PF Remote Viewing Test: Object Revealed Any Winner? P. 7

Check the options that best describe the dominant appearance of the object

  • Box

    Votes: 1 7.1%
  • Ellipsoidal / Spherical

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • Cylindrical / tubular

    Votes: 3 21.4%
  • Segmented

    Votes: 1 7.1%
  • Disk / Planar

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • Opaque

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • Clear

    Votes: 1 7.1%
  • Bright colors

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • Dark colors

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • White

    Votes: 3 21.4%

  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .
  • #51
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,950
19
Is it a hat? A black one... I'm not sure of the name of the style, but "Fedora" comes to mind.
 
  • #52
PJ
6
0
Pelastration,

In ESP/PSI testing the systematic scores above average are important but I believe also systematically below average. It that correct?
If testing with the kind of analysis that arranges that kind of measure, yes, psi-missing is common. Any deviation from chance, at a certain degree (.05P value is normal I think--er, hope I haven't mucked up that terminology) is 'significant'. This particular proposition wouldn't lend itself to that kind of scientific analysis though. If a viewer is just totally wrong in this, they're just wrong.

a weakness of our test. The first posters have more choice but the posters after them have extra information knowing what it is not. I think it's fair that everyone can post one per day max.
Well since it's unlikely we'd be able to get people's schedule to make them view instantly, my intent was that we set up ten numbered taskings, and the target for each is, "The target which gets assigned to this tasking number". (I might add, that this will instantly cause problems with a lot of viewers who profoundly believe in 'time' as a factor. Those who train against that belief will think that's a fine tasking.)

We give it a decent period of time, a couple weeks, most viewers can't find the time to do their OWN viewing half the time let alone for others (unlike most tasks, since it requires both a block of time and a certain state of mind (which also usually requires privacy, a lack of interruption, not being overtired/sleep deprived, etc.) it's not at all as easy to come by as a mere chore).

Viewers can do one target or all of them. At the end of the term, you guys upload. Or, the first 'revelation' comes AFTER the last 'close' date/time of session uploads for the last one public (that might work better) but we upload/reveal one a day. So, all the sessions for all taskings would have to be in before any feedback was revealed for any of them.

It has to be totally double blind. Although my base was that each person setting a target would be working independently, I don't necessarily count on that. Having the targets be sequential sets up a problem; viewers given the same or highly similar target twice in a series tend to dismiss the data in the second one, sure it is 'just imagination' because it's so much like the former. I don't really trust non-viewers not to muck with the psychics' heads in any way they can (nothing personal). So I am more for putting up all the tasking numbers at once. That way analytical stuff like that can't be at issue. The targets may not even be selected until after the sessions are turned in, if y'all don't choose.

Regards,
PJ
 
  • #53
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,842
992
Originally posted by pelastration
Ivan,

a weakness of our test.
The first posters have more choice but the posters after them have extra information knowing what it is not.
I think it's fair that everyone can post one per day max.

Have I said that anyone but Zero got the wrong answer?
 
  • #54
365
0
I think that is implied since you haven't announced a winner.
 
  • #55
6
0
This is all very nice. I like this thread.
It's all in the mind.
 
  • #56
162
0
Ivan,

maybe you can put a poll about the shape (square, rectangle, oval, circle, ...) and multichoice with thickness or color). Of course only to check after participation. I think you will have more reaction then.
 
  • #57
162
0
Originally posted by PJ
If testing with the kind of analysis that arranges that kind of measure, yes, psi-missing is common. Any deviation from chance, at a certain degree (.05P value is normal I think--er, hope I haven't mucked up that terminology) is 'significant'.
I was more referring to tests like Zenner cards. I remember that TenHaeff (?) doing in Amsterdam PSI (with guys like Hurko and Croiset) wrote that an almost zero-score in Zenner cards is also significant.
This particular proposition wouldn't lend itself to that kind of scientific analysis though. If a viewer is just totally wrong in this, they're just wrong.

Well since it's unlikely we'd be able to get people's schedule to make them view instantly, my intent was that we set up ten numbered taskings, and the target for each is, "The target which gets assigned to this tasking number". (I might add, that this will instantly cause problems with a lot of viewers who profoundly believe in 'time' as a factor. Those who train against that belief will think that's a fine tasking.)
Excellent idea and approach. Looking forward to participate. Thanks.
 
  • #58
PJ
6
0
Oh Zener cards and such. Yes; but that is specifically not remote viewing. RV by definition is a 'free response' psi trial; Zener cards constitute a 'forced choice' trial. In addition to boring the lab subjects to death (a serious issue when personal interest seems to affect the psychology, and anything that affects the psychology generally affects the psychic and often their performance), forced-choice situations invoke a great deal more analytical interference for psychics, that's one reason much of the research in psi moved away from that.

Even quite some years ago, May, Spottiswoode and James wrote:

...the mean of the forced-choice effect size is 2.5 times smaller than that of the Ganzfeld ... there is clearly a meaningful difference. (FYI Ganzfeld is a type of free-response remote viewing designed to minimize external stimuli and sensory input for the viewer.) http://www.jsasoc.com/docs/Target-bandwidth.pdf

They discuss that in forced-choice scenarios, a psychic's memory of what has come before may interfere. Memory/visualization might be 'stronger' in the mind of the psychic than the often subtle, abstract 'impressions' from psi.

(This is related to the analytical problems I mentioned. In practicing RV, the instant my minds gets an idea of 'what it might be', I'm doomed if I can't let go of that, as the mind will begin literally filtering incoming info to match that suspicion, and imagination will start 'helping'. Frontloading in RV--that is, telling the viewer 'something' about the target (how much or what varies)--is deadly for viewers who aren't relatively developed in the skill. There is so much interference from analysis and imagination already to deal with, that 'strengthening' either or both of those factors can have a really negative impact on the session result.)

The rest of the paper discusses experiments that varied the target pool contents, and how basically, a 'moderate' target pool bandwidth was found to produce the best results. This means, not a small selection which is forced choice, and not an infinite selection (galaxies vs. DNA vs. 'events' as targets) for example, but a more moderate framework, such as, targets which are on this planet, and which could be normally perceived by the viewer should they encounter them, and which are relatively fixed (meaning, locations, vs. events). There is still a pretty mind boggling range of targets--basically, anything you could go out and take a picture of that wasn't a human 'event'. But there seemed to be less analysis the farther you got from forced-choice, and less imagination the farther you got from infinite-choice.

I might add that in the 'review' we're discussing maybe doing, those choosing the targets, within the parameters that'd be posted, would have infinite choice. Unlike science we wouldn't be trying to prove remote viewing was legit here; we'd just be demonstrating whatever it is for whatever group of laymen who happen to participate. I've seen viewers do quite well on micro targets (including targets inside the human body, for medical diagnostics).

Best regards,
PJ
 
Last edited:
  • #59
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,842
992
Originally posted by pelastration
Ivan,

maybe you can put a poll about the shape (square, rectangle, oval, circle, ...) and multichoice with thickness or color). Of course only to check after participation. I think you will have more reaction then.

Good idea.

I need to get caught up here, but I like the idea of a more sophisticated test.
 
  • #60
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,842
992
Poll for remote viewing test.

What best describes the appearance of the object.
 
  • #61
365
0
Who voted 'clear'? Was it you Ivan? Are you giving us a hint that maybe the answer is 'air'?
 
  • #62
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
839
15
a flying saucer...aka a frisbee?
 
  • #63
162
0
Originally posted by Jonathan
Who voted 'clear'? Was it you Ivan? Are you giving us a hint that maybe the answer is 'air'?
Just like you Jonathan I was thinking for a moment Ivan was playing a game. I was thinking that he put inside the bag with shipping peanuts ... a bag with real or other shipping peanuts. But that was logic and that has nothing to do with my excellent RV talents! The problem is that I made already once a 'guess' and I am not allowed to do a second one. :wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #64
365
0
Ivan, I can't stand the suspense, tell us! I think we have pretty well proven that none of us have any clue!
 
  • #65
Zero
I'm thinking it is a piece of plastic, in the oval shape of an alien's head, about 1" long, 3/4" wide, and approximately .50-.88 mm thick.
 
  • #66
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,842
992
Well, Jonathan is getting a little impatient.
[See the remote viewing poll]
When do you all think we should reveal the mystery object? I was thinking of letting this run for a time, but I can see people losing interest also. What do you all think; now, a couple of days, a week, a month?

PJ, after re-reading your posts tonight, I would like to work out a plan this week. I really appreciate your participation and help here.

Anyone with ideas or comments about creating a fair test of RV please chime in.
 
  • #67
Zero
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Well, Jonathan is getting a little impatient.
[See the remote viewing poll]
When do you all think we should reveal the mystery object? I was thinking of letting this run for a time, but I can see people losing interest also. What do you all think; now, a couple of days, a week, a month?
You mean I still haven't gotten it?
 
  • #68
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,842
992
Originally posted by Zero
You mean I still haven't gotten it?

I'm not saying until full disclosure...except for one notable exception.
 
  • #69
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,842
992


Originally posted by PJ
At that point, I'd be happy to see if I can recruit you some viewers to make fun of at your leisure. We reserve the right to make fun of you in forums you don't read either, if that's alright.

You were invited here. At this point you are a consultant donating your time and knowledge; not someone pushing an agenda.

Everyone please remember this.
 
Last edited:
  • #71
25
0
There is nothing in the bag except packing peanuts.
 
  • #72
18
0
its the PF sweat shirt or T shirt or another black bag
 
Last edited:
  • #73
BoulderHead
I sense an article of cloth, possibly a sheet or blanket. It seems to be lightly colored, possibly pink.


What sort of books are in that box?


Originally posted by THE MIND
This is all very nice. I like this thread.
It's all in the mind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #74
yadda
I'm seeing a... flat, disk shaped object, as well as a sphere shaped object.

...er, how specific do I have to be?
 
  • #75
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,842
992
Originally posted by yadda
I'm seeing a... flat, disk shaped object, as well as a sphere shaped object.

...er, how specific do I have to be?

As specific as possible. Obviously I am looking for one, or some, or many key features to describe the object...to my satisfaction.
 

Related Threads on PF Remote Viewing Test: Object Revealed Any Winner? P. 7

  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
5K
B
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
12
Views
4K
S
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
R
Top