Analysis, blind or not?

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]

A while ago, we were discussing blind vs nonblind analysis.  Recently, there's been a discussion on that subject on the CRV list and the HRVG board.  Since it's interesting and has a bit of new info on it, I'm going to copy some of it here, but paraphrase the parts from members that were not LYn.  Bare in mind that by paraphrasing the other comments, they will end up sound more choppy and less coherent then they wee originally.  Also bare in mind that there is usually a bit of disagreement between rv trainers on this subject.   The HRVG board has some more discussion on it but you better check it out soon because it's getting pushed off the board by newer threads   -E:


There is a snip of paragraph from the CRV manual talking about consensus analysis and
reporting and then someone comments that the conclusion was that consensus analysis won't work.

Lyn responds: Not so. The conclusion is that it is error prone, not that it won't work.

Other person: >........ because the analyst or report writer is not blind to target.

Lyn: Again, not so. Whether the analyst/report writer is blind to the target
information or not has no bearing on it being error-prone. Consensus
analysis/reporting is error prone because the analyst/report writer
includes or deletes a viewer's results, when that analyst/report writer
doesn't really know whether that viewer's information is valid or
not. Even if the analyst/report writer IS blind to the target, the
assumption that one report is right and the other is wrong because it
does/doesn't agree with the majority, is an analyst's/report writer's STRAY
CAT (AOL), and any such assumption or set of assumptions will pollute the
analysis/report writing process.

Other person: Why is the analyst NOT kept blind to target?

Lyn: For a very concrete reason, which has very little to do with the purity of
the "everybody blind" theory. In the operational world, the customer
doesn't want to get all kinds of fluff and side information. The
analyst/report writer has to know what is of interest to the customer so
the report can be as concise and to the customer's needs as
possible. Making up tasking for the end result of publishing findings on a
website is a very different situation from having a customer come in with a
list of, say, 5 questions and wanting exact, no-nonsense answers to each
one in as concise and exact a manner as possible.

Remember, there are four "modes" to remote viewing, "research", "training",
"practice" and "operations", and each mode has it own special requirements,
and therefore, its own special variations to the rules. In training and
practice sessions, and especially when you are training an analyst/report
writer, it is important to keep the analyst/report writer blind so he/she
can learn the >>>process<<<, and not focus so much on the results. But in
actual, real-world operations, it is the results which are all important.

Other person says that in that person's opinion, concensus analysis can be effective as a low level tool.

Lyn: In both training and practice modes, this is very true. That is indicated
in this person's term, "low level". In research, however, analyst and reporting
methods depend on the purpose of the research and the exact needs of the
individual experiment. In operations, the exact needs of the customer are
of prime importance. Theory is one thing, and is great, but the needs of
the real world can really wreck havoc with even the best of good theories.

Other person: But the analyst MUST be blind to target.

Lyn: That is a good theory, and is bantied about everywhere like a gospel truth,
but in actual fact, does not always apply. I would repeat the above answer
with some revision - to meet the needs of that statement:
In research mode, this is very true, depending on the exact purpose of the
research and the exact needs of the individual experiment. In training
mode, it is very often necessary for the trainer, as well as the other
people, to know what the target is, so they can learn what is going on in
the viewer's mind, and thereby learn how to work with that viewer and
his/her individual quirks. In practice mode, it is often important for the
monitor (but not the analyst/report writer) to know what the target
is, >>>>when first working with an unfamiliar viewer<<<<<, in order to
learn that viewer's idiosyncrasies. After the monitor has learned to read
the viewer, in order to know how to best serve that viewer during a
session, practice sessions can proceed to "blind' methods. In real-world
operations, the exact needs of the customer are of prime importance. It is
great to sit back and try to make a single rule to apply to every possible
situation, but in fact, that can't be done. Remote viewing, and its many
modes and uses are much more complex than any one simple rule can handle,
and for anyone going into the field as a professional, I would advise that
they understand going into it that it is a most intricate field. They will
need to learn, understand, and apply all the intricacies of the
trade. This type of work takes training, study, and in-depth understanding.


Other person talks about never having seen a large number of viewers give agreeing/congruent data that wasn't right [Eva's note is that yeah, neither have I!]. And another comment about how in the end the primary responsibility for good data must rest with the viewer and that one should not allow excuses for bad data.

Lyn: I'm not sure I understand the accusation, here. "Statistical" reporting
(the opposite of "consensus reporting) doesn't elevate anything to make
excuses for anything. When you throw something out because it doesn't
agree, you have just used an excuse for not reporting it. When you report
everything, whether it agrees or not, you are facing the music, taking
direct responsibility for the vagueness of remote viewing and the
idiosyncrasies of the individual viewers, and must very often explain your
actions, hat in hand, to the customer. There are no excuses, here. In
fact, quite often, you have to justify why you included information that
does not agree.

The reason is so that you don't throw away potentially good data that the
customer might use. I read and re-read the person's comment, above, and am still
not sure what the accusation is. Anyway, remember that in real-world
operations, the customer NEVER tells the analyst or report writer ALL the
information. In that respect, the analyst/report writer is never
completely un-blind to the target. Therefore, the analyst/report writer
who then judges the results of any viewer in any way (in this case, by
whether or not other viewers agree), will almost always throw out
information which may be of prime importance to the customer. The
analyst/report writer who throws out information for reason of adhering to
"concensus" analysis and reporting is, in effect, taking matters into his
own hands and doing the judging, him/herself, when ultimately, that is the
customer's right/responsibility/job.

The bottom line is this: whether the analyst/report writer is "blind" or
not, If he/she decides what is right or wrong and from that decision,
decides what to keep or throw away, then why have viewers? If the target
could be decided by logic or by popular opinion, you wouldn't need to call
in viewers, in the first place.

The person requests that an example or two be posted to help clarify the subject.

Lyn: I do not post customer information, but will give you a made-up example of
statistical reporting:

First of all, when you accepted the tasking, you dealt with the customer to
delineate what information is needed. Then, armed with a set of questions
(which the viewers never see), you can better task the project. Once you
report, you repeat the customer's questions and give the answers of each
viewer, in turn.

Example:
PROJECT XXXXX
Question 1: What resources will we find at the targeted location, if we
build a working unit there?
Answers:
Viewer 118: The location has land, water, and no
vegetation. The land has
traces of minerals which appear to be
shale-like. There are crystalline
formations, with crystals which are clear,
6-sided, and grow in clumps.
Viewer 211: The location has land which is striated with black
and grey layers.
Useful minerals will be found in the grey
portions, but not in the black.
The minerals from the grey layers will be easy to
obtain.
Viewer 243: Did not find any information for answering this
question.
Viewer 301: The site is rich in mineral deposits, but none
which will be useful.

Question 2: How many personnel will be necessary for the distant unit's
operations?
Viewer 118: "I detected a small number of people at the site,
probably less than 7."
Viewer 211: Was not tasked with this question.
Viewer 243: "There are not many people at the site, but there
are some. It is a
very lonely place, with not much activity other
than work."
Etc.
Questions 3: Etc. etc. etc.

Note that the results of each viewer is always shown, even when that viewer
produced no results, or when a viewer is not tasked with a question (The
database will show each viewer's strengths and weaknesses. Simply blanket
tasking all viewers with everything also leads to some potential
disasters. At PSI, we select viewers for every project according to their
strengths and task accordingly. We also design further training and
practice sessions for each viewer, based on their weaknesses and training
needs.)

The person invites other who have done analysis on projects to also contribute to the thread.

Lyn: Good request. I would reiterate to the person that the mode of viewing and, in
the case of both research and operations, the specific needs of the
project, will determine many things about the specific working
methods. Not all modes have the same requirements, and it is important for
a project manager to know and understand the specific requirements of the
project at hand. This is a very complex field, and the tendency of most
people is to try to simplify it down to a single working method. But when
rigidity sets into a project manager's thinking, the end results cannot
keep from being adversely affected.

I have found that, in this field, many people get almost religious about
one methodology and if any other is ever presented as a possibility, they
become very protective and sometimes even belligerent, as though some stray
dog were trespassing on their marked territory. There is no need for
that. The need, for every project manager, is to look at the requirements
of the specific project or working mode, and adjust the methods
accordingly. And, if someone comes in and says that they have found that,
for them, one method has worked better for one mode than some other method
for the same mode, it is much better to become open and interested than to
become protective and angry.


Lyn Buchanan, Problems Solutions Innovations
37 Camino Ranchitos, Alamogordo, NM 88310
Ph: 505-437-8285 Web site: http://www.crviewer.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
It's your mind - use it or lose it.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The ultimate oxymoron: "Holy War"
-------------------------------------------------------------

[wizopeva]

OK, here's another one this time from the HRVG board thread.  I think these are interesting so I want to have them in the archive here.  In this case, Lyn is commenting on one of my early comments. -E:

Eva wrote:
> Well, I'm sure you understand
> the capabilities of subliminal PHYSICAL communication
> such as body language and verbal nuance.
> The purpose of double blind work is to eliminate
> the possibility that data was acquired through
> anything other than psi. Sure, in RV, time/space
> boundaries are easily crossed. However, that's
> not the case for physical direct face to
> face communication which is what the double
> blind format is designed to prevent.

Lyn responds:
I think that Eva's distinction is an extremely important one, and one that everyone should understand. The "double blind" situation, was never meant to prevent telepathic overlay. It is, instead, >>>meant ..... So of
> course the double blind format is needed
> for any offical research, even if such extremes
> are not always used on a daily basis in practice
> or ops. I don't think the double blind format
> should be unfairly maligned because any research
> done without it will not pass peer evaluation.
> The double blind format is used for all research,
> not just psi research and is absolutely a
> standard practice for all types of research.

Lyn responds:
That's exactly true. The peer evaluation process is very rigid, and in many ways, more like running the gauntlet. Those meek and mild scientific types have sharp fangs and can shred an unprepared person to shreds, if certain necessary guidelines aren't followed. "Double blind" is one of those guidelines. This follows closely to a thing I wrote for the newsletter about frontloading (Don't know which issue it was). In it, the differences between proper and improper frontloading are discussed, as well as the times when frontloading is bad, as well as when it can be used as a very valid and useful remote viewing tool. One of the rules in there is that frontloading should never be used in research mode, because of the very nature of the mode. (There are four modes in remote viewing: research, training, practice, and operations, and each mode has its own special needs, requirements, and differences in rules and conduct.)

There are times when "double blind" is an absolute requirement. One subset of research mode, for examplle, is the dreaded "demo" situation. The moment you give frontloading in a demo, or you conduct a non-double-blind demo, you automatically put doubt into the minds of those who are watching it as an experiment, to judge remote viewing's value. For them, this is very much a research condition, since they want to see whether it works or not. If you cross that line, everything else is placed in doubt.

So, the fact that "double blind" doesn't stop either physical or telepathic pollution doesn't mean that it isn't a useful tool under the right conditions, and that it doesn't have a place in the rv field. You just have to know your tools and when and how to use them.

 

[PJ]

Hmmmn.  Actually, good on the archives--not much on this in the field so this ensures it's avail in the future.

One of the chronic reasons for disagreement is the lack of terminology, or vagueness of terminology, for the parapsychology field as a whole.  Semantics can bury anything.  People can agree on stuff and spend a week arguing about it because they use words differently and so are never even really talking about the same things.

The word 'analysis' is a good example.  

We have what some call 'low level' analysis, but it's never clear if everybody is talking about the same thing.  For some this is an interpretive evaluation, which is not blind. For others this is the base analysis by one or more analysts, which should be.

We have what some consider regular analysis or 'upper-level' analysis, but again it's not clear everyone's on the same page for definition.  Some call this the point where all the analysts provide data to the chief analyst or to a project manager, who might suggest context for how the data fits into the question or need of the original client tasking.  

This isn't necessarily blind, since they are using the context of the need, but then a lot of people wouldn't call this analysis.  They might call this a form of evaluation of the (previously done) analysis, or an intellectual function of analytic 'reporting' done on the (previously done) analysis, but not analysis itself.

We have options for what might be done in training analysts or in finding benchmarks for new viewers for use by analysts.  This might relate to the topic, but is training, and isn't analysis, any more than training in RV when done monitor FL is really RV proper.  I didn't feel it was logically addressed in the discussion above since in the threads you ref, the guy asking (that was Jim K I believe) wasn't talking about that variant at all.

And as the scientists have noted, there are many kinds of analysis, and for that matter, there are about 1001 ways to analyze any given session or session-group or final project report, as well.  

One assumes that if we narrow the analysis question to 'operations' then there are fewer. (Whether formal or informal ops--I use the 'informal' term to mean, 'real projects' done by teams that may not be working for a client but are still doing them in the same way they'd do regular ops, such as HRVG's "Projects").  But while fewer variations, there may still be more than one.

So if we're going to ever be able to have a conversation about it in English, maybe we should break down the stages or types of "analytical consideration" that can be done in connection with remote viewing, and then when someone talks about 'analysis', we can first find out WHICH of these they might be talking about.

I'm not an expert on all these that exist but I'm sure we could gradually collect various ideas and approaches people in the field use.  Maybe some 'common terms' could eventually be adapted for the different KIND of 'analytic thinking, reporting or consideration' that each of these entails.

(There's also the issue of WHO is doing the analysis, of course.  Is it called analysis if an "analyst" does it, but not if the same thing is done by someone with a different role?)

Here is my list.  I welcome anybody to add to this.

*  Interpretive consideration done by the viewer.  Viewer sees how the session data fits into the context of what feedback they have.  Not blind.

*  Interpretive consideration done by (a) tasker, (b) analyst, or (c) project manager, on one or more sessions by one or more viewers, directly from the raw sessions (no layer of analysis in between).  Same as above but done by different person.  Not blind.

* Formal analysis done by an analyst.  In my limited info on this topic, this results in a 'weighted' summary of data for a session.  It does not exclude data nor infer it, it merely weights the 'probability of accuracy' of what data is there--based on criteria that are known only to the people doing the analysis. I might add that even from the STAR GATE program I've been told that the ops analysis was done differently by different people and locations. So, the details of 'how' in this process may be unique to every person or group carrying it out.  This is "always" blind, per the intell and science experts I know, though considering how reality keeps changing around me, tomorrow there may be other opinions.

*  Interpretive consideration done by (a) tasker (b) analyst or (c) project manager, USING PREVIOUS ANALYSIS info or summaries as base (as opposed to the raw sessions).  The previous analysis such as above was blind; but this interpretation would not be.

* Psychic interpretive consideration done by (a) tasker or (b) project manager or (c) whomever is assigned to this role (which might be called analyst or might not, depending on the group).  In this case, the process may or may not be done "blind" -- it would depend -- but would always be done with the intent to allow 'intuition' to guide as much or more than 'intellectual' consideration of the data and/or data-in-context-of-viewer and/or data-in-context-of-known-situation.

* Training of analysts may have many different things involved and there's no law that training needs to be blind, but it's likely up to (a) who's doing it and (b) what they're training them to do.

*  Evaluation of "analysis benchmarks" for a new viewer added to the team.  Some would feel this is based on the databasing of every data point in every session they've done statistically averaged for accuracy.  Some would NOT use this as a benchmark or a means of analysis--that is just one way of going about it.  So, what the benchmarks ARE, and how they are determined, would likely drive whether the process is blind or not, depending on (a) who's running that and (b) what they're doing.

So that's seven different "phases, places, types or levels" of "analysis" already, two of which can vary so much in and of themselves that there's no way to say they must be or wouldn't be blind.

I don't know how a debate about 'analysis' can be bandied about constructively when all of these things fall into the realm of what the term is applied to.

PJ

[wizopeva]

I'm not an expert on all these that exist but I'm sure we could gradually collect various ideas and approaches people in the field use.  


Well PJ, I think first you would have to actually succeed in getting trainers to actually talk about analysis in the first place!  So far, there have only been a few people willing to say much on the matter.  Then after that you would have to expect that they would still continue to use their own terminology.  After all, many have been rving for double digit numbers of years and they aren't about to change in the near future, LOL!  But provided people actually contributed much, I'm sure you might then query them a bit more as to their terms and then translate it into your own jargon.  Meanwhile, I'll resort to gathering what tidbits I can.  

One reason I liked this particular quote is because I think LYn makes a good case for not always being blind but at the same time agrees about the benefits of blindness too.  But although I do like his use of track records to judge data, I'm not sure I would completely throw out the use of consensus analysis either.  I do agree that concensus can tend to screen out good data, but at the same time, it seems to me it has it's uses for increasing the likelihood of correctness on the data it does catch.  And although I've heard a lot about telepathic overlay, I have yet to see a situation in which multiple viewers got the same thing and it turned out wrong.  So IMO, I'm not sure I'd throw the baby out with the bath water.  Each method seems to have strengths and weaknesses.

Oh and as I quick aside, I've often asked Lyn if I could repost stuff and he's always said yes.  But sometimes it can take a long time for him to get to my email and respond to it.  Sometimes, if he has a lot of email, mine just gets lost and I have to ask twice and it takes forever.  This time, he had already said that it could be reposted to HRVG so I felt it was reasonably acceptable to just go ahead and repost the stuff up here.  However,  I did not get permission from other parties (didn't ask) and that's why I did not copy their stuff directly but just paraphrased it without using the real name.  Although I don't like it when people repost without permission, I think most of the prob can usually be solved with a tad of common sense.  For instance, I don't generally ask permission to recopy articles from websites because I feel they are by definition a creation that was meant for public consumption.  However, I do try to give credit to the source if I happen to know what it was.  Also,  I think another issue is that the more famous one becomes, I think the more one has to expect a bit of copying.  For instance, I feel perfectly free to repost words of Pres Bush without asking him permission, LOL!  
-E
       

[jimk]

Eva and everyone else for that matter...

If any quotes are from me, feel free to quote me as you wish.  I try not to say things that I feel like I would regret later.  

(Runs off to archives just to make sure...)  

I got an analysis project almost done for publication that will detail step-by-step how we do low-level analysis at HRVG.

It is a good example of consensus analysis when it really works.

Stay tuned...

Jim K.

[wizopeva]

That's the thing exactly.  I have a hard time buying that concensus analysis doesn't work.  I've used it successfully while completely blind and I've seen others do the same.   I've yet to see it flop at least in situations in which I know it was used.   I would agree that it has strengths and weaknesses just as other methods of analysis do.  

But come to think of it, the only other main method of analysis that I can think of would be use of track records and viewer styles (which are similar concepts), to add weight to some info over others.   And there's no reason that I can see that both methods can't be used concurrently.  However, from what I've seen so far, the HRVG method seems to yield a bit more  homogeneous types of info from the viewers.  It may be that the HRVG method is especially suited for use of concensus analysis.   It has a very specific structure and layout that would probably help in a comparison situation.

Oh yeah, and I did think of one other thing that I could imagine might help with analysis.  That idea is the specificity and rarity of viewer impressions.  For instance, if two viewers out of 4 indicated in their sessions that there was an elephant at the target, well I might feel a bit more confident about that than if say 2 viewers said that there might be water at the target.  Cuz water is often seen in sessions, but elephants are relatively rare so two mentions can hardly be likely to be a coincidence baring of course any obvious sources of contamination like frontloading, etc.  In the same way, I might consider a bit more carefully if a viewer wrote 'UFO' in a session if that viewer almost never comes up with that in a session vs a viewer that comes up with it on every 3rd session, hehe.   I've noticed some viewers have sort of 'favorite' impressions that they use on like half of their sessions.  Of course I have no proof of any of these ideas, but I do think they are interesting to ponder.    

Anyway, Jim, I'm glad to see you plan to publish the HRVG steps.  Constructive stuff is good!  Even though Glenn has talked of it in the past and given me a decent idea of it, it would be nice to have it all in one place and layed out.   However, I couldn't help but notice you wrote:
It is a good example of consensus analysis when it really works
Does that mean there have been times it didn't work?  Or are you just referring to times when the sessions turned out to be weak in which case, it's rather darn hard for analysis of any type to do much?
-E

[jimk]

However, I couldn't help but notice you wrote:
It is a good example of consensus analysis when it really works
Does that mean there have been times it didn't work?  Or are you just referring to times when the sessions turned out to be weak in which case, it's rather darn hard for analysis of any type to do much?

Hi Eva,

What I meant to say was that the project I am about to publish, has a lot of different data between the viewers.  At a first glance it would be difficult to say anything about the target because the data is all over, but consensus analysis in this case managed to pull out the congruent data which in the end form a clear picture of the target.

I have yet to see this method fail in the manner which I apply it.  Of course, taking Lyn's comments into consideration, the actual final summary and report could look different depending on the type of project (research, practise, operational etc...)

Jim K.

[PJ]

For readers who come later I just want to make a link here to another thread where we discussed 'consensus reporting' and analysis as well:

http://www.tenthousandroads.com/wbbs/WBB.cgi?board=rvgenl;action=display;num=1064470788;start=1

[Glyn]

Hi Eva,

 It may be that the HRVG method is especially suited for use of concensus analysis.   It has a very specific structure and layout that would probably help in a comparison situation.

I would definitely agree with that, and in any instance where each viewer is using the same or a similar method.

Back when I did some simple analysis on your group 'Farview' I found it a really difficult task grouping the data from sessions where each viewer may be using a different method. This was very time-consuming but a great learning experience. It had to be done before I could begin to get off first base.

Some viewers included a lot of narrative..pages of text sometimes....phew...how to 'sift' without losing anything important...:-).  That's where experience, and lots of it must be the guide.

It was a shame, because over the weeks,  by constant revision of my analysis template I had started to arrive at something by which I began to think I could group almost anything in the universe... ...then it all came to an end.  Still I'll keep it filed away, and maybe we'll do it again somewhere, sometime  .

Oh yeah, and I did think of one other thing that I could imagine might help with analysis.  That idea is the specificity and rarity of viewer impressions.  For instance, if two viewers out of 4 indicated in their sessions that there was an elephant at the target, well I might feel a bit more confident about that than if say 2 viewers said that there might be water at the target.  Cuz water is often seen in sessions, but elephants are relatively rare so two mentions can hardly be likely to be a coincidence baring of course any obvious sources of contamination like frontloading, etc.  In the same way, I might consider a bit more carefully if a viewer wrote 'UFO' in a session if that viewer almost never comes up with that in a session vs a viewer that comes up with it on every 3rd session, hehe.   I've noticed some viewers have sort of 'favorite' impressions that they use on like half of their sessions.  Of course I have no proof of any of these ideas, but I do think they are interesting to ponder.

Yes they are indeed Eva, and they are very valid points. Again the 'feel' for that must surely come with lots of experience. Analysis could easily become a 'speciality' I think; and maybe it should.

It's debatable as to whether it would be an advantage working with the same group of viewers, although I should imagine that care would need to be taken not to unconsciously 'second-guess' a viewer whose work you get very familiar with.  

Kind regards,
Glyn

[wizopeva]

It was a shame, because over the weeks,  by constant revision of my analysis template I had started to arrive at something by which I began to think I could group almost anything in the universe... ...then it all came to an end.  Still I'll keep it filed away, and maybe we'll do it again somewhere, sometime  .


Yes, I agree it's unfortunate.  However, because of my personal belief in retrotasking and it's dangers, I felt it was unethical for me to actively promote the posting of sessions personally.  I'm not stopping anyone from doing it on my FARVIEW mailing list mind you, but it's hard to get something going when the moderator is not helping any, LOL!   Anyway, it's sort of a weird thing cuz I know that many people are skeptical of the theory or maybe they just aren't worried about it enough to care.  And that's fine.  I can certainly understand that.  But I still have to act according to my own beliefs for as long as I hold them.   One of these days, I'll have to write an article on that issue..
-E