Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
November 4, 2016
Document Release Date: 
June 11, 1998
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP96-00787R000300200001-8.pdf1.16 MB
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 (415) 326-6200 ? 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, 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, 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