
present
reported
study,
by '-the way,
consists only
in cell
"11",
making appropriate comparison impossible,
In
any case,
lack
of such significant differences will merely disconfirm this para-
psychological hypothesis
(not
"disprove"),
thereby providing, no one with any empirical
reason
for affirming belief in
the existence
in
this unusual phenomenon's existence--
at
least,
as evaluated
in
this
suggested experimental design,
furthermore,
the underlying
logic
should bo clear,
that
the clairvoyant
hypo-
thesis
c ann ot
be evaluated when matches
or hits
(cell
"A")
are compared
to
some
hypothetical
"chance"
level
(no matter how accurate
the statistical
test
be according
to
individual
statisticians,
pronouncements
of statistical associations,
or as
found
iv» statistics
texts)
that
fails
to represent
the
norma 1
or ave r a go
numbei*
of hits
that might be really expected under
these,
id ent ical,
conditions when, c lairvoyanco does
not exist
(as cells
"D" especially,
and also
"A" and
"G" establishes,
as explained
above)
.
The essential experimental
invalidity
of
this parnpsychologicnl
tactic
of
comparing
their so-called
"experimental data"
to
some hypothetical
"chance"
love],
especially
in
the absence
of experimental
control conditions,
is perhaps
most
clearly
illustrated
in
the psychokinotic
("mind over matter")
literature,
In
those
studies,
classically championed by Rhine
some years ago
(e.g.,
1947),
a
tumbler might
tons
out onto
a
table some
600 dice;
the
_S
being, evaluated
for his alleged
"psychic"
skills
makes
some effort
to mentally or
"psychically"
influence each die and have,
say,
as
many
5s
turn up as he
can,
A tabulation
is made,
and
it
is
found
that,
say,
2i5
5s have indeed
turned up --a
startling
result,
indeed,
especially when
it
is considered
that
only
100
should have
so
turned up by "chance,"
The problem of
this
irtterpre tat i
o
is
the
same as
that
in
the present
"remote-viewing" study.
This
"chance
level"
ie
a
theoretical, mathematical abstract model
of
the behavior of
600
ideal
dice, not
Approved For Release 2001/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080043-7
M t
procc
Rq.be ft W.
Vj
.cky
.
lid it; or
ase ^D 1/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787RQQp20008004^-7
"
2o,
i v /
o
Page
B
necessarily related
to
the die actually being used
in
the
study at
all,
not
to
mention
to
the procedures
and physical conditions operating
in actually using and
"tossing"
them.
An empirical control condition
is necessary
to obtain
this
"stan-
dard"
for comparison,
one representing
the actual concrete
die used
in
the
study,
and accounting
for such potentially confounding, variables
influencing
the
throw
such
as
non-horizontal
tables,
loaded
(.lice,
etc.
(all as discussed above)
.
Ibis conttol
condition would exactly duplicate
the experimental
condition,
save only
for
the
omission
of some critical
factor under' study
in
the experiment,
such as
(in
thin
case)
psychokinesis
itself,
In other words,
we
run
a
non-PK condition,
in wnich
all
is done as
in
the experimental condition,
but
_S does
not
"PK" when
the
die
is
thrown.
Would
not
such
a comparison change
our interpretation
of
this whole
situation
if
it was
found
chat again about
230 dice came
up
"5s"?
We would
t h e
obviously
look
for those other alternative,
non-parapsychological explanations for
the
high
1 s count
(such as
the possibility of
loaded dice).
An excellent review of
the
PK
literature
through
1962,
and general critique
of
this "theoretical model",
is
that
of Girden
(1963)
.
It may
be
true,
as
the parapsychologists
claim,
that
15SP
is
real and represents
a
great
latent power
of
the human mind,
one
day
to emerge
in
full recognition by
science ns another momentous
step
in
the evolution of man and
his
mind;
but
its
truth remains
to be demonstrated
through use
of
the experimental method,
and
until
it. is,
in
the
same way as
Ohm's
law or Pavlov's conditioned
reflex paradigm
has
been
so demonstrated,
parapsychologists
ought
not
consider psychologists
and other
scientists and engineers calcified conservatives blindly refusing
to
one
the
obviouu
"fact"
that
BSP ,
etc.,
exists,
because
the. parapsychologists
themselves
seem
to
virtually intentionally avoid using
the
only techniques which
in
the
long run will
prove persuasive
to
the
scientific
community,
and
those are objective experimental
procedures.
Perseverance
of belief
in BSP and related phenomena built
upon such
shabby
and preposterous evidence as
is usually offered as
"scientific proof"
on behalf
of
the ESP proponents
(and
the present
study
is
to some extent
an example)
itself
requires
some explanation,
since
such porsarvernnee
is
often cited
as
itself
somehow
evidence
Cor
the existence
of
these
"paranormal" phenomena
(important
people
wouldn't believe
it
if
it wasn't
true.').
It
is
not
hard
to
find
such
an explanation
in
the
literature
of. the
social psychology of
social, movements
and
cults
,
since
therein
it
is well understood how organized groups
of individuals may hand
together
with
their own ideologies,
their
own clubs,
their
own in-group publications
end
sacred works,
their own
symbols,
passwords
and
slogans,
in
the
interest
often
of
providing some
sense
to
life,
some direction,
some, compensation
for
a
sense
of
personal
loss,
insignificance,
or
inferiority, which
is provided
by
becoming,
a
"true
believer," as goffer
(1951)
put
it,
in
some
special and unique movement.
Especially
is
this
true
of ideologies
that persist despite virtually universal
rejection
on
some
rational
grounds,
suggesting,
in contrast,
that
the belief
in question answers
to
needs" Other
' than those
that are
rational.
The particular difficulty
the
para-
psychologists
seem
to encounter
in
that
(most
fortunately
for humanity)
the
scientific
method
represents
one
of
the
few really pristine exemplars
of
the rational
- use
of
the.
human mind,
thereby guaranteeing
a
clash, with
their own vested irrational
ideological
systems.
Add
to
this
the consideration
that we arc presently witnessing,
n
strong
resurgence of popular interest
in
the occult and
supernatural,
with
a proportionate
increase
in
the volume of supersci tutious behavior prevalent,
wo can see
that
the
Approved For Release 2001/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080043-7