MASS SCREENING FOR PSYCHOENERGETIC TALENT USING A REMOTE VIEWING TASK

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00789R002200430001-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 13
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 14, 1998
• Sequence Number: 1
• Content Type: REPORT

Final Report--ObJecilve 8, Task 1 December f988
Covering the Period f October f 987 to 30 September f 988
MASS SCREENING FOR PSYCHOENERGETIC
TALENT USING A REMOTE VIEWING TASK
By: NEVIN D. LANTZ
EDWIN C. MAY
Prepared for:
Peter J. McNelis, DSW
CONTRACTING OFFICER'S TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE
SRI Project 1291
MURRAY J. BARON, Director
Geoscience and Engineering Center
333 Ravenswood Ave. ? Menlo Park, CA 94025
For Relea~; 908 ~~19#~~9~99Pt~?F2~~01-0
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0
ABSTRACT
A screening effort was mounted during FY 1988 to discover individuals who showed
natural remote viewing (RV) ability as measured by a laboratory RV task. Out of 196 individuals
who participated in the selection process, three persons showed evidence for some skill at the
task during further testing.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0
I INTRODUCTION
Traditionally, psychoenergetic experimenters at SRI International have relied on the
remote viewing (RV) of a relatively small number of talented persons in laboratory experiments.
But, as th.e number and nature of experiments and/or applications increases, the necessity for
discovering additional talented individuals becomes acute. In FY 1984, in anticipation of more
process-oriented experiments, the psychoenergetics project at SRI International began efforts to
increase the size of the psychoenergetic talent group for future experimental work. Three
directions were pursued; (1) attempts to train selected individuals, (2) mass screening using
psychological. correlates of psychic functioning, and (3) mass screening using a carefully
developed remote viewing task. This report details the third effort conducted during FY 1988.'
B. Objective
Although it has not been documented to what extent psychoenergetic abilities exist in the
general population, certain individuals do have a capacity for picking up information not
available by known sensory processes. Some of these persons may have had spontaneous
experiences that led them to be more or less aware of an extrasensory potential while others with
ESP potential have not had such experiences. The goal of the FY 1988 mass screening effort was
to find individuals with talent for RV, the ability to give vivid verbal and pictorial descriptions of
designated sites and scenes in the absence of sensory contact.
To accomplish this, we developed atwo-stage process for screening large numbers of
people. The goal was to screen several hundred individuals at the first stage and to invite 10 to
20 of the most promising individuals to participate in four to eight additional laboratory trials in
anticipation of finding five to ten individuals who would show robust RV performance.
" This report constitutes the deliverable for Objective B, Task 1
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0
II METHOD OF APPROACH
A. General Description
A two-stage screening process was ,deployed to find good remote viewers. The first stage
included a lectwe presentation summarizing RV research conducted at SRI International over
the past 15 years. This presentation was designed to attract interested audiences of 50 or more
persons. Following the lectwe, the audience was asked to volunteer its participation in four RV
trials with targets randomly selected from a previously conswcted target pool. Based on a
qualitative assessment of the RV data collected at the first stage, the second stage consisted of a
formal test with selected individuals using independent trials in our RV laboratory.
B. Mass Screening Protocol
1. Targets
A special set of sixteen targets was constructed for the screening procedure. The
target poofl contained both dynamic (targets with motion) and static (still photographs) targets.
Dynamic targets consisted of action film clips edited from popular movies while the static targets
were a series of thematically related still photographs shown in succession for five seconds each.
The targets ranged in length from approximately 60 to 100 seconds and were stored for ease of
retrieval on two video disks.
The sixteen targets were divided into four categories with four targets in each one.
Categories included: Military, scientific/industrial, natural/non-technical, and projects. Targets
in the first three categories were film clips of the dynamic variety, while each target in the fourth
category showed a project title (e.g., Project Blue Book) interspersed with images related to the
purpose of the project (e.g., UFOs). Fow categories were chosen to allow for the possibility that
some types of targets might be easier to view than others. No attempt was made to maintain
target orthogonality across categories, but considerable effort was expended to maintain
within-category orthogonality.
Two factors were considered in choosing the targets. Within each category the targets
were chosen because they were thematic, interesting, and possessed geometric elements that
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0
could be drawn easily. Second, they were selected to be as distinct as possible, so that the other
targets within that category could be used as decoys for judging.
Tables la-d show the target categories, the specific targets within a category, and a
brief description of each target.
MILITARY TARGET AND CATEGORY
Name
Source /Description
Aircraft carrier
Final Countdown--Multiple takeoffs of mostly F-16s.
Characterized by triangular shapes and high drama.
Control room
Wargames--Control room sequence. Characterized by rec-
tangular shapes and rotating lights.
Russians in space
St~nerman IV--EVAs and the collision of two satellites.
Characterized by tubular shapes and Russian singing.
Atomic bomb blasts
Atomic Cafe--Continuous series of atmospheric atomic
blasts. Characterized by fireballs, bright light, buildings be-
ing destroyed, and trees in violent motion.
SCIENTIFIC/INDUSTRIAL TARGET CATEGORY
Name
Source /Description
Bottling factory
Take This Job and Shove It--Bottles on a conveyer belt.
Characterized by multiple cylindrical shapes.
Building construction
Steel--Girder construction by helicopter. Characterized by
rectangular shapes "floating" in air.
Tacoma Narrows bridge
Documentary on the Bridge Disaster--Wild oscillation of
the bridge. Characterized by linear shapes in torsional mo-
tion.
Launch of John Glen
a Right Stuff--Single rocket launch. Characterized by
singular tubular shape and bright light.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0
NATURAL/NON-TECHNICAL TARGET CATEGORY
Name
Source /Description
Skiing
The Spy Who Loved Me--James Bond skiing fast. Charac-
terized by snowy mountain scenes and dramatic skiing off a
cliff.
Ostriches
Bnimals are Beautiful People--Ostriches in synchronized
dance. Characterized by black and white fluffy birds.
Waterfall
Emerald Forest--Aerial view of a waterfall. Characterized
by dramatic vertical falls.
Greek temple
ac >es Cousteau--Helicopter view of the Posiedon temple
ruins.
Name
Source /Description
Manhattan Project
Various Still Photographs--Oppenheimer, Fat Boy, Los
Alamos, Oak Ridge, and an air blast.
Project Blue Book
Various Still Photogra~--Hynek, UFOs, and "landing"
imprints.
Project Deep Quest
In Search Of--Schwartz and others, underwater submers-
ible, and large rectangular block.
Project Ultra
Various Still Photographs--Turing, code machine, and
bombed-out cathedral at Coventry.
A preliminary test of the target pool and experimental protocol was carried out using
two experienced viewers. In this test, the viewers were not informed as to the nature of the target
pool or the target categories. Using a standard double blind RV protocol, Viewer 009 produced
verbal and pictorial responses for 20 randomly selected targets from the target pool. Viewer 372
produced eight such responses. Of the 28 combined trials, 14 were ranked as first place matches
in a visual correspondence method of judging where a 0.25 probability of a first place match
existed by chance. A total sum of ranks of 55 produced a p-value of 0.007 for the mean rank
suggesting that the targets were viewable, at least by experienced viewers.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0
Viewers were recruited by advertising a seminar on remote viewing and the promise of
audience participation in fow RV trials. Screening was conducted with two government groups,
two separate groups at SRI International, and a group from the Society for Scientific Exploration
(5SE). One government group of volunteers was small and we therefore had the ability to use
independent trials in this setting. However, the other settings involved larger groups, typically 25
to over 1f10, with all members participating in the same trial simultaneously.
Viewers and experimenters were kept blind to both target category and the specific
target used for each trial. To do this, several hundred target packets were assembled prior to the
first screening. Each contained four target names and was locked in a department safe. To
prepare a single packet, a research assistant randomly chose one target from each of the four
categories and randomly permuted the order of the choices. A slip of paper printed with a target
name was placed into a sealed, opaque envelope and numbered to indicate the order of
presentation. A packet was formed by sealing the four smaller envelopes into a larger unmarked
envelope. The packets were shuffled and, just prior to a screening session, an assistant selected
one of the packets for use during that session.
A mass screening session began with an introduction to RV presented by the project
director. In addition to a historical review of RV research at SRI International, the presentation
included examples of good and not so good RV attempts. Instructions on how to proceed with
an RV trial were then given. One RV trial consisted of a period of several minutes for viewers to
record their impressions of target material and a minute or so for the presentation of the target
film as feedback. Four trials were conducted during each mass screening session.
Prior to each trial, the participants were asked to relax, take a few deep breaths, and
try to focus on the task at hand. While the viewers were relaxing, an assistant, stationed in
another room some distance from the screening auditorium, opened the packet envelope and
selected the small envelope labeled No. 1. The assistant had video copies of the sixteen targets
and video equipment with which to view the targets. The assistant's task was to attempt to
"send" the target material (mentally) to the viewers. The first trial began when the experimenter
sent a signal to the sender (via one telephone ring or similar means) indicating that the audience
was ready to begin. The assistant then opened the small envelope selected for that session, found
the first target, and began to view it on a television monitor.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0
As the sender continually and repeatedly viewed the target, the screening participants
wrote and/or drew their perceptions on specially prepared forms that provided an original and a
carbon copy. At the end of several minutes, the original responses were collected and sealed in
an envelope while the viewers retained the copies for comparison with the feedback. After all
responses were sealed for safekeeping, a phone call to the sender revealed the target and, with a
second copy of the target pool on video disks, the audience was allowed to view the target film
clip as feedback. Trials 2, 3, and 4 proceeded in the same manner.
4. Analysis
Quantitative scoring presents several problems when testing groups of viewers.
Because all viewers have seen the same four targets, a single judge cannot produce an
independent rank ordering for each viewer. Therefore, since the goal was to find natural talent
for additional testing, a more qualitative assessment was done by the analysis staff to find any
viewers who had produced striking matches to discrete target elements.
Another difficulty with having multiple viewers for the same target material is what is
called stacking in the parapsychological literature. This refers to the fact that human viewers
have common response biases, and if the targets selected happen to correspond to these biases,
then the perceived strength of the match can be inflated. For example, if it happens that most
people have a tendency to mention water in their first remote viewing trial, and the first target
happens to contain a significant amount of water while the remaining targets do not, then a
fortuitous match can occur just because of this response bias. If a different set of targets is
selected for each viewer, this problem does not occur. Since there was no way address this
problem and still screen large groups of people together, a qualitative assessment for the first
stage of screening was necessary.
Two independent analysts made the qualitative assessments of the responses from the first
level of screening. These assessments formed the basis for deciding which persons to invite for
the second-stage screening. The qualitative judging was based on a seven-point rating scale
shown in Table 2. Analysts were instructed to start at the top of the scale and find the largest
rating that describes the match between a response and its intended target.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0
QUALITATIVE RATING SCALE.
7 =Excellent correspondence, including good analytical detail (e.g., naming
the site), and with essentially no incorrect information.
6 =Good correspondence with good analytical information (e.g., naming
the function), and relatively little incorrect information.
5 =Good correspondence with~unarnbiguous unique matchable elements
but with some incorrect information.
4 =Good correspondence with several matchable elements intermixed with
incorrect information.
3 =Mixture of correct. and incorrect elements, but enough of the former
to indicate viewer has made contact with the site.
2 =Some correct elements, but not sufficient to suggest results beyond
chance expectation.
1 =Little correspondence.
Q = No correspondence.
C. Second-Stage Screening Protocol
The goal of second-stage screening was to select exceptional individuals who could
eventually participate in applications-oriented research. Individuals who showed qualitative
evidence of RV ability in the mass screening described above, either by producing an average
qualitative rating above three or producing a qualitative rating of six or seven on one trial were
invited to participate in the second round of screening in an RV laboratory.
2. Targets
Targets for second-stage screening were the same as for first-stage screening.
3. Session Protocol
Since most applications do not provide a sending individual, the sender was
eliminated in the second-stage screening. As before, targets were randomly preselected and
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0
their associated target numbers were sealed in opaque envelopes and stored in the department
safe. Before each trial, the RV monitor for that trial selected an envelope. A laboratory RV
session began with the monitor and viewer seated at opposite ends of a table in an RV laboratory.
When the viewer indicated a readiness to begin, the monitor gave a previously agreed-upon
stimulus word (i.e., "target"), and the viewer put clown target impressions in the form of pictures
and/or written words. The session ended when a viewer had exhausted his/her impressions.
After copying the response, the monitor and viewer moved to the locked feedback room where
target material was stored. The monitor then opened the envelope to ascertain the target
number, activated a TV screen and displayed the target filmclip as feedback for the RV session
(the viewer, of course, was not allowed to add anything to the response).
4. Analysis
Quantitative analysis presents no problem if each viewer is tested individually as was the
case in the second-stage of screening. Each RV response was ranked using the visual
correspondence method by an independent analyst who was otherwise uninvolved with the
experiment. In this procedure the target and its three companions from the designated category
were presented in random order. The analyst rank-ordered the targets in order of decreasing
similarity to the response (i.e., a rank of 1 means that the target best matches the response, and
a rank of 4 means the worst match). The output from each trial was the rank number the judge
assigned to the correct target. The sum of ranks over the total number of trials was used to
calculate p-values and effect sizes (r) for each of the second-stage participants.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0
III RESULTS
Four groups ranging in size from 12 to 139 were screened at the first stage for a total of
190 individuals. Of that number, 18 showed qualitative evidence of ability to report
target-related material, and 9 of the 18 participated in second-stage screening. Two showed
strong evidence of RV ability. Six persons in a fifth group were tested with independent trials at
the first stage and one showed evidence of RV ability.
B. First-Stage Results
Table 3 shows the results of first-stage screening. A total of 154 individuals participated in
two separate screening sessions at SRI International. The first session was conducted in the
Geoscience and Engineering Center and was open to Center employees. Fifteen individuals
participated in that session and three were selected to participate in second-stage screening. The
second session was open to all SRI employees at the Menlo Park facility and 139 persons
attended. Twelve of these were selected for additional testing. Twenty-four persons were
screened at one government agency. Qualitative judging produced two persons who were
selected for second-stage screening. The final group screened was twelve people from the SSE,
one of whom was selected to participate in additional trials.
Organization
No. of Participants
No. Selected for Second Stage
SRI Internationals
1 S
3
SRI Internationale
139
12
Government Agency
24
2
Society for Scientific
12
1
Exploration
Government Agency2
6
1
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0
One government agency group of viewers was handled a bit differently from other groups
screened because of its smaller size and the relatively greater time available for testing (two
days). Four SRI researchers conducted the screening series at the government agency site. Six
government employees agreed to participate in four viewings each. These individuals were
selected randomly (by government personnel) but participation was on atime-available basis.
None of the volunteers had previously participated in a remote viewing experiment. A rank
order analysis was used to estimate the quality of the remote viewing, but, because each person
participated in only four sessions, the power of the statistical test for an individual was extremely
low. Thus an individual would have to do exceedingly well in all four trials to provide statistically
significant evidence of RV ability. For example, a viewer would need to score four first place
matches, or three first place and one second place match, in order to obtain significance in four
trials. In contrast, if twice as many trials are considered (8 trials) and the total score is 12 (i.e.,
the same average performance), the p-value is significant (p S 0.007). Nonetheless, one
participant produced encouraging results with three first place matches and asum-of-ranks of
6.5 (p~G.098,r=0.46).
C. Second-Stage Results
Excluding the smaller government group, a total of 18 persons from first-stage screening
were invited to participate in second-stage screening trials. Of the 18, 9 were able to schedule
time to participate in second-stage trials (if there was no possibility of obtaining a significant
result at any time after four trials, the person was dropped from the screening). One person
discontinued testing after two trials. Table 4 shows the number of trials, sum-of-ranks, p-value,
and effect size for the participants in second-stage screening.
Viewer No.
No. of Trials
Sum-of-Ranks
p-Value
Effect Size (r)
689
3
9
0.844
486
4
11
0.742
633
5
12
0.500
890
8
15
0.078
0.50
117
4
12
0.863
748
4
11
0.742
330
8
16
0.136
0.39
393
8
21
0.680
015
2
6
0.812
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0
IV DISCUSSION
By design, the second-stage screening specified a maximum of eight trials. While it is
recognized that the statistical power is thus quite low, nonetheless we were searching for viewers
who displayed exceptional natuz al talent. , This eight trial maximum was based on the ability of
our calibrated viewers.
Three viewers from the total screened population demonstrated robust RV. While none
of the three reached statistical significance, the effect sizes (0.39, 0.46, and 0.50, respectively)
indicate that an RV hypothesis accounts for a sizable fraction of the variance (15% to 25%)
between good and bad viewers. To put this result in perspective, Rosenthal reports the effect size
for two studies, one on the effects of psychotherapy and the other of interpersonal expectancy
effects, as being on the order of r = 0.32.*
These results are encouraging since several individuals were able to show strong evidence
of anomalous information transfer with a relatively low number of trials (time and scheduling
prevented testing of all promising persons from the first-stage of screening) . Given that these
individuals were not preselected and received very little training in how to produce a response,
this method of finding additional participants for future experiments shows some merit. Coupling
this method with pre-selection criteria that have shown correlations with psychoenergetic
function such as results from the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, spontaneous experiences, and an
open mind toward the possibility of psychoenergetic phenomena, we could develop an even more
efficient procedure.
* Rosenthal, R., Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research, p. 130, Sage Publications,
Beverly Hills, 1984.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-007898002200430001-0