Sessions and Personality

Project Home Page

RVwebForum

TKR @the Dojo Psi

Help make it possible for everyone.

RV CHAT

Monday Nights
9:30-11:30pm Eastern
6:30-8:30pm Pacific
dojopsi.com/chat/

Weekly RV Chat

CS Labs
Ingo Swann
Joe McMoneagle

Baylands Nature Preserve
Pete's Harbor Restaurant
Lucid Dream Example
Radio Listening Post
Test-Bed Trials
Video ABC Put to the Test

The Home Made Viewer

P.I.A.

TKR Blog

Noetic Vision

Serious Kilowatt

Red Cairo

Cosmic Spoon

Psychic Journey

Psyforce

Remote Review

MindBlogging

BadMoJoe

Dojo Blog

Firedocs RV Blog

the McMoneagles

LFR/CSL

RV Roast (alt)

RV Library

[wizopeva]

It's often said that different viewers are good at different types of things in a session.   For instance, some are better are viewing people or places or drawing maps or understanding processes.  I wonder how much of that difference is related to the personality of the viewer.  For instance, if you are a conceptual thinker in daily life, will you be more likely to be a conceptual viewer?  If you are strongly visual, will you be a strong visual viewer?  For myself, I have noticed that in a session, I am often interested in the relationships between things, and that is also an aspect of my waking personality.  I wonder how much can be said about a person's personality by looking at their sessions.
-E

[Eric]

Hey Eva!

Hmm, interesting concept.  I find I view "better" things I can relate too, although I am not sure I would peg that as personality.  When the sub feeds a person up bits a pieces of info, maybe the stuff that is more known to the viewer is easier to piece together.

I am a technical guy by nature, and technical targets seem to be easier for me than say, stuff I dont relate to.  For instance, strictly human targets involved in cultural activites I am not familiar with seem harder.  But I am too new at this to draw any conclusions as seeing more long term trands is required.  (I dont count sessions, but if I did, I know at this point its still in the upper 2 digit numbers)

Also- if you firmly believe you view one thing better than another, you will.  At least, IMHO.  Viewer psychology can be very limiting that way.  Maybe better phrased, if you believe you aren't good at viewing a particular set of circurmstances, than you wont be.  

I bet those limitations are quite viewable in a persons sessions, and hence translate to personality interpretations well.

Could be that the subconcious is a bit better aquainted with the concious on activites familiar to the concious.  Such is my speculation.

Eric

[PJ]

Hi Eva,

Hmmnn. This is a topic I've thought about a lot.  I doubt there's any one answer, but I bet everybody has their own (growing) experience with it, even in non-RV forms of psi or intuition or healing etc.

Just recently, my viewing has started changing, now that I'm finally doing it mostly daily.  

I'm getting a lot more visuals.  A lot more symbolic visuals as well (and glory hallelujah, most of the time I know they are symbolic and not literal. Not always).  Doing far more prelim sketching than I ever did before, I used to do like... none, all written.

It seems to me that to varying degrees, maybe we get what we ask for or expect, at least sometimes.

As I continue to feel out what I call 'Aspect RV', I am starting to really see some difference in this area.  For example, when I ask me-as-"Songwriter" for info, it is usually 'reflective' in nature and comes in words.  Yet, when I ask another aspect, it is more prone to have visuals and/or to have a sense of shape.  When I ask me-as-"CEO" or "Architect", it is as if, the information has to be taken "in context of" the "Aspect" it is coming through--they will report almost like an elemental, very specific to that one focus and way-of-thinking.  

I'm also finding that some are consistently accurate or not, and some are accurate but only for certain target types.  This will take some years to figure out I imagine, but I'm having a good time with it.  It feels like having a crush on myself inside, it's actually delightful to feel like I'm getting to know parts of myself I never met before.

On occasion I think to ask a specific question and I get a specific answer.  I mean like, "What is the most important/relevant thing about this target?" and getting an answer.  Now whether I can come up with a context for the target by session end is unknown--and unlikely given all my sessions are brief exercises, due to my schedule.  But I am sometimes impressed at feedback at how specific the answer was.

And sometimes I have no answer.  I think this relates to what is said about a good blind monitor, in a flexi format of course, that they are being psychic too, and they often ask a specific question in just the way that bam, there the information is for the viewer, specific and exactly what was needed.  It's 'chance' that it happens; but of course, psi is all about stacking chance on our side, right.  

I asked Joe once if the data I got on something would have been different if I had done the session later in the day, the next week, or a variety of other options for changed circumstance.  He said yeah.  That got me thinking about how "who we are at the moment" we do a session affects our data.  

And then back to Aspect RV and about how maybe we can be proactive about "who we are" in a session, rather than accepting the default identity we live our mundane lives with as our psychic inquirer, searching out parts of ourselves that might be more 'attuned' to certain facets of a target (or all of psi).  The Aspect of me more attuned to structural detail (the Architect) might be better at that kind of info.  Some Aspects might be better at psi across the board.  

The variable part of me I kid myself is a static "me" is apparently what I need in order to get the kid to school and be a soccor mom and do my work and so forth.  That doesn't mean that particular 'me' is the best of all my potential for being psychic.

As time goes on, I ask inside myself if there are 'any volunteers' for info on the target.  If I feel a sense of like, hands waving, I call on them one by one, number them A1, A2, A3, etc., and write down the impressions I get when I focus on that aspect.  After the session, if they seemed accurate, I'll ask each to give me some unique term to refer to them by, like a name, so I can call them into future sessions.  Often it's something my conscious mind finds really stupid--I'm not about to repeat them here and make every viewer in the vicinity retch about my new Agerbil tendencies lol--but so far that approach seems to be working.

The data always varies.  I'm still new to finally having time even for regular exercise, so I haven't enough bulk behind me to have any real answers (though any answers, I suspect, would only apply to me).  But it does seem to me, in my experience, that data in a session varies not only depending on our general personality, talents/skills, life experience, but also by our mood and health and other factors, and then yet further by 'how' we focus ourselves.

Which is cool in a way because it sort of leaves the topic wide-open for exploration by everybody.  It seems to be a highly personal thing, as unique as every mind is unique--a path of intrigue for every individual.

PJ

[Gene]

Hi Eva and everyone else too!!

This is a really deep subject when you get into it, just touching on a couple of the areas, let me toss in a few thoughts.  I have had some experience in working in a team type effort on targets and there seemed to be both a division of data that was gotten tempered with each individual getting data in their own manner.

With the division of data it was like with large complicated targets or subjects each individual would be "given" a piece of it, which when examined as a whole showed a mosiac of the overall target.  Now the "given" part could be a subject all in itself.  Like is it us, the viewers, that decide what we are given or is the the place, thing, matrix, or whatever that decides what to give us.  I mean could this thing (the matrix for lack of a better word) be sentient.  And if so what is the mechanism behind it.  The mind of God, a collective actively thinking conciousness, etc.  But I digress, so back to the subject at hand.

Asside from the division of data "given" each person's strength in viewing seemed to come into play also.  I have no solid evidence for what is taking place here.  But just thinking off the top of my head I think that the patterns of concious thought are the biggest controlling factor here.  What I mean is that it seems that my subconcious mind has an almost limitless creativity and interest.  But in communicating that info to my concious mind it (my subconcious) has to use some well worn path or memory that it can trigger to signal to me some kind of data.  Ingo spoke of this in one of his more recent writtings I believe where one of the lady viewers got a tea kettle on a tripod over a flame (an approximate description by me) for what turned out the be a nuclear reactor.  Ingo proffered that the tea pot was the closest thing in her concious memory bank to a nuclear reactor, hence the image.  So using this theory it would be my thought that my concious mind is more of the limiting factor than is my subconcious or right brain in delivering up data.  Hence men, as a general rule probably are better at some kinds of data than women and visa versa.

Which brings me to something you (Eva) mention at the end of your post about if info about a person's psychology could be gathered from sessions.   You know I have never thought of this before, but I would bet that a trained psycholigist who knew something about the process of RV could get a whole lot and I mean a WHOLE LOT of perhaps personal data on how a person thinks etc by looking over a body of their session work.  Perhaps just one more thing to be paranoid about... hehe

Best regards all,
Gene Smith

[Eric]

Something I just remembered-

My trainer Jim mentioned one time that he thought it would be cool to see some form of analysis where an experienced viewers data in an area they excelled at was weighted a bit heavier in whatever sorting matrix was used.  So, if a viewer was really good with describing technically complex objects, and he finds something at target that fits that category and few other viewers do, it might still get through the hoop, as the lingo goes.  I am paraphrasing, Jim jump in and correct me as need be.

Corroboration is important, but utilizing known strengths which derive from personality traits, seems to be a good idea.  IMHO.  

Eric

[PJ]

Somewhere--I am not sure if this is in public stuff or pem stuff--Joe was saying that he thinks (I am paraphrasing, I don't speak for him :-)) something like, when we get data, it's that our minds are basically taking an impression/energy/info/whatever, and sifting through our experience to 'find the match'.  

Whatever the detail of his comment was, my inference from it was that people who had a greater span of personal experience might do better at RV; and that people who had a lot of personal experience in a specific area, might do better at RV when the target was in that area.  So, someone expert at ships might do better on anything nautical; someone expert at human psychology might do better at profiling; he didn't say this, this was my inference from whatever he did say.

I suppose the way for a person to discover whether their viewing correlates to their personal experience and expertise, is a whole lot of viewing, which will eventually, if the targets are really varied, start to show something observable along those lines.

Per Gene's comments, I notice my own personality traits show up in sessions.  For example I often entirely miss the 'emotion' in a target that surely has a lot of it, but will pick up the issue it's based around (such as mass death) with grim, blackly-morbid-humor quips I can tell represent death in a given form.  

I think this is part of my own psychology, I tend to cry over stupid commercials but have twisted humor about really major things; my own psychological defense I am sure.... I am more calm and fast-thinking under threat, as that's my childhood environ, and tend to take out issues like grief in 'safe' ways.  "76 Trombones led the big parade!" and they magically have band uniforms and I'm bawling my head off about how beautiful it is in this totally stupid movie and my friends or my kid now are laughing their heads off.  Even in school I was like that--cool and black about the worst stuff, but a totally sappy fountain about the stupidest things.

I'm expecting that with time I will work past this, because I want to be able to pick up more emotion from people in the focus of targets.  I generally can get some of it--like exhaustion, boredom, urgency, concern or excitment--but not horror-fear-grief.  Those, I tend to skip the emotion and get different data from the target instead.  I trust that time and more human events targets will work me through that.  

But I am sure it would be clear to an analyst, something about a viewer's psychology, from seeing what someone does or doesn't get in a session--and how.

On a related note, since I do a different kind of RV method I've been developing myself, and since I write a lot of personal notes, thoughts, correlations etc. into many of my sessions, I have often considered that it is really nobody else's business what my raw session sheets look like.  

I consider this both intimate to me personally, and something of intellectual property professionally (I am not doing RV professionally, but I think you get what I mean).  

I am happy to transcribe all the data--and replicate all sketch pieces--into a 'session presentation'.  But the raw data, I don't consider that anybody's business but mine.

It shouldn't be a matter of proving anything, since one still has to provide information prior to feedback to call something RV, and that is being done either way.  

And it's not much different than some viewers I know who are capable of holding a heck of a lot of stuff in their head because in their view it is
(a) nobody's business, this data point or degree;
(b) is not appropriate for the medium they are working in at that moment;
(c) would freak out the scientists who really aren't ready for anything beyond the-facts-ma'am,
etc.  

Obviously if one is working with an analyst familiar with them, the raw stuff needs to go to them.  But that's a private situation in most cases anyway.

I like to think of RV work as a magical process, of my lab book as a magical diary I also write thoughts and rants and prayers and dreams in, and the overall process itself as being private.  A 'session presentation' is all I'd be willing to open for public consumption.  (Coming soon to a theatre near you. lol.)  

PJ

[wizopeva]

I think we discussed a bit of this in the 9 to 1 thread.  Lyn uses a system of analyzing track records of viewers and weighing the data accordingly.  For instance, if a viewer has a strong track record in one area, then in that area, the viewer's impressions are given a lot of weight.   Now I don't know if the weighting itself is computerized, but the track record scores are.  So in essence, he uses the results themselves and bypasses the issue of personality that may or may not be generating the track record propensities themselves.  

That strategy made me wonder if a good plan might be to use a track record weighting system COMBINED with looking for congruence amongst only those viewers who have very similar strengths and propensities.  
-E

Something I just remembered-



Corroboration is important, but utilizing known strengths which derive from personality traits, seems to be a good idea.  IMHO.  

Eric

[wizopeva]

I remember first hearing that actually from the TV psychic John Edwards.  He called it something along the lines of the file drawer effect in which the some total of his personal history and memory constituted the 'files' that are used by the spirits of others when attempting to communicate with him.  At the time, I remember thinking how similar his description seemed to my experiences in rv.
-E

Somewhere--I am not sure if this is in public stuff or pem stuff--Joe was saying that he thinks (I am paraphrasing, I don't speak for him :-)) something like, when we get data, it's that our minds are basically taking an impression/energy/info/whatever, and sifting through our experience to 'find the match'.  

PJ

[PJ]

I think that's probably the case.  I'm pretty sure this is in Joe's book MIND TREK ('93) as well, I was just looking through that again the other day, but I'd imagine that psychics' awareness of this dynamic has been known for a zillion years.

Re: databasing, I am ambivalent about that.  There are problems I've seen with using it in the typical viewer development experience most people have.  Like:

(1) the accuracy% of any session is useless as info and even misleading. I've had plenty of sessions 97-100% in this measure that were useless sessions, and plenty of sessions with a much lower score that rocked on specifics or context.  The bottom line is this method of measure "weights" all data points equally.  

Additionally, it cannot well separate out the many aspects of a complex or higher-level statement and sketches, and those are two of the most useful kinds of data in a session--generally moreso than disconnected descriptives.

(2) more and more over time, I am just coming to be totally against the "literal and counted" approach to RV sessions.  I've been so for years, but lately it's really increasing.  Everything valuable I have learned about RV has *not* come through that doorway, and if anything, runs contrary to that state of mind.

Maybe once a viewer is working professionally, and once another person is being paid to tabulate viewer sessions, this process is useful.  But for developing viewers, it seems to provide numbers that not only aren't relevant to their process, but focus them on a really literal pass/fail wrong/right interpretation of the process as well.  

Instead of thoughtfully reviewing their session and why they got certain data and how their mind works, I've seen far too many viewers just spend all this time after a session counting and doing math.  This is trashing the best period of time for real review, and math is just NOT what learning about self in the RV context is about.

It's "busy work".  It keeps people busy and would justify funding and be an aid to science and make great looking graphs for bureacrats, but....!

(3) most viewers have a helluva hard time finding 20++ minutes a night to do a session.  Adding this kind of bureacratic bean-counting "administration" to the process, where you can do 15 minutes of session and an hour of paperwork after, I have seen this be a huge factor in causing anything from viewer burnout to just viewers not doing RV because they don't have time.

Viewers have historically not done this kind of stuff for themselves--the government paid a bean counter to do it for them.  

So, I think some of the session point-by-point databasing process is counterproductive when done by viewers themselves.  If someone else wants to spend their time poring over my sessions fine, but I'm certainly not going to--been there, done that, and I don't recall it ever teaching me anything about RV except that it is a lot easier to do simple math than RV, which ends the process with someone feeling like they know what they're doing, LOL.

For someone using it to figure out who to assign taskings to, I can see its value.  It would, at least, make more clear viewers who seemed to aquire certain types of data accurately more often than others.

Still, even on that count I have quibbles (I know, bitch bitch bitch! lol!).

First and most obviously, that genuinely good viewers are rare enough that it shouldn't require database tabulations to know who is a good viewer.

Second, that I see from my own work that it is not easy to find a specific correlation in type of data that is accurate, and if it can only be found in a large sampling statistically, then that effect is just not strong enough per-session to affect per-session expectations.

Third, this means of measure offers number 'rewards' for people who can generate the most low-level and often useless (comparatively) data.  For example, someone can generate 10 pages of disconnected descriptives, which will quite nicely describe 80% of all targets in the known universe including that one, and boy it really looks like they "put out".  

I've done consideration of sessions from a range of people and data like "flat, bright, slanted, glinting..." -- unless these are *major focus aspects* of the target, this kind of data is just not worth focusing on, it's not useful at the end--and as a process for viewers, seems to bury them in an endless "shopping basket" collection mentality, of one of everything on the shelves of the target, instead of what is RELEVENT to the target.

Back in '96 I think it was, McMoneagle once described how the viewer is always focusing on what is 'most important or relevent' about that target/tasking.  A viewer can spend 20 pages going on about stuff that is totally accurate, 2 pages of which described every possible descriptive of the zippered leather jacket of a person in the target for example, and say nothing. But a viewer worth having is the one who learns to focus in and say, "Um... there is a guy with a gun in his hand."

The fact that 9,000 other descriptives were 'accurate' is beside the point, unless the tasking was specific to gathering that info.  (Even then, the endless-S2 approach is IMO a diversion of viewing focus.)  

Looking at a database, the first viewer is wonderfully prolific, and has a good "measurable" accuracy% for every imaginable database category, whereas the second one gets hardly any data at all, and statistically is far more likely to have a lower % because the main of data they provide is not fleshing out every imaginable S2 descriptive but being more specific on higher-level data.  Still, give me the second viewer any day!

I find that databasing my sessions, like any other process in RV, had psychological and session effects on me.  For example, if I credit myself for 142 disconnected descriptives that happen to match the environ of a target--some really beautifully--then I am more likely to get a ton of descriptives in my sessions.  If I acknowledge these but really only pay attention to the data I got that is more to the point of the 'focus' of the target and what is 'most important or relevant' about the target, then I start getting more data along those lines.  RV is all about 'intent', and getting what you ask for and focus on and expect--and demand of yourself.  I think the process of dbasing should be done by a separate individual, because when done by the viewer, it focuses them more on quantity and numbers instead of on quality and context, and what they learn to focus on and validate, especially right after a session, is what seems to affect their viewing most.

PJ

[waterway]

As for the databasing issue, I haven't thought much about it since I don't do a lot of work matching RV material with the target.  My post-session stuff is usually trying to get a better grip on what successful reception feels like so I can go there again.  

But back to the issue of Personality and RV success.... if personality is such an important factor....HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN I HAVE ANY SUCCESS AT ALL?!!

...okay, enough silliness.  I am still working from that Indra's Web metaphor, cuz it works for me.  I think personality decides which knots on the jeweled net we work with.   So depending on your present personality state, or aspect, you are grabbing hold of those aspects of the tasked event that reflect in those jewels on the web.

Disclaimer:  I usually cringe when someone uses terms like "Matrix" and "virtual quantum consciousness" but here I am running wild with this old Hindu methaphor.... sorry for my hypocracy.

So the success getting different types or "facets" of info if you change your perspective via using different "aspects" seems perfectly logical.  

But there is more... and here is the wacky part... I think that different "people" are just different clusters of jewels on Indra's web... and if you let go of your perch where you are now... and drop down somewhere else on the web... you are somewhere/somewhen else!  

So what if I did my RV session from the aspect of ANOTHER PERSON!, say, some other, more successful viewer?  

I mean, if our personality/belief system is what is holding us back... what if we took on the aspect of someone who isn't held back?

Or is this a very silly notion?