SCREENING AND SELECTION OF PERSONNEL: THE PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (PAS)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 29
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 14, 1998
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: December 1, 1986
• Content Type: REPORT

d For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Final Report- -Objective C, Task 2 December 1986
Covering the Period 1 October 1985 to 30 September 1986
SCREENING AND SELECTION OF PERSONNEL:
THE PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (PAS)
By: BEVERLY S. HUMPHREY DAVID R. SAUNDERS
NEVIN D. LANTZ MARS Measurement Associates
SRI International
PETER J. McNELIS, DSW
CONTRACTING OFFICER'S TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE
ROBERT S. LEONARD, Executive Director
Geoscience and Engineering Center
opy No. .........
This document consists of 29 pages.
F-0297
s (lu)a ). 43P
333 Ravenswood Avenue ? Menlo Park, California 94015 ? U.S.A.
ved For F f4a9&-2N0%0ft : t1A A0M6-0d '9R602_06 6001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
In the continuation of a promising FY 1984 effort, the development of remote
viewing (RV) subject selection criteria has continued to center, primarily, on
performance-based psychological testing and secondarily, on the use of self-report
instruments. The particular performance battery that was used both in this study and in the
earlier FY 1984 study is the Personality Assessment System (PAS). The PAS provides a
comprehensive interpretive framework for profiles of subtest performances that have been
generated by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). The principal self-report test
under examination is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).
A subject pool of 95 candidates, who had completed the PAS and the self-report
tests, was created by the end of FY 1986. On the basis of hypotheses formed from the
previous FY 1984 effort, nine participants were selected from the pool of new candidates for
inclusion in SRI International's novice RV training group. A protocol was established to
maintain SRI control over subject anonymity and to ensure that all participants involved in the
PAS/self-report testbed remained blind to the predictive criteria.
At the conclusion of the FY 1986 novice RV training program, the predictive
ability of the PAS was assessed. Results indicate that the PAS provided a conceptual
replication of the earlier FY 1984 PAS effort, i.e., in the earlier study, the PAS was used
successfully to predict the top performer out of each of three different training groups. In FY
1986 the PAS was used effectively to predict two out of the top three performers in a single
training group.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ......' ........................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................... iv
I INTRODUCTION ................................................... 1
II METHOD OF APPROACH ............................................ 3
A. Overview of the PAS ............................................ 3
1.
The Fundamental Principle ................................... 3
2.
The Role of the WAIS ....................... ............. 3
3.
The Role of Reference Groups ............................... 4
B.
The FY 1986 PAS Program ...................................... 8
1.
Overall Hypotheses ......................................... 8
2.
Protocol for Subject Selection ................................ 9
III RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......................................... 11
A. Results of the PAS Program ...................................... 11
1.
Selection of Novice RV Training Participants ....................
11
2.
Prediction Criteria ..........................................
15
3.
Results of Predictions: Correlations Between RV Performance
and PAS Profiling ..........................................
17
4.
The Consistent PAS Traits ...................................
19
B. Correlations Between PAS Profiling and Self-Report Instruments ........ 20
IV CONCLUSIONS .................................................... 22
APPENDIX-BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR (MBTI) 23
REFERENCES ............................................................... 25
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
LIST OF TABLES
1 Tentative Names for 96 PAS Reference Groups ................................ 5
2 Distribution of Precalibrated Remote Viewers as of Subject Selection .............. 12
3 Distribution of 49 Cases in the SRI Subject Pool as of Subject Selection ........... 13
4 Changes in PAS Assignments .............................................. 16
5 PAS Prediction vs. Actual Viewer Performance ................................ 17
6 PAS Prediction vs. Evidence for Viewer Learning ............................. 18
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
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.
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 otherwise may be difficult to obtain.
Two personality measurement approaches not systematically employed in this study
are "behavior ratings" and "indirect assessment." "Behavior ratings" are often 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 remote viewing (RV), this is still a strictly theoretical
possibility.
Our decision to study both self-report and performance measurement 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
* This report constitutes Objective C, Task 2, detailing the current use of psychological instruments in
predicting psychoenergetic performance.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
more labor-intensive performance measurement methodology, but aiming to isolate promising
candidates for serious training.
The particular performance measurement chosen was the Personality Assessment
System (PAS). The PAS is a comprehensive interpretive framework for profiles of subtest
performances that have been generated by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). In
an FY 1984 SRI study, I * the PAS was used successfully to predict the top RV performer in
each of three different training groups. The study reported here represents an attempt at
replication of that earlier work.
References can be found at the end of this document.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
II METHOD OF APPROACH
1. The Fundamental Principle
The fundamental basis of the PAS resides in the premise that every individual
can be characterized by a distinctive profile of measurable abilities--some abilities more or
less developed and others more or less latent. The individual differences in behavior that
psychologists call "personality" can be derived from this profile simply by recognizing that it is
easiest for individuals to try to capitalize on their, strengths and to avoid their weaknesses.
The term "cognitive style" may be suggestive in'this context.
For example, people who perceive analytically, rather than in holistic patterns
(or Gestalts), tend to perform better on certain standardized spatial tasks. In "real world"
situations, however, their natural reliance on structure is helpful only in certain situations and
is likely to prove a liability in others--e.g., in picking up subtle interpersonal cues. This
particular trait might be viewed as a signal-to-noise bias. Analytical perceivers can only
recognize the stimulus when the signal-to-noise ratio is high; they avoid false signals at the
expense of frequently failing to recognize true signals. Gestalt perceivers, on the other hand,
avoid missing anything, but frequently misinterpret noise as if it were true signal.
While no one or two dimensions can realistically hope to elucidate human
personality, the 12 appropriately diverse measures of the PAS begin to afford a realistic
picture of what happens as individuals endeavor to exploit their assets and to minimize their
liabilities.
2. The Role of the WAIS
Most PAS practitioners regard the PAS as a theory that can be
operationalized in more than one way--i.e., the concepts are seen as transcending particular
measurement tools or methodologies. Clinical observation and self-report questionnaires are
potentially legitimate sources of PAS data. However, the nature of the PAS theory and its
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
constructs suggests that actual performance measurements ought to provide the most efficient
data. Thus, the subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (i.e., WAIS or WISC)
comprise a convenient battery and provide the most commonly used input data. The PAS,
therefore, consists of 10 of the 11 conventional Wechsler tests* and two additional subtests,
Color Naming and Time Estimation.
3. The Role of Reference Groups
The PAS is most easily understood within the concept of "Reference
Groups." In the current evolution of the PAS, 96 Reference Groups serve to encompass a
possible 4,096 combinations; these comprise a relatively manageable number of meaningful
families of patterns (i.e., profiles) that can be generated from the extended WAIS. When the
data are clustered in this fashion, there is still an important amount of within-group variability.
It is necessary to master the between-group variability first, however, because the
psychological "meaning" of the same operational measurement can vary considerably from one
Reference Group to another. It is a relatively defendable approach to apply conventional
linear correlation or regression analysis on a within-group basis but not on a between-group
basis.
The 96 groups can be arranged in a table (see Table 1) that serves to
highlight the most important relationships among them. The first salient observation is that 96
is exactly 3 x 4 x 8, i.e., each Reference Group represents a combination of one of three
"problem-solving styles" with one of four patterns of "brain-hemispheric development" and
one of eight "primitive temperaments." Each group can be defined operationally by specifying
a list of real individuals as exemplars; the test data derived from these exemplars are then
reduced to a convenient "key" by which a computerized procedure is able to determine the
relative similarity of various individuals to one group, or to determine the relative similarity of
one individual to various groups.t Each group has also been given a name, which is easier to
remember than the key, but which is in no sense a replacement for the key or its underlying
list of exemplars. The greatest difficulty is in generating and refining the lists of exemplars.
The Wechsler tests used in the PAS include Digit Span, Arithmetic, Information, Block Design,
Similarities, Comprehension, Picture Arrangement, Picture completion, Object Assembly, and Digit Symbol
(the vocabulary test is not used).
It is beyond the scope of this discussion to provide the details of the computerized psychometric analysis.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Table 1
TENTATIVE NAMES FOR 96 PAS REFERENCE GROUPS
Teacher
(5)
Conservator
PRO-ACTIVE
Programmer
(5)
Iconoclast
Acolyte
(5)
Physician
Philosopher
(5)
Mediator
Coach
(4)
Nurturant
Manager
(6)
Pragmatist
Specialist'
(4)
Consultant
Exemplar
(6)
Technician
Individualist
(4)
Counselor
Professional
(6)
Tactician
Pastor
(4)
Catalyst
Auditor
(6)
Analyst
Disciple
(a)
Dogmatist
Mystic
(a)
Sophist
Dedicated
(a)
Aristocrat
Puritan
(a)
Spartan
Seeker
(8)
Theorist
POLY-ACTIVE
Dilettante
(8)
Activist
Voyeur
(8)
Perceiver
Naturalist
(8)
Spectator
Showman
(3)
Booster
Implementer
(7)
Aide
Performer
(3)
Volunteer
Organizer
(7)
Leader
Devotee
(3)
Entertainer
Advocate
(7)
Entrepreneur
Director
(3)
Player
Politician
(7)
Salesman
Exhibitionist
(b)
Empiricist
Enthusiast
(b)
Chameleon
Perverse
(b)
Polymorph
Chauvinist
(b)
Speculum
Authoritarian
(9)
Achiever
RE-ACTIVE
Obsessive
(9)
Controlled
Detached
(9)
Autocrat
Counterdependent
(9)
Counteractive
Artisan
(2)
Adherent
Rulekeeper
(1)
Participant
Operator
(2)
Compliant
Team-Member
(1)
Game-Player
Galatean
(2)
Narcissist
Opportunist
(1)
Scorekeeper
Interdependent
(2)
Hedonist
Competitor
(1)
Prima Donna
Yeoman
(c)
Reactor
Automaton
(c)
Actor
Possessed
(c)
Actress
Gladiator
(c)
Contrarian
ERU
ERA
Key to PAS
IRU
IRA
Primitives
IFU
IFA
EFU
EFA
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
The three problem-solving styles encompass 32 groups each, and are called
pro-active (Reference Groups contained in 4, 5, 6, and a); poly-active (Reference Groups
contained in 3, 8, 7, and b); and re-active (Reference Groups contained in 2, 9, 1, and c).
Poly-active people find it easy to do more than one thing essentially simultaneously; they may
even require the stress of "too much to do" in order to be fully activated. Pro-active people
find such parallel processing more difficult, and they prefer to deal with multiple tasks by
planning how to handle them sequentially; the strategy works except when they are caught by
surprise by two things at once. Re-active people also find parallel processing difficult but deal
with this problem in another way--namely, by looking to and relying on other people for
guidance as to what to do next. This strategy also works, as long as the guidance is realistic.
The general population includes large numbers of all three of these problem-solving styles.
The four patterns of "hemispheric development" encompass 24 groups each.
Referring to Table 1, they may be loosely identified as:
1. Left-brained--Reference Groups contained in 6, 7, and 1.
2. Right-brained--Reference Groups contained in 4, 3, and 2.
3. Both-brained--Reference Groups contained in 5, 8, and 9.
4. Relative absence of internal control (i.e., externally
controlled) --Reference Groups contained in a, b, and c.
In general, left- and both-brained people are seen as skilled in logical reasoning, while right-
and both-brained people are seen as skilled in pattern recognition. Individuals characterized
by a relative absence of internal control do not typically exhibit special skill in either logical
reasoning or pattern recognition.
The eight "primitive temperaments" encompass 12 groups each (see the key
at the bottom of Table 1) and comprise all of the possible patterns formed by three
dichotomies:
1. Externalizer versus Internalizer (ElI).
2. Regulated versus Flexible (R/F).
3. Role-Adaptable versus Role-Uniform (A/U).
For example, an Externalizer who is Regulated and Role-Adaptive would be denoted by the
ERA Primitive. Conceptually, these dichotomies are very close to the dimensions of Carl
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Jung's personality typology, and they are also very similar to three of the four dimensions as-
sessed by the MBTI. Each of these represents a continuum, but for clarity we will outline the
polar opposites for each dimension in the following paragraphs.
The natural frame of reference for Externalizers (E) lies in the world outside
themselves. Externalizers are perceptually dominant, environmentally sensitive, and more
responsive to external than to internal cues. They are behaviorally active and more interested
in interacting than in thinking. Their perception is relatively specific and concrete, and their
emotionality is directed outward. Internalizers (I), on the other hand, are ideationally
dominant, self-sufficient, and more responsive to internal than to external cues. Internalizers
are behaviorally passive, tend to withdraw, and are more inclined toward thinking than doing.
They perceive in abstract terms, and emotionality is directed inward.
Regulated (R) and flexible (F) people represent the two poles of the R/F
dimension. Regulated persons react to a limited number of specific, well-defined stimuli on
which they can concentrate and focus. The range of their reactivity is narrow, and because
their threshold for confusion and distraction is high, they are characterized by their ability to
concentrate. Flexible persons 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.
The role adaptive-role uniform (A/U) dimension is more complex. 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 to facilitate such development.
To the PAS, each possible primitive combination directly implies the probable
quality of any pressure for change emanating from the childhood environment (i.e., from
parents, siblings, peers, or teachers). Because it is constrained by different workable options,
each PAS primitive temperament faces different developmental problems and challenges.
There are, in fact, 12 ways for each one to evolve, leading to the 96 Reference Groups.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
There are two adjustments to the primitive dimensions explained above.
These adjustments, termed compensation and modification, are defined in the 1973 Winne
and Gittinger PAS Monograph2 as follows:
"A person's need to adapt to a variety of situations requires various adjustments in
relation to each of his original personality tendencies. There are two kinds of ad-
justments available to him. The first, more fundamental adjustment is called com-
pensation, a term referring to long-range and comparatively stable adaptations de-
veloping in early childhood. Modification, the second level of adjustment, includes
the less stable adaptations an individual makes in the later phases of his develop-
ment..."
"Compensatory activities are not inherent in the primitive personality structure.
They are learned or acquired tendencies, externally induced and environmentally
determined. They are long-range developmental adjustments that, in combination
with the person's original tendency, result in characteristic external and internal
frames of reference. When compensation has been achieved, usually by adoles-
cence, the person is believed to have reached the second, or basic [our emphasis]
level of personality development..."
"Modification, defined as the second phase of adjustment, is achieved during the
later stages of development. These new adjustments are not applied directly to the
primitive tendencies and so do not achieve the powerful masking effect of compen-
sation. However, the fundamental differences between compensation and modifi-
cation do not lie in direction, but rather in the temporal sequence of their develop-
ment and their effect on adaptation..."
"...primitive orientation and compensatory processes interact to form the basic
level of personality structure. Modification interacts with the basic level to form
the surface level of this structure. The surface or contact personality is the least
tenacious of the three levels of personality and is subject to breakdown quite easily
under stress..."
Within the Reference Group scheme, patterns of "compensation" are roughly
equivalent to patterns of "hemispheric development," while patterns of "modification" are
roughly equivalent to "within-group" variation.
B. The FY 1986 PAS Program
1. Overall Hypotheses
The FY 1986 PAS effort was designed to test the following hypotheses:
? Individuals selected for participation in the novice RV training
group, according to their inclusion in particular PAS Reference
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Groups, will have significantly higher figure of merit scores than
individuals selected from other groups.
? Self-report tests will show significant correlations with PAS
Reference Groups.
2. Protocol for Subject Selection
Potential participants for inclusion in the overall FY 1986 subject pool were
recruited primarily from SRI International employees and their close family, friends, and
relatives. This recruitment procedure was implemented in order to maintain a modicum of
control over the participant selection process. All candidate participants were asked to
complete the self-report measures [which included the MBTI, the Strong Vocational Interest
Blank, and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) ] and to undergo PAS
testing.
A protocol was established to maintain SRI control over subject anonymity
and to ensure that all participants involved in the PAS/self-report testbed remained blind to
the predictive criteria. To achieve this, the following procedures were established:
? The PAS administration was performed by the Palo Alto Medical
Clinic (PAMC), an independent contractor, to eliminate the
possibility of biasing SRI staff who were conducting and evaluating
experiments in which PAS hypotheses were under test.
? SRI maintained a data base that contained the link between
candidate subject names and identification (ID) numbers only.
? Score sheets from all tests, identified with candidate subject ID
numbers only (i.e., no names), were forwarded directly from the
PAMC to MARS Measurement Associates for evaluation and
assignment to PAS Reference Groups. Therefore, the MARS data
base contained the link between PAS/self-report information and
subject ID numbers only.
Using this protocol, a subject pool of 95 tested candidates was created by the end of FY
1986.
On the basis of hypotheses formed from the previous FY 1984 effort, MARS
selected nine participants from the pool of new candidates* for inclusion in SRI's novice RV
training group. At the conclusion of the FY 1986 novice training program, SRI supplied a
Only 49 of the 95 cases had been collected at the time of novice RV trainee selection.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
third party (the in-house Contracting Officer's Technical Representative) with the trainee ID
numbers and individual evaluation results of the training effort; at the same time, MARS
supplied the COTR with the trainee ID numbers and RV performance predictions based on
prior PAS experience. All of these necessary pieces of information were combined and
evaluated; the specific criteria governing the selection of trainees, and the overall efficacy of
the PAS in predicting novice RV performance are discussed in Chapter III.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
III RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Results of the PAS Program
1. Selection of Novice RV Training Participants
The choice of the nine participants for the FY 1986 novice RV training
program was based on two criteria: (1) the distribution of precalibrated* remote viewers in the
PAS data base (see Table 2) at the time of subject selection, and (2) the availability of
"promising" profiles (derived from the precalibrated viewers) in the pool of new candidates at
the time of subject selection (see Table 3).
On the basis of these two criteria, MARS originally selected 12 individuals
according to the following algorithm: two pairs of individuals were drawn from the ERU8
profile group and one pair of individuals was drawn from each of the ERAS, IRAS, ERUa,
and EFU5 profile groups. The overall "blanket" prediction governing the selection process
was that the ERU8's, ERAS's, ERUa's, and IRA5's would perform relatively well in training.
Actually, at the time of selection, ERU8, ERA8, ERUa, and IRA5 were all groups that each
included more than one precalibrated viewer, and for which new cases could be found within
the subject pool. The two EFU5 cases were chosen with the expectation that they would
perform relatively poorly, even though EFU5 was seen as a good group for Intuitive Data
Sorting (IDS). ERU6 and/or ERA6 cases would have been selected but did not exist in the
subject pool. IFU3 cases were available but were seen as relatively unlikely to respond to the
planned training method. t
"Pre calibrated" as it is used here means a qualitative assessmnt of the viewers over many years of
experience.
t Later, at the time when formal predictions were supplied to the SRI COTR, the definitions of the
Reference Groups (in terms of lists of exemplars) had evolved considerably, and several of the selected
subjects were now seen differently than they had been. At the same time, evidence had been developed that
ERUa was probably a very good group--it was now the only group.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Table 2
DISTRIBUTION OF PRECALIBRATED REMOTE VIEWERS
AT THE TIME OF SELECTION
PRO-ACTIVE
++ (8) * ++
(8)
(8)
(8)'
(4)
(4) + -
* * (6) *
(4) -
(6)
(4)
(6) +
(6) -
POLY-ACTIVE
(3)
(3) +
+ + (3) *
(3)
Key to PAS
Primitives
(7)
(7)
(7)
(7)
ERU ERA
IRU IRA
IFU IFA
EFU EFA
(5) -
+ (5) +++
(5)
(5)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(9)
(9)
(9)
(9)
(c)
(c)
(c) Key to Viewer
(c) Ability
* = superstar
* = star
+ = good
- = poor
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Table 3
DISTRIBUTION OF 49 CASES IN THE SRI SUBJECT POOL
AT THE TIME OF SELECTION
x x x (5)
x (5) x x
(5)
xxxx (5)
(4) x
(6)
x x (4) x
x x (6)
(4) x
x (6)
x (4)
x (6)
x x x (a)
? (a) x x
(a)
x (a)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
xxxx (8) xx
x (8_) x
(8).
(8)
(7)
(7)
(7)
(7)
(2)
(2)
(2) x
(2)
(1)
(1)
x (1)
(1) x
x
(c)
(c)
(c)
(c)
Key
x = assignments
are
ERU
ERA
unambiguous
Key to PAS
? = assignments
IRU
IRA
are
Primitives
IFU
IFA
ambiguous
EFU
EFA
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
It was originally intended that each of the two RV monitors would have a
novice training group consisting of two individuals from ERU8 and one individual each from
ERAS, IRA5, ERUa, and EFU5. Two of the original selectees (an ERA8 and an IRA5) were
dropped from the original selection of 12, however, because they were RV analysts whose
primary responsibility was to provide the evaluation for the training program. A third selectee
(the other IRA5) was eliminated from the program because of pregnancy and was replaced by
an IRU4. A fourth, selectee (the other ERA8) dropped out of the training program after only
two sessions and was not replaced. A total of nine individuals, therefore, comprised the final
selection for the novice training program.
Descriptions of the five PAS profiles that formed the basis for the original
trainee selections are provided here to afford an overview of their personality attributes:
ERU8: Seeker--This is an intense, alert individual who is likely to be seri-
ously conflicted about the meaning of life. He sees other persons enjoying life
and achieving satisfactions that do not come to him even when he does the
"same" things. In particular, he is prone to envy the intense sensual experi-
ences of the EFA and the fantasy life of the IFA, which are inherently alien.
Looking for "solutions" to these problems, he may develop an unusual interest
in psychology, and readily volunteer for studies of drug effects and other
esoterica. Also, as part of his search for "real" experience, he is likely to
explore homosexuality. He can- be reasonably productive simply because he is
bright, but he has difficulty maintaining commitment and is an underachiever.
ERUa: Disciple--An ERUa is an externally-oriented (socially dependent)
individual who ordinarily perceives only that which is unmistakable (high sig-
nal-to-noise requirement) and whose spontaneous social responses are out of
step with conventional expectation. His early experiences have done little to
teach him techniques for dealing with the implied problem (foot frequently in
mouth), and he remains essentially dependent upon real-time external control
rather than having developed any effective self-control(s). These external
controls are most likely to take the form of personal identification with a
model personality, and will be maintained with religious tenacity. Hence disci-
ple. Wrapped in the mantle of his mentor, ERUa appears supremely self-
confident. He is a good student, and happily exercises any talent he may
have discovered or acquired. At least in his youth, he has experienced hostil-
ity and rejection but has also learned that he cannot comfortably respond in
kind; his whole adjustment is a response to this issue.
ERA8: Theorist--The ERA8 is a poly-active individual having well-
developed and well-balanced internal controls, which makes him a potentially
very versatile individual. The bad news is that this may lead him to ap-
proach-approach conflicts, in which the individual puts off action in any direc-
tion. In any event, because of the "A," people are prone to expect even
more from an ERA8 than he is capable of. Measures of within-group position
(either PAS or self-report) become relatively critical for proper interpretation.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
The best and most likely possibility is for the individual to strive away from
the ERA primitive and toward an INFP* self-report; this person will be seen
as actively dealing with complex abstract material. An STJ self-report suggests
movement toward the Primitive ERA, implying probable intra-psychic conflict;
such patterns have been found, for example, among ineffective managers and
from members of SWAT teams.
IRA5: Iconoclast--The IRA5 is a future-oriented person who seeks to bring
about change(s) that will benefit both individuals and the system(s) in which
these individuals must operate. At the same time, IRA5 is predisposed to be-
lieve that this cannot be accomplished gradually--rather, it will usually require
a "break with the past." For this reason, the implications of any change(s)
must be carefully thought through before implementation. His insistent open-
mindedness is often annoying to others. Research and application are both
important; i.e., IRA5 will seek both to perfect his research and then to urge
its reduction to practice. He is comfortable with numbers and other abstrac-
tion, and is often adept with statistical reasoning.
EFUS: Philosopher--This person is a pro-active problem-solver who adopts
a particularly global view of the world and its problems. He is not merely
educated; he is broadly intellectual. He is as much interested in what can be
as in what is, and aligns himself with others who share his view of a more
ideal future. He is more concerned with who he is than with any conven-
tional view of who he should be. However, he is easily disillusioned and dis-
couraged and does not function well in an organizational setting unless he can
respect his superiors and colleagues. It is difficult for him to take responsibil-
ity for others and, in turn, others find him difficult to understand. Obviously,
the success of his adjustment depends on a very high level of innate ability.
2. Prediction Criteria
The PAS is a system that is constantly evolving as the number of cases in the
PAS data base increases. Therefore, a subject's "goodness of fit" in any given profile may
change, because Reference Group membership is empirically derived. The PAS trainee
selections were made in April, 1986. The PAS predictions about the RV performance of
these trainees, however, were not registered until October, 1986. Consequently, some of the
trainees' profiles shifted in the interim as a result of enlargement of the PAS data base; these
changes are summarized in Table 4. It is important to note that all of the prediction criteria
pertain to the right-hand column--i.e., the trainees' profiles as they were seen at the time of
prediction.
Important aspects of self-report personality descriptions in the MBTI can be found in the Appendix.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Table 4
CHANGES IN PAS ASSIGNMENTS
Viewer
ID
Profile as of
Selection
(4/86)
Profile as of
Prediction
(10/86)
137
ERU8
ERUS
176
EFU5
EFU6
210
ERU8
ERA8
307
EFU5
EFU5
450
IRU4
IRU4
512
ERU8
IRAS
739
ERUa
ERUa
891
ERUa
IRA5
928
ERU8
ERU8
Formal predictions were requested according to two criteria: (1) overall
performance, and (2) slope of learning curve. It was apparent that the members of poor
groups (i.e., EFUS and EFU6) had to be ranked at the bottom of both lists--accounting for
the two bottom ranks shown in Tables 5 and 6. The IRU4 and ERU5 trainees were ranked
next to the bottom simply because there was no evidence that they should be ranked higher.
Among the remaining cases, the ERUa was seen as most likely to have come into the
experiment on the basis of self-knowledge that he/she could already perform RV--i.e., he/she
had the least need to learn anything from the training and could start out at a high level. At
the other extreme, the learning of the IRA5 was seen as the most problematic, and therefore
least likely to occur within the finite context of the experiment.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Thus, the groups of interest were ranked as ERUa > ERA8 = ERU8 > IRA5
when predicting overall performance and were ranked as the reverse of this when predicting
the significance of the learning within the experiment.
3. Results of Predictions: Correlations Between RV Performance and PAS
Profiling
Table 5 shows the PAS predictions for overall RV performance as measured
against actual performance--i.e., each trainee's performance as measured by an effect size
estimate (Pearson's r)3 derived from the figure of merit analysis4 p-values. An effect size
estimate is used to normalize for number of sessions.
Table 5
PAS PREDICTION VS. ACTUAL VIEWER PERFORMANCE
PAS Prediction
Actual Viewer
Performance
Viewer
ID
Profile
Prediction
Comments
Viewer
Effect
Number of
ID
Size (r)
Sessions (n)
739
ERUa
best
739 *
0.170
10
210
ERA8
best
137
0.110
23
very
928
ERU8
best
nose
928 *
0
082
28
.
ranking
512
IRA5
best
512 *
-0.131
25
891
IRA5
best
450
-0.139
37
450
IRU4
middle
307
-0.159
25
137
ERUS
middle
do well
w
210
-0.220
23
in IDS,
307
EFU5
worst
but not
in RV
891
-0.267
27
176
EFU6
worst
clearly the
bottom
176
-0.279
23
* PAS prediction coincides with the viewer's actual rank.
- 17 -
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
While the rank order correlation contrasting the top five and bottom four
performers does not achieve statistical significance, it is encouraging that the PAS correctly
identified two out of the three best performers. The failure to identify Viewer 137 is easily
attributed to lack of prior experience with ERU5 viewers. Thus, the results tend more to
confirm than to disconfirm the FY 1984 PAS study.
Table 6 shows the PAS predictions for evidence of RV learning as measured
against actual evidence for learning--i.e., each trainee's learning-slope effect size as derived
from the figure of merit slope p-values.
PAS Prediction
Actual Viewer
Performance
Viewer
Profile
Prediction
Viewer
Effect
Number of
ID
ID
Size (r)
Sessions (n)
891
IRA5
Most improvement
739
0.223
10
512
IRA5
928
0.213
28
928
ERU8
137
0.155
23
210
ERA8
210
0.082
23
739
ERUa
450
0.046
37
450
IRU4
891
-0.041
27
137
ERU5
176
-0.085
23
307
EFU5
307
-0.392
25
176
EFU6
Least improvement
512
-0.524
25
The PAS predictions concerning viewer learning are largely unsuccessful.
When the PAS predictions were forwarded to the SRI COTR, however, they were caveated
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
with the statement that evidence for viewer learning is the most difficult to predict, because
there is no definitive evidence that the putative training procedures are actually training the
individuals. Significant overall viewer performance may occur irrespective of training
procedures (i.e., a viewer may simply excel naturally) and is therefore less speculative.
MARS, therefore, expressed more confidence in its overall viewer performance predictions--a
confidence that appears to have been warranted given the relative success of the PAS as
evidenced in Table 5, as compared to the relative lack of success as evidenced in Table 6.
If the assumption is made that the PAS shows promising predictive ability in
identifying good remote viewers,* then there ought to be a meaningful distillation of good
remote viewing traits that the PAS has as its basis for prediction. Four such traits have been
identified to date:
1. 21 out of 25 good viewers, including, seven of the eight stars,t are classi-
fied by the PAS as Primitive R. This appears to make sense in terms of
the signal-to-noise interpretation of the Primitive R/F dimension. R in-
dividuals are persons who have learned that they can trust the reality of
whatever they do perceive. At the same time, they should be prone to
make errors of omission rather than commission when seeking to de-
scribe a remote viewing target. The exceptional case is the one Primitive
F star, but inasmuch as his/her reports are outstanding in their depth of
accurate detail, his/her data reinforce the present interpretation.
2. 23 out of 25 good viewers, including all eight of the stars, can be classi-
fied as Basic Level U (Role-Uniform primitive temperament) by the
PAS. Essentially, this means that they direct their attention inward
rather than outward--i.e., for whatever reason, they are not paying the
kind of attention to the external world that commonly leads to socially
effective behavior. This is an obvious aspect of social introversion.
3. 20 out of 25 good viewers, again including all eight stars, can be classi-
fied as Basic Level Internalizers by the PAS. Interpretively, this means
that they place the locus of "primary reality" internally--within their own
heads--rather than externally. This subjective orientation is shared by
two developmentally distinct groups--primitive Internalizers who have
been allowed to maintain this orientation, and Primitive Externalizers
who have been forced to reverse their natural orientation. Both of these
"Good remote viewers" are indicated with " * " or "*" or "+" in Table 2.
"Star viewers" are indicated with " * " or " * " in. Table 2.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
developmental patterns are present in the data. This is a more subtle
aspect of introversion.
4. All of the good viewers show more or less of an adaptation effect on the
PAS Time Estimation task. The effect in question is normatively rare
but not without precedent, and is not routinely scored as part of the
PAS. However, it is very reminiscent of Schmeidler's (1982) findings5
using the Eysenck Chained Time Reproduction procedure. (Actually,
two of Schmeidler's five gifted psychics are among our 25 good viewers.)
Both sets of findings make sense if we first observe that the two tasks
quickly lose their novelty and then assume that psi-gifted individuals'
sense of time is "event driven," i.e., is readily slowed by boredom.*
B. Correlations Between PAS Profiling and Self-Report Instruments
There are encouraging trends that suggest that important aspects of
psychoenergetic functioning can be predicted from the PAS, and there are also promising
indications that important aspects of self-report personality description (i.e., the MBTI)t6 can
be predicted from the PAS. The latter proposition is supported by the observation that there
is a most typical MBTI type for any given Reference Group. Many of these specific
correspondences are statistically significant with the available data, and they appear to be
theoretically sound. This leads to the hypothesis that an instrument such as the MBTI could
be used as an efficient prescreening instrument--even prior to the administration of the
PAS--when searching for individuals with psi talent.t
The task is somewhat complicated, however, by two features of the data.
First, not all good remote viewers come from the same PAS group. Even if, for example,
precalibrated "superstar" viewers such as 002, 009, and 473 are categorized as "Ra" (i.e.,
Primitive R and Fourth Dimension a), viewer 414 (also a superstar) does not belong in this
cluster. Secondly, the PAS Reference Groups recognize significant within-group variability,
which is typically strongly correlated with one or more of the MBTI dimensions. This is in
accordance with expectation: the MBTI tends to be a measure of the Jungian "persona,"
which corresponds to the PAS "contact level" (i.e., level of modification), whereas the PAS
Reference Groups correspond more closely with the original PAS "basic level."
This fourth trait is the most speculative of the group. It has been included because it is an interesting
trend in the data.
t A brief overview of the MBTI is provided in the Appendix.
$ Preliminary results at the Psychophysical Research Laboratories (PRL) tend to support this hypothesis.
-20-
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Even viewers 002, 009, and 473, for whom the data are complete, share only
one preference (i.e., "Intuition") on the MBTI, and even this could be a chance result. The
best guess for viewer 414, for whom the data are incomplete, is that he/she is an EFU3 and,
therefore, probably ESFJ according to the MBTI. It is also the case that viewers 002, 009,
and 473 all present MBTI patterns that are very atypical for IRUa, ERUa, and ERAa,
respectively.
At this point, no conventional scoring of the MBTI exists that would not
eliminate at least one of the four precalibrated superstar viewers mentioned above. This
would appear to be an unacceptable option. Unconventional scoring of the MBTI remains a
possibility, but this can only be investigated in larger samples than are currently available.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
IV CONCLUSIONS
Several important factors must be noted when assessing the overall efficacy of the
PAS in this study. It is important to observe, for example, that the novice RV training results
are preliminary: final training results are not officially scheduled for delivery until the end of
the first quarter of FY 1987. Although continuation of training with the original nine
participants at this juncture would destroy the double-blind aspect of the PAS study, a
workable solution to this problem has been identified--namely, to continue training with a
new group comprised of the most promising few candidates out of the original group of nine,
augmented with new candidates to whom the monitors and evaluators are blind with respect to
PAS pattern.
The explanation for the observed lack of significance in the
preliminary novice RV training results is presently unknown. One
hypothesis would suggest that the training procedures are simply not
proving effective. This appears unlikely, however, given that significance
was achieved with novice trainees using the same procedures in FY 1984. A
second possibility is that training needs to be of a longer duration.*
This hypothesis can be tested by observing whether significance is achieved
with the selected viewers from this study who continue training.
The PAS results for this study are encouraging and provide a conceptual replication
of the earlier FY 1984 PAS work. In the earlier study, the PAS was used successfully to
predict the top performer out of each of three different training groups. In FY 1986, the
PAS has been used effectively to predict two out of the top three performers in a single
training group. As an empirically driven system, the PAS Reference Groups experience
continual refinement as the PAS data base increases. It is anticipated, therefore, that the
predictive power of the PAS will increase accordingly.
This is more consistent with the apparent indication that aspects of the training results are correlated
with something else, i. e. , the PAS.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
Appendix
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR (MBTI)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) provides personality type categorizations
according to the manner in which an individual answers a series of test questions. Questions
are designed to elicit preferences and are typically of the form:
"Are you inclined to (A) value sentiment more than logic, or (B) value logic more
than sentiment?"
The following is an excerpt from the book, Gifts Differing,s* which provides a very
skeletal overview of the four preference scales that are combined to form 16 distinct
personality types:
"...personality is structured by four preferences concerning the use of perception
and judgement:
Preference for
EI Extraversion or
Introversion
Affects a person's choice
To focus the dominant (favor-
ite) process on the outer
world or on the world of ideas
SN Sensing or
Intuition
TF Thinking or
Feeling
JP Judgement or
Perception
To use one kind of percep-
tion instead of the other
when either could be used
To use one kind of judg-
ment instead of the other
when either could be used
To use the judging or the
perceptive attitude for deal-
ing with the outer world
Under this theory, people create their "type" through exercise of their individual
preferences regarding perception and judgement. The interests, values, needs, and
habits of mind that naturally result from any set of preferences tend to produce a
recognizable set of traits and potentialities...
Individuals can, therefore, be described in part by stating their four preferences,
such as ENTP, Such a person can be expected to be different from others in ways
characteristic of his or her type..."
An even more thorough discourse on the MBTI can be found in: Myers, I. B., and McCaulley, M. H.,
Manual, A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Consulting Psychologists
Press, Inc., Palo Alto, California (1985).
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6
REFERENCES
1. Saunders, D. and May, E. C., "Personnel Identification and Selection, " Final Re-
port, SRI Project 6600, SRI International, Menlo Park, California (December 1984)
2 Winne, J. F. and Gittinger, J. W., "An Introduction to the Personality Assessment
System," Journal of Clinical Psychology, Monograph Supplement 38 (1973)
3. Rosenthal, R., Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research, Sage Publications, Beverly
Hills, California (1984)
4. Humphrey, B., May, E. C., Trask, V. V., and Thomson, M. J., "Remote Viewing
Evaluation Techniques, (U)" Final Report, SRI Project 1291, SRI International, Menlo
Park, California (October 1986;
5. Schmeidler, G. R., "A Possible Commonality Among Gifted Psychics," Journal of the
American Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 76, No. 1, pp. 53-59 (1982)
6. Myers, I. B., with Myers, P. B., Gifts Differing, Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.,
Palo Alto, California (1983)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200010001-6