pjrv : Messages : 493-493 of 4038 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/493?? )
?
 ?1:41:47

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#493 
	From: joan003....net
Date: Sat Aug 17, ?00? 1?:04 pm
Subject: Double Blind vs Single Blind vs Self Tasking Etc... 	joanie003

  	  	

<<  I'm a woman, but I still have to stretch quite a bit to see a rejection
of double-blind conditions as bringing in the feminine or balancing the
gender polarities. ;-? )>>

Hi PJ,

Just to clarify, I also don't feel these are directly correlated and didn't
intend that specifically, but that the paradigm shift itself as a whole,
moving away from mechanistic ways of thinking and acting and towards more
holistic involved these balancing of Archetypal polar energies.

Also whether male or female it doesn't matter, the archetypal energies
exist beyond gender.  A lot of people think I'm talking about a gender
issue :-? ) but I'm really not. :-? )

I hear you on double-blind practice.  I've also heard from a very top rver
that double-blind is not necessary, in fact the person self-tasks:-? ) (So it
gets a bit confusing...but I suppose my own experience will all bear out on
this.? )  Still I'm sure that those who are top notch rvers have had oodles
of double blind experience, fer sure...and there's the foundational
practice.  Shamanic work is not done double-blind either...we know the
"target" in advance, so that is self-tasking as well or in some cases,
single-blind tasking.  By the nature of that work being so personal and in
sacred space obviously it is not shared publically as "rv" might be. But
that work is done in a different "framework" anyway.  My primary concern, I
suppose, is that people may hold back from practice if they are not able to
structure it double-blind, don't have their own organizational setup to do
targets that way or don't have others to do it for them...OR they may be
reluctant to self-task when there is an issue of concern for which they
could use rv methodology to discover meaningful information.  I suppose
awareness of what one is doing would be important, so one is not fooling
themselves.  I feel that RV should strive to empower the viewer and the
viewer's ability at any time to access meaningful information...for real
world applications. I agree with you that practice should be kept pure, but
I admit I've both given and received single blind taskings...one being as I
mentioned before, Pru's remote healing for Christopher Reeve.  Still it's
good food for thought to contemplate about structuring tasking for the best
learning, so I appreciate it.

Can you please share your thoughts about the resultant tangible benefits of
double-blind tasking?  and the pitfalls of other methods? I probably really
SHOULD know where to go for this information by now, but if I know it, it
escapes me :-? )  And also the problems that you see that arise in single
blind tasking..when the tasker knows the target in advance.  I am truly
interested in hearing about this.  This also ties in for me another
question...single OR double blind tasking of one target to multiple viewers
at the same time, with what I've heard of telepathic overlay and
such..although this is also, endlessly debated :-? ).  I know that
self-tasking in shamanic work, if the person is truly working in a "good"
way yields results that are not clouded by pre-conceptions...and that is
much to do with truly mastering "stopping the mind" and being open and
uncensoring to whatever messages/perceptions come through.

Thanks Muchos..in the Spirit,
Joanie

-----------------------
Moderator's note: Well, before quoting 'top RVr' you oughtta provide a name or
it doesn't mean much to anybody.  Secondly, that 'top RVr' may self-task now,
and many viewers work only blind, not double blind, when forced, but that is a
wholly separate issue from viewer DEVELOPMENT.  I think we cannot have a decent
conversation unless we are talking about the same thing.  I have said elsewhere
previously that I consider "experience" and "process" very important, and those
can often be had in non-double-blind situations (and even just spontaneous,
non-RV situations? ).  It is for that reason I am open to anomalous targets,
things without feedback, etc. But it doesn't take a learning theory expert to
figure out that isolating psi AS psi (not as one of a dozen different ways to
get info and who knows where/when/if psi was even involved? ) in a session, and
getting specific feedback on what you perceived accurately, is critical to any
degree of learning about how we operate during psi functioning.  Now BEYOND that
issue of actually developing PSI skill, viewers can do whatever they want. Have
fun, why not.  (As far as multiple viewers go and so on, that's a whole 'nuther
subject and should be addressed separately.? )  As far as operational work goes,
it's the result that matters, and some people can work totally frontloaded and
still do well, and if so, let 'em go for it.  As far as experiential work goes,
it's the experience that matters, so that's an individual decision.  But as far
as truly psychic work goes -- where there is NO OTHER WAY of coming by
information, nobody else even knows the answer -- I think we're unlikely to get
good at anything we don't practice.  If I want to play basketball I don't
practice soccor and assume it's the same thing. So it's really just what you
want to do now and do with it all later, I guess.  Probably the thing of import
on a discussion list is that discussion on developing viewing skills, vs. "what
some other person who is already accomplished at RV might do now", are really
separate topics, for fairly obvious reasons, just so we're clear. -- PJ

pjrv : Messages : 500-500 of 4038 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/500?? )
?
 ?1:43:11

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#500 
	From: joan003....net
Date: Sun Aug 18, ?00? 10:?? pm
Subject: Re: Double Blind vs Single Blind vs Self Tasking Etc... 	joanie003

  	  	

Makes sense PJ!!!  Points all well taken.

Still would like to know if there's any external validation on double blind
results vs results other forms of tasking..but don't know if there have
been an RV studies that compare the two. :-0  anyone know if they are OUT
THERE?

on quoting the top RVer...that's the best I can do - :-? )  I vill nut and
can nut deesclose me source. :-0

Joanie

---------------
Moderator's note: There's been a lot of research done on variances in tasking,
frontloading, feedback, and most every other common variable.  But you cannot
measure the actual PSI evidenced unless you put the viewer in a situation where
only PSI can provide data (because other research makes it clear that in any
contest of where-data-comes-from, psi tends to be at the bottom of the list in
terms of priority given to incoming information? ). If there is a person there
with the psychic who KNOWS the target, you have just provided them a whole
spectrum of subtle physiological senses through which to obtain data which are
not psi (yes, even if the person who knows the target sits there seemingly
motionless and says not a word. See Ingo Swann's presentation paper to the U.N.
on his http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com website which goes into this? ). So the
concept of comparing double-blind with other situations is not applicable --
because the minute you pollute the clarity of the source of information, you are
no longer measuring just psi.  It's like how well a student does on a formal
test, vs. how well the student does on a test when they can look in the book or
ask their neighbor for help.  You can't compare the two and expect you're still
measuring what the student 'knows'. [P.S. And you use the term tasking, but
tasking doesn't relate to the double-blind situation unless your tasker is also
operating as a monitor and/or is giving the tasking out in person.  Have your
tasker email you the target directive, and you have solved the double-blind
issue.]  Regards, PJ