PERSONNEL IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00787R000300200001-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 30
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 11, 1998
• Sequence Number: 1
• Content Type: REPORT

For Release 2000/08/1 0 :-C A--jRDP96-00787R090,300200001-8
Final Report
Covering the Period 15 November 1983 to 15 December 1984
PERSONNEL IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION (U)
Copy No. ..... ['-!.....
This document consists of 54 pages.
roved For Release 2000/08/10 : 6IA-RDP96-00787ROF0300200001-8
333 Ravenswood Avenue ? Menlo
[phone] ? Cable: SRI INT'f
i ? U.S.A.
1-373-2046
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300200001-8
UNCLASSIFIED
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
I OBJECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
III BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
IV METHOD OF APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B. Personality Assessment Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Personality Assessment System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. The Mobius Society Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
C. Baseline Data Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
D. Confirmation Data Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
E. "General" Population Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A. Baseline Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
B. Training Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
C. Preliminary Identification of Promising PSI-Q2 Patterns . . . . . . 24
D. Neurolinguistic Programming Investigation (NLP) . . . . . . . . . 25
VI SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
VII REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
APPENDICES
A NAMES OF PAS REFERENCE GROUPS . . . . . . . . . . . 31
B REPORT ON NEUROLINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING . . . . . . 35
Approved For Release i c j /L(k SIS a0787R000300200001-8
 Approved For Releose 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP' 6-00787R000300200001-8
TABLES (U)
1 (U) PAS Reference Groups of Precalibrated Viewers. . . . . . . . . . . 14
2 (U) Cluster Analysis of 14 Precalibrated Viewers . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3 (U) Results of SRI RV Trainees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4 ,)Results of the , j RV Trainees . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Approved For Relea#e 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP9f-00787R000300200001-8
 Approved For Release u N ~ L/10 A 9 MN?b00787R000300200001-8
I OBJECTIVE (U)
(U) The objective of this effort was to determine if a technique for testing personality
could be developed that, when applied to a general population, would delineate specific
personality types that exhibit a high degree of talent for remote viewing (RV).
Approved For Release 24)tOAS&ItEO0787R000300200001-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300200001-8
UNCLASSIFIED
II INTRODUCTION (U)
(U) Traditionally, self-report inventories have been primarily used to assess personality;
i.e., carefully designed questions that ask the individuals to describe their own personality.
Although this technique has met with modest success, its application to the search for
personality correlates with psychoenergetic functioning has, for the most part, failed.
(U) The reasons for this failure are complex. First, it is necessary in any correlational
study to have reasonably quantitative measures of the variables that are being correlated. The
self-report measures have been inadequate and, until now, * sufficiently precise measures of
psychoenergetic functioning have been absent. Secondly, the assessment of personality has
been, and still remains, a very difficult problem. This report describes techniques that have
provided some progress in personality assessment (using self-report inventories as well as
performance measures) for correlation with RV.
* (U) References are listed at the end of this report.
Approved For Release /LOASIS I
6P0787R000300200001-8
TTE
 Approved For Release 2 00/0 L8/10 A SCJ ~ 1 JW 00787R000300200001-8
U
III BACKGROUND (U)
(U) 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.
(U) 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 may be otherwise difficult to obtain.
(U) Two personality measurement approaches not systematically employed in this study
are "behavior ratings" and "indirect assessment." Ratings are often very 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 RV, this is still a strictly theoretical possibility.
(U) Our decision to study both self-report and performance measures 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
more labor-intensive performance measurement methodology but aiming to isolate promising
candidates for serious training.
Approved For Release 2IJN??'L01tF1tD0787R000300200001-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-007\87R000300200001-8
IV METHOD OF APPROACH (U)
T
ii
T
r
(U) To accomplish the object of this effort, we used a group of 19 "calibrated" remote
viewers as "baseline" indications of personality types for individuals who are likely to be
good remote viewers. All 19 viewers were scored on a self-report inventory and on a
performance measure. (Details of both are described below.) Item analysis was conducted
to determine if there were any above-chance groupings of individuals in accordance with
their RV abilities. By comparing the results of the performance measures with those of the
self-report inventories, we considered the possibility of correlations between the two
techniques.
I , The next stage was to administer the same tests to all SRI,
and Mobius Society personnel currently involved in RV. On the basis of the test
results, predictions were made as to the individuals' RV abilities.
(U) As a test of correlations between self-report inventories and RV abilities in the
"general" population, we conducted item analysis upon 3081 responses collected by the
Mobius Society.
(U) To determine if Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) could assist in the search for
personality correlates to RV, we asked Dr. Nevin Lantz to provide us with a detailed analysis
with particular focus upon applications for psychoenergetic research.
Approved For Release 200/08/10: CIA-RDP96-007 R000300200001-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10: ?IS ~reb00787R000300200001-8
(U)
concentrate. Flexible persons (F) 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.
(U) The role adaptive-role uniform dimension is particularly difficult to explain.
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 facilitate such development. (Much of the
above descriptions were paraphrased from Winne and Gittinger2.)
(U) The PAS is itself under development. Therefore, in this project we will make
primary use of an as-yet-unpublished series of PAS "reference groups." These reference
groups provide a simplified PAS in the sense that "only" 80 distinct profile classes are initially
recognized (compared to a possible 4096 in the full PAS). These classes can be given
meaningful names and may be associated with useful descriptions. Appendix A gives the
names that are currently being associated with each of the reference groups. At the writing of
this report only 40 reference groups have tentative narratives. Most individuals can be clearly
assigned, on the basis of overall profile similarity, to a single group. Some individuals,
however, prove difficult to assign to any class and some are almost equally capable of
assignment to two different classes. In the latter situation, both descriptions tend to apply. It
is to be understood that significant individual differences must still exist within each of these
80 reference groups and that some of this intragroup variance may be superficially very
obvious. The members of a given group are seen as facing very similar problems of
adjustment, but they may "solve" these problems in dramatically different ways ranging, for
example, all the way from "denial" to "exploitation" of the same underlying characteristics.
2. (U) The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(U) The MBTI3 was chosen as the self-report instrument because it is widely used,
well understood, and one of us (Saunders) has been a major contributor to its modern
Approved For Release 2 t.49-&787R000300200001-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 - ?g-Jf(b00787R000300200001-8
(U)
conceptualized as directly relevant to the remote viewing task. Specifically, color naming,
which is an individually administrable version of the Stroop task, is thought to invoke
interhemispheric conflicts of brain function by requiring the left brain to report what the right
brain has seen, rather than what the left brain has seen for itself. Tasks similar to the time
estimation subtest have already been shown to elicit unusual behavior from known psychics.?
Obviously, the fourth dimension has been included with all the newly administered PAS. In
addition, we have been able to acquire these data for three of the six earlier SRI cases,
including two of the three stars.
(U) Two experiments were undertaken at SRI for the purpose of comparing the relative
effectiveness of certain variations of psi training procedures8-9. The viewers (a total of 8) in
both training experiments were volunteers aware of these general purposes, but initially
inexperienced and totally naive as to possible training/learning strategies. The PAS, including
its fourth dimension, was administered to each of these viewers, who also completed Form J
of the MBTI. None of the results of the PAS testing were available to either the subjects or
the trainers before the tabulation of these results.
(U) We used the PSI-Q2 experiment of the Mobius Society as an initial test of
personality correlates with the "general" population. Since the readers of OMNI magazine
must be considered a selected population, the extension of the personality concepts to the
3308 respondents is "general" only in that it composes such a large sample. We conducted
item analysis upon this sample to determine if there were any correlations either with our
baseline data or with the data of the 16 trainees.
4~rg"&787R000300200001-8
Approved For Release 2~IpXM0WTI-W
 Approved For Release 0 N088/10 : ?Igfp(?b00787R000300200001-8
UCLA
V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (U)
(U) Table 1 distributes all 19 of the currently available "precalibrated viewers"
according to their primary PAS Reference Group assignments. The notation that will be used
for PAS Reference Groups throughout this report involves three letters to indicate the extreme
measures for the three components of the primitive personality level. The numbers 0 through
9 further delineate the reference group accounting for both the basic level and the 4th
Dimension addition. As an example, an ERU8 individual tends to be an externalizer,
regulated, and role uniform. A Level 8 is described as follows:
To a first approximation, Level 8 patterns are high on everything (except
Primitive indicators). Being not driven by weaknesses in their own personality,
these people often have difficulty figuring out "who they are" and why other
people are so sure of themselves. Their search for understanding may be
either empirical or theoretical. Their preferred problem-solving style is
contingency planning, i.e., they generate many more solutions than they
implement. (Saunders, unpublished)
(U) In Table 1 the eight SRI viewers are designated by three digit viewer numbers; four
viewers who are considered as extremely accomplished are underlined in the table. The
Mobius viewers are designated as MO1 through M09, and the remaining cases are shown as
"???". Even without the formality of a statistical significance test, the pattern of results is
suggestive. For example, 14 of the 19 cases are actually assigned to the RU groups, which
account for only 1/4th of the possible groups. For example, all four of the accomplished
viewers are assigned to groups that include other members.
(U) While Table 1 provides a descriptive summary of the available PAS data for
precalibrated viewers, this display does not lend itself to an efficient significance test. In
order to generate a test statistic that is sensitive to the sort of clustering we see in Table 1, we
consider the "distances" between pairs of cases that result when the scores of each case
Approved For Release 2~Ippfqe( 0787R000300200001-8
 Approved For Release 2ep1J0A~1~-ffftC~0787R000300200001-8
(U) J
are used as coordinates to plot a "point" in a "PAS-space". In particular, suppose we locate
and tag the 14 best viewers within the larger collection of 3167 cases used to define the
Reference Groups. Suppose we then count, for each tagged viewer, the number of nonviewers
that are closer to it than any other viewer; this will result in 14 distinct counts, one starting
from each viewer. If we arrange these counts in a rank order, from smallest to largest, the
expected value of the jth count is given by
. .. th 2j (N - n)
nX (n + 1)
where N is the total number of nonviewers (3153) and n is the number of viewers (14). For
the present data, the expected value is 30.02 X j. The actual counts resulting from this
analysis are shown in Table 2, in the column labeled "Number Between." The 14 viewers are
shown in "clusters" based on the calculated distances, which also "happens" to sort them by
reference groups. Half of the observed counts are below the expected minimum, while all are
below the expected mean (p < 0.00006).
(U) In view of the test summarized in Table 2, the PAS data gathered from the
precalibrated viewers demonstrate that the good viewers are bunched together, though not
necessarily all in the same bunch. Indeed, even the generalized distance measures underlying
Table 2 point to the existence of at least four prototypical good viewers, with one recognized
star performer included in each of these four types. Viewers M07 and 986 (of those reported
in Table 2) seem most likely to represent possible fifth and even sixth prototypical good
viewers.
(U) On the basis of Tables 1 and 2, the strongest case for the importance of a
particular PAS pattern or Reference Group focuses on ERU8. The meaning of ERU8 is given
by the following narrative description:
ERU8: Seeker--Intense, alert individuals who are likely to be seriously in
conflict about the meaning of life. As they look around, ERU8 persons see
people enjoying life and achieving satisfactions that do not come to them even
when they do the "same" things. In particular, they are prone to envy the
intense sensual experiences of the EFA and the fantasy life of the IFA, for
which they have no counterparts. At least partly to deal with this problem,
they may develop unusual interest in psychology, and readily volunteer for
studies of drug effects and other esoterica. Also, as part of their search for
"real" experience, they are likely to explore homosexuality. All the while,
they can be reasonably productive in a conventional role. ERU8 persons may
Approved For Release 2e NI; A kE
EQ0787R000300200001-8
 Approved For Release Qd/II c gig D00787R000300200001-8
(U) Normatively, ERU8 is not a common reference group. It is overrepresented in our
database because we have had access to numerous samples of volunteer subjects for
psychological experiments. The reference group parameters for ERU8 currently depend on a
sample of 98 known exemplars, which implies appreciably better-than-average clarity of
group definition.
(U) A review of the specific ERU8 viewers known to us confirms that they did not
spontaneously volunteer themselves as good, or even potentially good remote viewers. All
these people have other professional identities, and pursue psi as no more than an avocation,
avocation. Viewer 504, now considered a star, actually came into the program as a control
subject.
(U) The second major pattern evident in both Tables 1 and 2 is Reference Group
IRU2. The meaning of IRU2 is given by the following narrative description:
IRU2: Mystic--For Level 2 persons, the meaning of life is that it is to be
experienced. For IRU2 persons this is an essentially internal process; they
are predisposed to the possibility of mystical communion and communication
and find deep symbolic significance even in ordinary events. Media, art, and
music hold special interest. Because they think nonverbally, it is difficult for
them to share or explain their experiences; they are generally willing to try,
but often come across as merely hallucinating. In relation to the "real
world," they are a reactive problem-solver and an underachiever. They have
a strong conscience, seek to earn their keep, but usually gravitate to some
rote manual or clerical activity that demands neither social finesse nor
symbolic manipulation. Their need for guidance and supervision may become
either an asset or a liability.
(U) Normatively, we see no reason to believe that IRU2 is either especially common or
especially rare. Because IRU2 persons are quickly perceived as "a little odd," they are likely
to be passed over by testers looking to fill quota samples for standardization studies, but they
are not really averse to being tested. The reference group parameters for IRU2 currently
depend on a sample of 53 known exemplars, resulting in average clarity of group definition.
(U) From a psychoenergetic perspective, the IRU2 group distinguishes itself by pursuing
psi with a true sense of vocation. Reviewing the four IRU2 cases, all these persons have
become known through their own initiative, and all have sought to capitalize professionally on
this perspective. Three of the four have published books in the field, another is registered as
a psychic at the local chamber of commerce, and one serves as a training monitor. We are
Approved For Release 2 QJk$ R?JF.-rK Q787 R000300200001 -8
 I
T
r
r
r
r
r
Approved For Releas 00/08/10: CIA-R - 0787R000300200001-8
(U)
have not yet seen enough exemplars to warrant specific discussion. Certainly, it is important
to continue the process of gathering PAS data from known viewers in the expectation that
further exemplars will be recognized. The meaning of ERU6 and IFU3 are given by the
following narrative descriptions:
ERU6: Manager--Proactive problem solvers who are forthright in their
dedication to constituted authority and decisively rational in their views, but
who tend to be overcommitted to their work and tend to overcontrol their
own feelings and emotions. They are extremely competitive and ambitious
and seek to inspire and involve others through example. Their social behavior
often demonstrates a concern to show that they cannot be manipulated by
others. They are better at creating procedures than policies, but nevertheless
see themselves as intellectually creative and expect to be appropriately
rewarded for these efforts on behalf of their organization. Members of this
group are found in the middle echelons of any major organization, such as a
bank, business, hospital, or government agency.
IFU3: Votary--Polyactive problem-solvers who are prone to be autistically
self-centered, who recognize and feel guilt about this, and who combat the
implied threat by immersing themselves in a multitude of worthy activities. As
children they were permitted to pursue their considerable intellectual curiosity,
without the imposition of either mental discipline or social conformity. As an
adult, they remain intellectual and creative, and attach much importance to
their own and others' right to be "different." They have a strong conscience
and are likely to be politically "liberal" and to have well-developed aesthetic
judgment. Their vocational interests are likely to be in the humanities and
social science, rather than in mathematics or physical science. They may
function well as teachers, administrators, consultants, or team-members.
B. ( Training Results
T v J
1 1 As reported earlier, two training groups at SRI
served as the confirmation cases. The PAS, including its Fourth Dimension, and Form J of
the MBTI were administered to each of the trainees. None of the results of the PAS testing
were available to either the trainees or the trainers before the tabulation of the results.
(U) The bunching of the precalibrated viewers in PAS-space, shown in Table 1,
suggests that outstanding psi ability is not a widespread trait. ERU8 and IRU2 together may
represent as much as 2 percent of the general population and, allowing for a few other PAS
patterns still to emerge, our ultimate interest is estimated to be limited to no more than 5 to
19
Approved For Release 2000/ 8/10: CIA-RDP96 0787R000300200001-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/ 10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000 300200001-8
(U)
10 percent of the population. We must expect that most of the trainees in an unscreened
sample will have little psi aptitude.
(U) The results of the SRI training efforts and the personality measures are shown in
Table 3. Two measures of RV performance are shown. The RV-Figure-of-Merit column
displays an overall level of RV ability. (Because different target sets were used for the two
training efforts, the Figures of Merit are valid as relative measures within a training group
only.) The RV-Learning column displays a statistical assessment (student's t-test) of the
slope of a line drawn through the session-by-session Figure of Merit data. Although there
are other possible RV measures that could be considered, these two represent the current
state of the art.
Viewer
PAS
MBTI
RV Learning
RV Figure of Merit
807*
ERU8
ISFJ
2.06
0.227
249
IRU7
ISTJ
1.43
0.239
997
IFA1
ESFP
0.70
0.194
454
IFU4
ENFP
0.52
0.199
309 t
IRA5
INXP
1.72
0.353
558
IFA8
XNFX
1.40
0.372
694
ERA2
IXXP
0.91
0.387
t Track I SRI training group.
Note: The figure of merits are only valid within a training group.
Track II SRI training group.
~U
Table 4 shows the results for the I l trainees. The
RV-Ability-Estimate column represents the best qualitative assessment RV abilities of the
trainees. A """" represents a "star viewer", while a "" represents an extremely good
viewer. "+" represents "good" or "OK" viewers and "?" represents viewers who are
(U) RESULTS OF SRI RV TRAINEES
Approved For Release 2000/08410 : CIA-RDP96-00787R0Q0300200001-8
 Approved For Releas 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-QO787R000300200001-8
1 unevaluated. These measures are very subjective; for example, the difference
current y
between """" and "' is somewhat arbitrary.
INTJ
INFP
ENTP
INTJ
INFP
XNXP
INTP
ESTJ
RESULTS OF THE, RV TRAINEES
RV Ability
Estimate
ERA6
ERA6
ERAS
IRU4
IFA5
IRU7
IFU5
IFA6
Note: The RV Ability Estimate is qualitative.
(U) When we compare all 15 of the training subjects with all four of the potentially
interesting reference groups identified above, there is only one trainee who can be properly
regarded as a member of any currently interesting group-Viewer.807. Because of this,
much depends on how we perceive the training results for Viewer 807. Actually, among the
seven trainees with quantitative data, Viewer 807 ranks as best on three of the six RV
measures and ranks as second-best on two more of them (only two measures are shown in
Table 3. Puthoff and Maya and Humphrey9 contain complete details.) The significant
positive slope for Viewer 807's Figure-of-Merit is what we might expect from an ERU8
personality. We have stated earlier that ERU8 personality should expect to experience at
least initial difficulty with overcoming AOL.
(U) The only other trainee in Table 3 with consistently positive RV measures is Viewer
249. There is simply no way to regard this person as a member of any of the four groups
1
Approved For Release 20
0/08/10: CIA-RDP96-OOR87R000300200,001-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/0300200001-8
(U)
already identified. Either we may regard these training data as a fluke, or we may regard
them as suggesting that IRU7 is a fifth group for which to watch. The latter possibility is
somewhat reinforced by the presence of another IRU7 in Table 1.
Perhaps the most important observation to make about the results of the
group (Table 4) is that they represent the results of a selection process very
different from the "process" implicit in Table 1. We need be neither surprised nor
discomfited by the apparent absence of any IRU2, ERU8, ERU6, or IFU3 cases. For one
thing, except for ERU6, we suspect that good examples of these groups simply were not
available in the pool from which the selection began. (Part of this may be because IRU2
and ERU8 personalities, on average, might have difficulty 1 ) Also, we
observed earlier that our known IRU2 viewers initially made themselves known, and our
known ERU8 viewers responded to calls for volunteers explicitly for psychoenergetic research.
By contrast, the viewers in Table 4 were much more deliberately recruited; they are all
"volunteers" in the sense of "informed consent," but the request for this consent was only
the final step in a multistage process of testing and interviewing.
(U) We regard the confirmatory signs in Table 4 as encouraging. For example,
although we find no actual IRU2, we note that our IRU2 training monitor regards his IRU4
student as "having the most long-term potential" despite his also being the "most difficult to
work with." Apart from the' irony in this, IRU4 is theoretically just an IRU2 with a
successful PAS contact pattern built on the surface. As another example, although we find
no single unmistakable ERU8, we see four of these eight cases falling within three standard
deviations of the ERU8 centroid according to ERU8 norms.
(U) Although we have yet to see a bona fide star viewer in the IRU7 reference group,
Table 4 provides at least one (018) and possibly a second (043, a borderline IRU7) example
with affirmative precalibration, reinforcing the context already developed earlier (??? and
249).
(U) Reasonable arguments can be made that self-generated interest in psi flows from
Primitive U (17 of 19 cases in Table 1 are Primitive U) and that selection by interview will
tend to favor Primitive A (five of eight cases in Table 4 are Primitive A). On the other
hand, it is not obvious that A-U differences should affect psi performance. (We think it is
obvious that E-I and R-F differences should affect psi performance.) If we set aside the
A-U differences on grounds they may be artifactual and then reexamine Table 4, we now
22
Approved For Release 2000/ /10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R 00300200001-8
 Approved For Release 2 00/08/10: CIA-RDP96-0 787R000300200001-8
I
7
(U)
have three of the eight cases falling into "known" psi-positive categories. Two of these (063
and 372) are ERA6, now grouped with ERU6; the same two already have the strongest track
records represented in Table 4. The third one (016) is ERA8, now grouped with ERUB; he
is still a trainee, but is seen as "making the fastest progress" of anyone in his training group.
Without identifying any new categories, it is possible to relate six of the
eight liewers to the previous data. Viewers 101 and 035, who are unambiguously
Primitive F, are left over after this process. We have seen very few F personalities in the
whole course of this project, and would be ready to write it off but for Viewer 414 shown in
Table 1. Several of the viewers have spontaneously suggested that the PAS task that defines
this primitive dimension (the WAIS Block Designs) seemed to them especially relevant.
Theoretically, we see this dimension as defining an individual's signal-to-noise requirements:
R persons work with a relatively high threshold, and can count on the "reality" of percep-
tions that pass through their filter. The problem for them is to make up for what does not
pass. F persons 'operate with a lower threshold requirement and can count on not missing
much that's real, but they also perceive a lot of noise as though it too were real. Thus, an R
person is typically better motivated than an F person to learn how to perceive more with
higher accuracy regardless of the use of psi abilities.
(U) Only two of the individuals in Table 4 (035 and 018) display the trend within the
time estimation task thought to be a hall-mark of psychic performance. In view of the much
larger effect previously observed in IRU2 as compared with ERU8, the present observation
may mean nothing at all. On the other hand, it may relate to the need/use of technical aids
to initiate psi conducive attitudes, particularly for Level 6 viewers. More than any other
groups, Level 6 individuals are accustomed to making time work for them, and their time
estimates tend to be among the most accurate.
(U) The self-report data in Table 4 illustrate the point that the PAS versus MBTI
correlation is complex. Two INTJ persons have very different PAS patterns; likewise, so do
two INFP persons. It is difficult to imagine that these eight viewers have, in fact, been
selected partly on the MBTI; the only clear trend in the data is toward intuition, but intuition
is common at high normal levels regardless of WAIS patterning. A self-report analysis
employing a finer breakdown, perhaps along the lines of PSI-Q2 (see below), seems likely to
be necessary if the goal of mass screening is to be attained. MBTI Form J, the form used
thus far, contains enough items to support such a finer breakdown.
Approved For Release 2 00/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00 87R000300200001-8
 Approved For Release 2
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
87R000300200001-8
The emergence of ERA6 as a potentially psi-positive reference group is
an especially encouraging event. Of all the groups we have had reason to mention, this one is
normatively the most common, by far, and is especially common in
rgani-
zations, in which ERA6 individuals function well and comfortably as the middlemen in a chain
of command. They are more loyal to individuals than to abstract ideas and are capable of
insulating themselves from philosophical and ethical questions. In terms of psi, therefore, they
appear to be willing, able, and relatively likely to stick with it. A problem for selection,
however, is that ERA6 ranges over several MBTI types, reducing the potential efficiency of
first-stage screening. The meaning of ERA6 is given by the following narrative description:
ERA6: Role-Player--These persons are proactive problem-solvers who are
naturally both involving (A) and involved (E). As an adult, ERA6 persons
have presumably found a socially functional role that requires them to be
active and apparently relating but depends upon a minimum of true
involvement. In effect, ERA6 persons spend life "proving" that they cannot
be tempted. The tension that this implies is relatively repressable because of
the R, but somatic symptoms may develop over time. Members of this group
are relatively common and have included actors, dancers, musicians, waiters,
salesmen, policemen, teachers, and managers.
(U) On balance, our efforts to cross-validate the important PAS patterns have yielded
only partial results. There is nothing strongly inconsistent with expectations, but the results
are not statistically conclusive primarily because of the low proportion of psi-talent estimated
to exist in unselected populations. Future efforts to achieve cross-validation should be
planned so that approximately 50 percent of the experimental trainees are expected to show
strong learning curves. This will require excluding about 80 percent of an unscreened
population.
C. (U) Preliminary Identification of Promising PSI-Q2 Patterns
(U) We report the initial exploratory results of psi in relation to self-report personality
measures.
(U) The first level of RV analysis on the PSI-Q2 data involves a simple one-in-six
"guessing" task. Viewers were asked to pick which of six target categories best matched their
response. No significant evidence of psychoenergetic functioning was found. However, a
"forced choice" task is shown throughout the literature as an ineffective way of eliciting good
Approved For Releas 96- 0787R000300200001-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300200001-8
UNCLASSIFIED
(U)
responses, and thus we require a more sensitive RV measure before we can verify some of
the earlier findings.
(U) With regard to personality questions, we already know that reasonably clear-cut
correspondences may exist between psi-criteria and PAS information. We also know10 that
the correspondences between the PAS and the MBTI are relatively complex; they can be
described as many-to-one mappings of complete patterns (PAS) onto other complete patterns
(MBTI). Because not all MBTI types occur in any given reference group, the search for
members of a given reference group can advantageously begin with self-report methodology,
but the selection ratio must not be set too restrictively. These observations based on the
MBTI seem likely to apply equally to the PSI-Q2 data.
(U) We have sought confirmation of this reasoning in an analysis of the PSI-Q2
data-base analogous to the PAS analysis reported in Table 2. We began this new analysis by
identifying ten respondents whose drawings in the OMNI experiment had been informally
recognized (during routine processing) as outstandingly good examples of what "could"
happen; these ten cases were tagged within the larger data base. The question then is, are
these ten cases randomly distributed or not. The answer is, probably not; more probably,
they represent clusters that are suggested by analysis of the self-reporting questionnaire.
Further, based on what we know of the MBTI responses of ERU8, IRU2, and IFU3, it
appears likely that the questionnaire cluster analysis is consistent with these findings.
(U) We include Dr. Lantz's report on NLP as Appendix B. Although there are many
misunderstandings about NLP, it has it roots in sound scientific research. We did not expect
that this investigation would yield a new screening technique, but it did provide a sound basis
to include it in further research. Specifically, we have added it to our list of
recommendations (see below).
Approved For Release /LOASI15 UP0787R000300200001-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300200001-8
UNCLASSIFIED
VI SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS (U)
(U) This project has investigated the possibility of developing personality testing methods
capable of discriminating individual persons by their degree of talent for remote viewing. Both
self-report and performance-based personality assessment methodologies have been
considered. Baseline data have been drawn from a sample of 19 precalibrated viewers and
have been applied to new samples comprising 15 viewers and trainees.
(U) The results affirm that important personality differences between viewers and
nonviewers can be measured. In addition, the results suggest the need to recognize several
relatively distinct "types" of good viewers. It appears that potentially good viewers appear in
about five to seven personality categories and collectively represent about 10 percent of the
general population.
(U) In our view, we have just begun to recognize the power of these techniques, and
recommend that all viewers should be selected, in part, by the procedures outlined in this
report. Specifically we recommend
? Extending the RV analysis of the PSI-Q2 data to determine the degree
to which the MBTI can be used as an effective prescreening instrument.
? Continuing to collect baseline data as more accomplished remote viewers
become known.
? Training a number of individuals to administer the specialized version of
the WAIS.
? Selecting all new psychoenergetic participants on the basis of the PAS
guidelines.
? Determining if NLP techniques are able to model excellent remote
viewing.
? Determining if NLP techniques can be used as an aid in mass or
selective screen for RV personnel.
Approved For Release 8V A SSI3 D00787R000300200001-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0300200001-8
UNCLASSIFIED
VII REFERENCES (U)
1. E. C. May and B. S. Humphrey, "An Automated RV Evaluation Procedure (U),"
Final Report, SRI Project 7408, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA (October 1984),
SECRET/NOFORN.
2. J. F. Winne and J. W. Gittinger, "An Introduction to the Personality Assessment
System," J. Clin. Psych., Monograph Supplement 38 (1973), UNCLASSIFIED.
3. I. B. Myers with P. B. Myers, Gifts Differing, Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.,
Palo Alto, CA (1983), UNCLASSIFIED.
4. S. A. Schwartz and R. DeMattei, Psi-Q Test II, Omni 5(1), pp. 136-142 and 182
(October 1982), UNCLASSIFIED.
5. H. E. Puthoff and R. Targ, "A Perceptual Channel for Information Transfer over
Kilometer Distances: Historical Perspective and Recent Research," Proceed. IEEE
Vol. 64, pp. 329-354 (1976), UNCLASSIFIED.
6. D. R. Saunders, "PAS Fourth Dimension Kit," MARS Measurement Associates,
Lawrenceville, NJ (1983), UNCLASSIFIED.
7. G. R. Schmeidler, "A Possible Commonality among Gifted Psychics," J. Am. Soc.
for Psych. Res., Vol. 76, pp. 53-58 (1982), UNCLASSIFIED.
8. H. E. Puthoff, "Track I Training R&D (U)," Final Report, SRI Project 7408, SRI
International, Menlo Park, CA (October 1984), SECRET/NOFORN.
9. E. C. May and B. S. Humphrey, "Alternate Training (U)," Final Report, SRI Project
7408, SRI International, Menlo Park, Ca (October 1984), SECRET/NOFORN.
10. D. R. Saunders, "The MBTI and the PAS: Matching Patterns to Patterns," J. PAS
Foundation, Vol. 3, in press, UNCLASSIFIED.
Approved For Release 1 /LCA SIS f DO787ROOO3OO2OOOO1-8
 Approved For Release U 2000/08 N C/` A S I F CEbOO787ROOO3OO2OOOOI -8 10 :
NAMES OF PAS REFERENCE GROUPS (U)
Approved For Release 2 N 4!A SS1F1I 8D00787R000300200001-8
Appendix A
 Approved For Release,Q$/1 Q ~~-$~~~-007878000300200001-8
(U) PAS REFERENCE GROUPS: TENTATIVE NAMES
Reference
Reference
Group
Name
Group
Name
ERAO
Psychopathic
ERA5
Conservator
IRAO
Chameleon
IRA5
Investigator
IFAO
Schizoid
IFA5
Physician
EFAO
Vindictive
EFA5
Analyst
EFUO
Gladiator
EFU5
Philosopher
IFUO
Psychotic
IFU5
Acolyte
IRUO
Automaton
IRUS
Programmer
ERUO
Athlete
ERU5
Educator
ERA1
Participant
ERA6
Role-Player
IRA1
Game-Player
IRA6
Technician
IFA1
Martinet
IFA6
Tactician
EFA1
Scorekeeper
EFA6
Auditor
EFU1
Competitor
EFU6
Pastor
IFU1
Opportunist
IFU6
Advocate
IRU1
Team-Member
IRU6
Engineer
ERU1
Rulekeeper
ERU6
Manager
ERA2
Artisan
ERA7
Aide
IRA2
Compliant
IRA7
Pragmatist
IFA2
Narcissist
IFA7
Entrepreneur
EFA2
Hedonist
EFA7
Salesman
EFU2
Interdependent
EFU7
Politico
IFU2
Galatean
IFU7
Egotist
IRU2
Mystic
IRU7
Enthusiast
ERU2
Proprietor
ERU7
Leader
ERA3
Adherent
ERA8
Confrontive
IRA3
Volunteer
IRAS
Cynical
IFA3
Observer
IFA8
Anxious
EFA3
Speculum
EFA8
Defensive
EFU3
Naturalist
EFU8
Compulsive
IFU3
Votary
IFU8
Suspicious
IRU3
Performer
IRU8
Dilettante
ERU3
Showman
ERU8
Seeker
ERA4
Nurturant
ERA9
Psychosomatic
IRA4
Consultant
IRA9
Explosive
IFA4
Counselor
IFA9
Addicted
EFA4
Professional
EFA9
Repressed
EFU4
Coach
EFU9
Depressed
IFU4
Individualist
IFU9
Withdrawn
IRU4
Specialist
IRU9
Obsessive
ERU4
Teacher
ERU9
Stressee
33
Approved For Release NIGH A SIS ?00787R000300200001-8
 Approved For Release ~0$/a 0 - ?l?-flffgbP0787R000300200001-8
Appendix B
REPORT ON NEUROLINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING
Approved For Release 2kf 14(Z'btf*ED0787R000300200001-8
 Approved For Release UIWZ!EA.?J lig 00787R000300200001-8
AN INVESTIGATION OF NEUROLINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING AND ITS
POSSIBLE APPLICATION TO REMOTE VIEWING TRAINING
Remote viewing training, like any other skill that requires complex mental processes,
has been hampered by the inability to perceive directly and thus codify those particular
mental strategies necessary for accomplishing the task. Recent studies in the area of
nonverbal behavior suggest that mental states can be read from such external behavior as
facial expressions [Ekman and Friesen, 1976], eye movements [Galin and Ornstein, 1974],
body posture and movement [Spiegel and Mackotka, 1974], and voice qualities [Hernsen et.
al., 1973]. Review of the literature in this area led to the question of whether remote
viewing training could be enhanced by systematically observing the nonverbal behavior of a
viewer and inferring or encoding helpful mental strategies that could be utilized in training
this skill. It was hypothized that elements of the remote viewing process, crucial to per-
formance and training, are not being recognized because of a lack of systematic attention to
the viewers nonverbal behavior and too heavy a reliance on self-report for what happens
internally as the viewer proceeds with the task. A search was conducted to discover possible
systems for observing and encoding nonverbal behavior.
I was attracted to Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) as a possible tool for increasing
the ability to observe and interpret nonverbal behavior. The originators claim NLP as a
process for making explicit those mental patterns necessary to perform complex tasks and
rely heavily on the observation and explanation of nonverbal behavior to construct their
mental maps [Dilts, 1983]. The present study was conceived to address the following: (1) Is
there any validity to NLP techniques and if so what are the limitations? (2) Can NLP be used
to model excellent remote viewing? (3) Can NLP techniques be used as a screening device
for selecting remote viewing trainees? (4) How would one use NLP in remote viewing
training? The investigation was conducted by (1) attending the NLP Practitioner Certification
program designed by John Grinder and his associates at Grinder, DeLozier & Associates, (2)
reviewing the independent NLP publications, and (3) reviewing the literature for research that
might validate or invalidate the techniques.
The NLP Practitioner Certification program offered to the public was a 24-day training
program consisting of one three-day weekend per month over a seven-month period with
certification testing at the end of the sequence. The author attended training from January to
Approved For Release k(NtBIIL1 M D 00787R000300200001-8
 Approved For Release 2Q~1$`1 Q 00787R000300200001-8
(both internal and external). Thus a person does not react directly to the real world but to a
mental representation of the world. This places NLP squarely in the tradition of cognitive
psychology, which emphasizes the structures and processes within an individual's mind as a
major factor in behavior. As Sampson [1981] has noted cognitivism is the dominant point of
view in current social, personality, and developmental psychology and has a long and
distinguished history in psychology.
Another basic postulate of NLP is that there is a connection between observable
nonverbal behaviors such as eye movements, gestures, changes in breathing, posture and
muscle tonus, skin color, voice tone and tempo and even particular words and the internal
neural patterns for processing incoming perceptual data. Thus a trained observer can identify
systematic patterns in external behavior and use these data to determine mental processing
patterns that individuals use to make sense of and communicate about their experience.
The identification of neural patterns from external behavior depends on two principles
of cybernetic systems: (1) Any change in one part will affect all other parts in some way so
that when the rules of interaction are understood the effects on different parts can be
predicted and (2) activity in one system is a transform of activity in another and, therefore,
carries information about the other [Ashby, 1960, 1964]. It follows that all behavior is in
some way communication.
The communication aspects of nonverbal behavior have been well researched. Scientific
study of nonverbal communication is often dated from Charles Darwin's The Expression of
the Emotions in Man and Animals [Rosenthal and Depaulo, 1980]. Recent importance of
this area is evidenced by the introduction in 1979 of a journal devoted exclusively to research
in nonverbal behavior (Journal of Nonverbal Behavior). Mehrabian [1972] has noted the
dominance of nonverbal behavior in his finding that the vast majority of our communication
is carried out nonverbally.
Nonverbal communication behavior begins in infancy according to Hubert Montagner
who developed a system for predicting future behavioral problems from the gestures of
preschool children [Pines, 1984]. Others have identified emotions [Ekman et.al, 1979],
states of consciousness [Ekman and Friesen, 1974, Freedman and Hoffman, 1967], intent to
deceive [DePaulo and Rosenthal, 1979, Ekman and Friesen, 1974, Kraut, 1978, Zuckerman,
Spiegal, DePaulo and Rosenthal, 1982], aggressive intent [Freedman, et.al. 1973, Hernsen
et. al., 1973], and attitudes [Mehrabian and Ferris, 1967] using various nonverbal behaviors.
Approved For Release %(IL1 SS?00787R000300200001-8
 Approved For Release V IV k!LH ?~IFl100787R000300200001-8
a task. For instance if a person looks up and to the-left when asked to spell a word, the
person is thought to be making a mental picture of the word before spelling it. More
complicated strategies can be elicited from sequences of representational system shifts.
NLP techniques have two broad applications: (1) producing behavioral change
(therapeutic), and (2) learning completely new behaviors (modeling). The specific techniques
for using the information gathered through the observation of representational system activity
are numerous and a thorough presentation is beyond the scope of this report. One procedure
especially useful in modeling will be mentioned, however. The procedure is known as
anchoring in NLP terminology.
The process of anchoring is one of the most important procedures in NLP [Dilts, 1984].
An anchor is simply defined as any representation (internally or externally generated) that
triggers another representation or series of representations. The assumption behind anchoring
is that because experience is represented as a gestalt of sensory information when any portion
of the gestalt is reintroduced the other portions of the experience will be reproduced to some
degree. Therefore, any portion of an experience may be used as an anchor to access the
total experience. Written words, for instance, are visual anchors for internal representations
from the reader's past sensory experience. The visual symbol "mouse" has meaning only in
its ability to trigger internal representations based on previous experience.
According to NLP theory anchoring is a naturally occurring process that, if used
consciously, can be a major tool in modeling. Anchoring is useful in several ways during
modeling. An anchor can be established by the programmer in order to gain access to
particular strategies or states which may be useful in accomplishing a specific task. Anchoring
can also be used to mark certain parts of a strategy in order to shift the sequence as well as
to delete portions of a sequence. A third way of using anchoring is in the installation of new
strategies during the learning process.
Research by independent investigators on the NLP notion of representational systems has
so far been confined to what has been dubbed the Preferred Representational System (PRS).
PRS is the idea that individuals exhibit a preference or dominance of one sensory-motor
Approved For Release IJN8LiAS&IFECIFE?o0787R000300200001-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 5 ~I F I E &00787R000300200001-8
Use of NLP to develop a screening strategy for finding natural talent in the general
population could be accomplished by studying accomplished remote viewers for similarities in
processing styles and then seeking out these styles in the population at large.
A logical place to start in using NLP techniques would be to have one or several
researchers specifically trained in NLP modeling techniques and have them work with known
remote viewers to develop training strategies. Screening can be accomplished by ascertaining
the strategy of these viewers and searching the general population for individuals who possess
these strategies for similar tasks.
Approved For Release UNLLL A 9911F11ED00787R000300200001-8
 Approved For Release epflin1A: pTEi&00787R000300200001-8
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ashby, W. R., Design for a Brain: The Origin of Adaptive Behavior (John Wiley and Sons,
New York, NY, 1960).
Ashby, W. R., Introduction to Cybernetics (London University Paperbacks, 1964).
Conway, F. and J. Siegelman, "The Awesome Power of the Mind-Probers," Science Digest
(September 1983).
Darwin, C., The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1965) (originally published 1972).
Davidson, R., Emotion, Cognition, and Behavior (Cambridge University Press, 1984).
DePaulo, B. M. and R. Rosenthal, "Ambivalence, Descrepancy, and Deception in Nonverbal
Communication," in Skill in Nonverbal Communication: Individual Differences, R.
Rosenthal (Ed.) (Oelgeschlager, Gunn, and Hain, Cambridge, MA, 1979).
Dixon, N. L., Subliminal Perception: The Nature of a Controversy (McGraw Hall, London,
1971).
Dilts, R., Roots of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (Meta Publications, Cupertino, CA, 1976).
Dilts, R., J. Grinder, R. Bandler, L. C. Bandler and J. DeLozier, Neuro-Linguistic
Programming: The Study of Subjective Experience, Vol. 1 (Meta Publications,
Cupertino, CA, 1980).
Ekman, P. and W. V. Friesen, "The Repertoire of Nonverbal Behavior: Categories Origins,
Usage and Coding," Semiotica, Vol. 1, pp. 49-98 (1980).
Ekman, P. and W. V. Friesen, "Hand Movements," Journal of Communication, Vol. 22, pp.
353-374 (1972).
Ekman, P. and W. V. Friesen, "Nonverbal Behavior and Psychopathology," in The
Psychology of Depression: Contemporary Theory and Research, R. J. Friedman and
M. M. Katz (Eds.) (Winston, Washington, D.C., 1974).
Ekman, P. and W. V. Friesen, "Detecting Deception from the Body or Face," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 29, pp. 288-298 (1974).
Ekman, P. and W. V. Friesen, Unmasking the Face (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
1975).
Approved For Release Ltt d. 0-00787R000300200001-8
 Approved For Release,2.Q,ppe$/1p -- jOO787ROOO3OO2OOOO1 -8
-51
Rosenthal, R. and B. M. DePaulo, "Encoders vs Decoders as Units of Analysis in Research
in Nonverbal Communications," Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, Vol. 5, pp. 92-103
(Winter, 1980).
Sampson, E. E. "Cognitive Psychology as Ideology," American Psychologist, Vol. 36, No. 7,
pp. 730-743 (1981).
Sharpley, C. F., "Predicate Matching in NLP: A Review of Research on the Preferred
Representational System," Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp.
238-248 (1984).
Spiegel, J. E. and P. Mackotka, Messages of the Body (The Free Press, a Division of
MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York, NY, 1974).
Zuckerman, M., N. H. Spiegel, B. M. DePaulo, and R. Rosenthal, "Nonverbal Strategies for
Decoding Deception," Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 171-187
(1982).
Approved For ReleasjMftAK- SI!F?6-00787R000300200001-8