Remote viewing as applied to futures studies
Article by James H. Lee, published in Technological Forecasting & Social Change, vol 75 (2008) 142–153.
Abstract
Remote viewing is set of related protocols that allow a viewer to intuitively gather information regarding a specific target that is hidden from physical view and separated from the viewer by either time or distance. Research suggests that the same processes used to gather spatially non-local information can also be used to gather information that is temporally removed from the observer. This paper reviews the most common protocols for remote viewing — including Coordinate Remote Viewing (CRV), Associative Remote Viewing (ARV), and Extended Remote Viewing (ERV).
This remains a controversial field of study. While over 30 years of data has been gathered with statistically significant results frequently occurring under laboratory conditions, skeptics are not convinced that RV is a useful pursuit. In addition to this, some of the output from RV can be vague and subject to personal interpretation.
A number of factors have been shown to improve the success rate for remote viewing, including the use of experienced subjects, individual testing, feedback of results, and a short time-interval between the percipient response and the targeted future event. Finally, there also appears to be a relationship between the effectiveness of remote viewing efforts and sidereal time, which may be interpreted as evidence that some aspects of RV are subject to the same physical laws as are other phenomena studied by science. Remote viewing and related processes merit further exploration and study. While remote viewing may never be completely understood, it has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the professional futurist′s toolbox.
As often happens when a paper reporting some aspect of psi reaches a positive conclusion, and appears in a journal not known for entertaining this topic, the editors of the journal add a special apologetic notice to help absolve themselves from any blame (or flames). In this case the editors wrote:
Note: The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author, with no implication of agreement by either the editors or the Advisory Board. The question it raises is whether further research into this controversial area as a technological forecasting approach is desirable, or unwarranted as being based on questionable fringe science. It is interesting to note, for example, that experimental research on instinct or intuition by Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer, director of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, indicates that intuitive wisdom often outperforms the calculations of experts (see his book ʽʽGut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious" (2007); also New York Times, August 28, 2007).
Abstract
Remote viewing is set of related protocols that allow a viewer to intuitively gather information regarding a specific target that is hidden from physical view and separated from the viewer by either time or distance. Research suggests that the same processes used to gather spatially non-local information can also be used to gather information that is temporally removed from the observer. This paper reviews the most common protocols for remote viewing — including Coordinate Remote Viewing (CRV), Associative Remote Viewing (ARV), and Extended Remote Viewing (ERV).
This remains a controversial field of study. While over 30 years of data has been gathered with statistically significant results frequently occurring under laboratory conditions, skeptics are not convinced that RV is a useful pursuit. In addition to this, some of the output from RV can be vague and subject to personal interpretation.
A number of factors have been shown to improve the success rate for remote viewing, including the use of experienced subjects, individual testing, feedback of results, and a short time-interval between the percipient response and the targeted future event. Finally, there also appears to be a relationship between the effectiveness of remote viewing efforts and sidereal time, which may be interpreted as evidence that some aspects of RV are subject to the same physical laws as are other phenomena studied by science. Remote viewing and related processes merit further exploration and study. While remote viewing may never be completely understood, it has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the professional futurist′s toolbox.
As often happens when a paper reporting some aspect of psi reaches a positive conclusion, and appears in a journal not known for entertaining this topic, the editors of the journal add a special apologetic notice to help absolve themselves from any blame (or flames). In this case the editors wrote:
Note: The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author, with no implication of agreement by either the editors or the Advisory Board. The question it raises is whether further research into this controversial area as a technological forecasting approach is desirable, or unwarranted as being based on questionable fringe science. It is interesting to note, for example, that experimental research on instinct or intuition by Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer, director of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, indicates that intuitive wisdom often outperforms the calculations of experts (see his book ʽʽGut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious" (2007); also New York Times, August 28, 2007).
Comments
Readings/Lee06_RemoteViewing.pdf
Best wishes.
It mentions that some for-profit experiments worked and at least one failed due to greed and a breach of experiment protocol. This is footnoted as 13.
The footnote, 13, is to "Targ 2004" which presumably refers to the 2004 book "Limitless Mind" cited in footnote 11.
"Associative Remote Viewing - A summary of 3630 ARV trials conducted from 1998 to 2005"
Greg Kolodziejzyk
Abstract:
"From mid 1998 to the end of 2005, I conducted 3389 Associative Remote Viewing trials. Many ARV trials were nested together (from 4 to over 100 trials) to form a consensus with the intention of predicting the outcome of a random future event. In most cases the future event prediction was the outcome of a random futures contract during a random time period. In most cases actual capital was risked on the prediction and total profits to date amount to over $100,000.
The 3389 trials make up a total of 65 projects (each project is ONE attempt to predict the outcome of a random future event resulting from the consensus of the trials nested in that project/prediction). 75.41% of the projects were successful in predicting the outcome of the random event resulting in a z score of 3.97
52.95% of the individual trials were successful in predicting the outcome of a random future event resulting in a z score of 3.55. If confidence scores are used to filter out low confidence trials (the method that was used to filter trials in a project to generate a consensus), then 62.42% of those trials were correct resulting in a z score of 4.4
This report compares remote viewing time and feedback time to solar wind speed and finds a significant increase in the average effect size per trial, and average confidence scores during low solar wind speed conditions. I also compare remote viewing time and feedback time to local sidereal time and find a significant increase in the average confidence score between 5:00 and 6:00 LST during both remote viewing time and feedback time. A very significant increase in average effect size per trial is found when the time difference between remote viewing and feedback is between 2.1 to 3.5 days."