Courage or Insanity? Taking tasking from the public

psijunkie

New Member
What if someone were to task you on one target and give you feedback on another(to hide their unscrupulous intent)? Could this be an issue?
 

sonny5085

where are you from (the keep) "I am from you"
I count myself as a fair !

In this viewing rv stuff.

I have enuff bad sessions, showing public, that a few more would not even bother me !

Even if the feedback were switched, It could actully affect the viewing to show the
alternate feedback ! ha...

Which would make the intent more problematic.(more difficult).
 

blackcat

Member
So far, the general plan sounds really good to me and I can't think of anything I would change.

Psi_Junkie, yeah that is one thing I was thinking of that I couldn't think of any obvious solution for. What if somebody told me he was looking for his lost cat and really he was looking for his 'lost' girlfriend whom he was stalking? What would even happen with the viewers' data? Would they catch it? What data would they get if there was no actual cat? Or what if the 'lost cat' was actually taken by the girlfriend he was stalking so that by finding the cat, he expected to find the girlfriend? So he would really be looking for a cat that was sorta lost but he would not be telling us the whole truth either.

I think Pru used to deal with this kind of thing by having one session set aside to check for intent of tasker but I am not how she worded the tasking. According to Pru, this kind of thing happened fairly often, ie clients not being honest about what they really wanted. And if a service is offered that is free or cheap, then there will likely be some who just want to trip up the viewers and 'prove' psi is not real or see if we can percieve the lie just for fun. I hate to be paranoid, but there are some people out there who can really be sneaky and crooked! I would not want to see such issues kill the whole project that is for sure and it may be we will just have to live/deal with this prob to a certain extent. The only way to mind read is via more sessions.. I don't have an easy answer and am curious would others think could be done on this issue..
-Eva
 

Tunde

"Keep Moving Forward"
Psi_Junkie said:
What if someone were to task you on one target and give you feedback on another(to hide their unscrupulous intent)? Could this be an issue?

It could be even worse than that if you subscribe to the Multi Agent Tasking theory proposed by
Pru Calabrese. The general answer often given to this problem is that a 'skilled' viewers Intent
should overide that problem BUT i fear she may be right all along.
I know for a fact at least one other major RV group with a well known instructor is actively
doing and endorsing this sort of practice although in a purely positive way and for research only AFAIK
that however does not mean others cant take advantage of this little known aspect of RV.

I find it odd no one has attempted to do public projects or experiments to prove or disprove the threory to this day hmmmm

see article again :
http://prudencecalabrese.typepad.com/pru/2004/05/multiagent_syst.html

Regards

T
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
T, great articles.
I hadn't read these for a long time and Pru was just so on with all the things I have seen develop since that time.

thanks for the link.

Daz Smith
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Tunde said:
I know for a fact at least one other major RV group with a well known instructor is actively doing and endorsing this sort of practice although in a purely positive way and for research only AFAIK that however does not mean others cant take advantage of this little known aspect of RV. I find it odd no one has attempted to do public projects or experiments to prove or disprove the threory to this day

Actually Liz and Glyn did a series of experiments on the RV Oasis list in 2003. The list is archived at the Dojo Psi info site (http://www.dojopsi.info).

And you don't really know that they aren't actively trying it on anything public already, like missions.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Psi_Junkie said:
What if someone were to task you on one target and give you feedback on another(to hide their unscrupulous intent)? Could this be an issue?

There is always a way to screw with the protocol for someone who really wants to. I think really that has a few attendant issues for me:

1. Would worry about a potential make me think this field should spend another 13 years not viewing in public with 'fear someone, somewhere, might abuse it' as an excuse? Naw. It's time to crash that paradigm and taboo, it's time to move on.

2. If I can be psychic about anything in the universe, here's hoping I can also be psychic about the tasker's true intent. If I am, then I can choose how I wish to respond. If I'm not, then yep, it's going to look like my session data ranges from poor to completely offtarget. That is the risk in any viewing. On the other hand, I can also clearly instruct my subconscious that IF this is the case, to DEAL WITH IT. Give only data they already know. Give accurate data they will misinterpret. (That part of me is psychic; it oughtta know.) Give data that will make them hesitate or be more inhibited in any negative response. Give wrong data as a last resort but if necessary. I'm just going to have to trust.

I know that since I can't trust RV to be consistent, it seems like it'd be hard to trust my inner self to be making far more complex, multi-level stuff happen. But at some point you just gotta trust and hope for the best.

3. After many years of running online projects of various kinds, I am here to tell you that the risk to the project from scoffers is very low compared to the risk from others IN the remote viewing field who just get off on head trips and delusions of psychic control and hate anything that doesn't serve their personal glory. If there is any threat to useful, valid, educational remote viewing, it is more likely from that source than any other.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
P.S. And I think every famous successful RV session that has had millions and millions of onlookers including literally tons of rabid skeptics in there, which was successful anyway, suggests that no matter what is possible in terms of deliberate rapport with a viewer at the target-point of their session, that the viewer, at base, is the real point of power. Whether they know how to use that well enough to deal with the many attendant potentials is another story. But then again, how else do you learn but by doing.
 

Tunde

"Keep Moving Forward"
And you don't really know that they aren't actively trying it on anything public already, like missions.
[\quote]

Not sure why anyone would want to do that but yep that would make an interesting experiment.
:)

T
 

Glyn

New Member
PJ said:
Actually Liz and Glyn did a series of experiments on the RV Oasis list in 2003. The list is archived at the Dojo Psi info site (http://www.dojopsi.info).

Hey, the old retrotasking experiments! :D Yikes! I didn't realise that was 5 years ago! I must try and dig out some conclusions. I wrote some up somewhere, but I don't think I posted them to the group. Horrible feeling they no longer exist; my bad.

And you don't really know that they aren't actively trying it on anything public already, like missions.

No, and not Liz either. Liz was a willing participant in my experiments, and I wouldn't ever try anything like that without permission, cos I don't think it is ethical, but yes, more of that sort of experimentation is needed.

I've just been reading Pru's write-up about it perhaps being possible to 'hijack' someone's session without them knowing anything about it. In other words the viewer would be given feedback which was not the same as that which the tasker had in mind when the target was tasked to the viewer. The viewer never gets to see the real feedback (which could be some secret stuff), only the substitute f/b. Also, there is the more commonly known 'retrotasking' where a past session (any past session), of a viewer is obtained by someone who then sets a new task against it and then searches that session to see if there are elements of the new task in that session.

According to Future Memory theory (I am a proponent of that, but there are not many of us :)...there's a link at the bottom for anyone interested), someone could not just take someone's session, from say the Missions, and retrotask it willy-nilly, because the viewer of the session would somehow have to be made to associate the substitute/alternative tasking with their session and store it in their memory. However, the viewer only has to make that association, they don't have to realise that someone is doing it deliberately..so FM theory does allow for it. I wonder if closing a session properly may help a viewer avoid that sort of thing, and interestingly Courtney Brown strongly advocates doing just that, though I suspect not with deliberate retrotasking in mind :).

People who want to deliberately feed us the wrong f/b for whatever reason are probably quite rare, but yes I think we 'retrotask' ourselves a lot, quite accidentally, and either displace or kick up a lot of 'noise' for ourselves. Simply by thinking, and especially talking, too much about the target and what it could be, before f/b time, or even soon after. By becoming highly interested in something not connected to the task after just having completed a session... I've even found bits of television programmes in my sessions...because I've finished up RVing and straightaway gone to another room to scan the pages, and the TV has been on and something has attracted my attention...and then I realise I'd described or sketched things I am seeing on the screen! Lots of people have done that sort of thing, and I saw someone mention it earlier. The frustrating, and very intriguing, thing though is that when I have done that, the quality of the impressions has been SO much better than anything I have ever done deliberately. LOL! Now the reasons for that just begs experimentation...but it's difficult trying to do something accidentally, deliberately..if you see what I mean :). Anyway, to prevent causing that sort of displacement I now try to stay away from anything stimulating for at least half an hour after I have finished RVing.

Therse are just my opinions, but whatever our pet theories about psi, about ways of doing things, we do need to start trying things out for ourselves and encouraging others to do so. We know RV works, we now need to find out why, and if we can't do that then we must find out the conditions under which we each perform at our best. Leaving it to a few scientists will get us there eventually, but there are just not enough of them. Lots of individual experiments, observations pooled, anecdotes shared, by ordinary viewers like us..may speed things up and partly open doors and suggest alleyways that the scientists can fully explore. Never take anyone's word for something...in fact if someone says this or that cannot be done then we should be doing it to try and confirm it for ourselves. We are all different, and what is not possible for some may be possible for others.

So we need to experiment with RV, freely and on our own or with groups of like-minded viewers, and with your wonderful expertise PJ, hopefully it won't be long before there is a place for us eh? Heck, there goes that song again. ;D

Excellent link re a book for people interested in FM theory (don't confuse Sean O'Donnell with Gerald O'Donnell)..
http://www.antimemory.com/

Back to lurk mode :)

Grins,
Glyn
 

blackcat

Member
The prob with trying to plan a new project that has never been done before (or at least not that we know of), is guessing what probs will crop up and what needs may arrive. Things never go quite the way one expects. Some things will not be the probs we expect and other probs will be unexpected. But how to plan for something you didn't think of!

However, I would not be surprised that at some point, there may be a need to to screen clients in some way or another. It may be that there was be probs of unscrupulousness or it may be that demand will exceed supply and there will be a need to tighten requirements. It may be that eventually some serious help will be requested like maybe law enforcement, and that will be wanted to be given priority. Who knows! I sure don't.

Also, I might add that a session can easily TOTALLY match two different targets really well (as anyone who has done a lot of ARV probably knows). You can have pick of the NYSE and a pic of a kid in a wagon rolling on a grass y hill and your session will say "It's all down hill from here" And you may know that the pic of the stock exchange was taken on black Tuesday or whatever and see that the statement closely matches both targets. The "light at the end of the tunnel" could be the end of a terrible ordeal or it could be dynamite going off in a mine.

If we could verifiably figure out what causes so much noise to signal in our session, not to mention maybe even figure out how to fix it, we would be in a lot better shape! Right now, we are just guessing. If hijacking exists, we could have sessions high jacked often and still also describe well the 'screen' feedback. Wheaton with his entrainment has described even more insidious ways to hijack sessions like having the orientation of an object or biological indicate the answer to a secret tasking like which direction from a given point is the fugitive or whatever. However, I would not be in the least surprised if a big chunk of session noise is self induced/self generated in various ways for various reasons. On the other hand, if we are all connected on various levels, then each thing we do affects and is affected by others by our very natures. Who knows what effects all those others and their thoughts and actions have on each one of us. Just like they say a mass meditation in one city can influence the crime rate in that area even of those who are not meditating. It does seem to be possible to influence at least some people in nonlocal ways.

Of course, experiments done on willing participants do not indicate clearly if the same could be done on unwilling participants in efforts the participants would probably be opposed to if they knew. But doing experiments on unwilling subjects for projects they would probably be against has obvious ethical issues. So that's kind of a catch 22 when it comes to researching the issue.
-Eva
 

NSA

New Member
Glyn said:
I've just been reading Pru's write-up about it perhaps being possible to 'hijack' someone's session without them knowing anything about it. In other words the viewer would be given feedback which was not the same as that which the tasker had in mind when the target was tasked to the viewer. The viewer never gets to see the real feedback (which could be some secret stuff), only the substitute f/b. Also, there is the more commonly known 'retrotasking' where a past session (any past session), of a viewer is obtained by someone who then sets a new task against it and then searches that session to see if there are elements of the new task in that session.

According to Future Memory theory (I am a proponent of that, but there are not many of us :)...there's a link at the bottom for anyone interested), someone could not just take someone's session, from say the Missions, and retrotask it willy-nilly, because the viewer of the session would somehow have to be made to associate the substitute/alternative tasking with their session and store it in their memory. However, the viewer only has to make that association, they don't have to realise that someone is doing it deliberately..so FM theory does allow for it. I wonder if closing a session properly may help a viewer avoid that sort of thing, and interestingly Courtney Brown strongly advocates doing just that, though I suspect not with deliberate retrotasking in mind :).

Hi Glyn,

I've been thinking this morning about the whole hijack theory. It occurred to me that in order for a successful hijack to succeed it will more likely work if the victims target was hijacked before the session was done and not afterwards.

This is just a theory and has to be subjected to rigorous testing but when you think about it you can't retro task a target that a viewer has totally nailed.
Which proves pj's point about viewer intent. However I would like to see real experiments done on viewers subjected to hijacks before they do a session.
This could easily be set up and equally dead simple to assign the decoy targets
in advance of the session or project. Of course you would need the permision
of the viewers to subject themselves to such experimentation,
and the project managers should be competent enough to pick GOOD distinctive
targets with loads of entropy but I would love to see the outcome of it all.

NSA
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
The base of psi seems simple: you get what you focus on... you create the reality you believe in at core levels... and the individual is sovereign, but they have the right and ability to give up that independence to someone or something else if they choose.

The more a viewer believes that they will be vulnerable to, and unable to hold their own through, an effort like retrotasking, the more they surely will be, since every other belief of that nature easily proves itself out to a viewer over time; experimentation with careful documentation over the years is worth the time.

RV is no different than any other pursuit in the world: there are influences and conditions all around us and doing well with your own focus regardless of said conditions is part of viewer skill.

As a practical data collection effort, retrotasking is pretty useless: sure you can evaluate it against a known target but it's not useful for learning 'unknown' information, there's no way to evaluate that.

Obviously if the person doing the RT is the tasker themselves then they are splitting their own intent which will contribute to the effect; if that person is in a leadership role with the viewers then it's likely to work pretty well -- but that is not a rule for the art at large, that is just a beautiful example of the base: you get what you concentrate upon, and telepathic overlay is alive and well in any viewer who feels subservient to their tasker (or analyst). A tasker can 'build in' anything they want to a task's definition, and so obviously any tasker doing this deliberately can do head games all day and see results.

As a personal research study, retrotasking has the same problem that both ARV and ordinary RV do: there are limited forms and dynamics in our world, plus there is much language that addresses both, and a surprising % of data will seem to match a surprising % of possible targets. Anybody who has done rank order judging (or even ARV on RV-style targets) knows this; it's easily observable but we didn't have a paranoia to fit it in the earlier days LOL.

I've seen people get a real power trip out of thinking they influenced a session because the one they had in mind, you can find data in the session to match it. I did not believe in those instances that RT was happening; rather, I believed that they were seeing the obvious result of our reality + english on evaluation, and too dense to understand this is a larger issue and has nothing to do with their mighty and cosmic powers of influence.

I don't believe that merely the process of evaluating a session against multiple target potentials forces analyst-overlay that results in retrotasking, since as Don Williams pointed out on the thread about Brown's last book, this would mean that both rank order judging and real-world applications wouldn't work, since by nature they both subject the session to an intense review of multiple possible targets. Yet they both DO work in reality, with sessions being accurate 'despite' that.

Which suggests that like anything else in RV maybe the answer is "XYZ "can" happen; but there is nothing to say XYZ "must" happen. The point of power is in the 'NOW' of the session and centered within the viewer themselves.

Besides, it's a beautiful excuse for nobody demonstrating competence in RV, and for nobody demonstrating real RV work, which to me just ties right into several 'agendas' working against the development of this field (some from within it).

Imagine if those grouchy people who didn't like skateboarders managed to convince them that they should never do skateboarding where anybody else could see them. No shared pools for riding, no community contests, no big meets and freestyle demonstrations to learn from each other and seek out creative new ideas. As a result, most people would have nowhere decent to ride to start with and the few who did wouldn't share it and everybody would be all inhibited and afraid. It would effectively quench any sport, skill or art that inhibition was aimed at. We can add it to the list of things that we let work against RV, or we can make a different decision.

Worst-case, any skill is learned and strengthened by doing subject to the challenge conditions and learning from the results. More courage and confidence and less worry and sense of vulnerability would be very helpful in the field I suspect.

PJ
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
NSA said:
This could easily be set up and equally dead simple to assign the decoy targets
in advance of the session or project. Of course you would need the permision
of the viewers to subject themselves to such experimentation,

Nice idea... but it won't work. The minute the viewers give permission (or even if they subconsciously provide it because the person running things is their 'leader'), it's a done deal. A viewer is more than capable of perceiving multiple sources of information at once including on multiple targets or with multiple intents. That's likely the way ordinary RV works anyway (that we get info from a myriad of sources, possibly "everywhere/when/one"). This would not prove retrotasking; it would prove the viewer's ability to deliberately acquire psychic information, which I believe RV makes a given already.

This is one of those subjects that is nearly impossible to study because the very act of studying it creates a distortion separate from the real world situation one is trying to emulate; and because most the forms of study suffer from "standing in your own light" so to speak. Added to the problem with evaluating session data against a target already; *especially* method-based session data (because there is a LOT of it, as opposed to viewing which only wants to describe what is most important and relevant and may be several lines of data and nothing more) -- it becomes pretty much impossible to prove it's RI and not other factors which exist even without the attempted RI. (And needless to say, the person evaluating it, if they are the tasker and the leader of the viewers in question, they're going to find a positive outcome and that's going to be a given for reason other than anything 'objective'-ly studied.)
 

NSA

New Member
PJ said:
Nice idea... but it won't work. The minute the viewers give permission (or even if they subconsciously provide it because the person running things is their 'leader'), it's a done deal. A viewer is more than capable of perceiving multiple sources of information at once including on multiple targets or with multiple intents. That's likely the way ordinary RV works anyway (that we get info from a myriad of sources, possibly "everywhere/when/one"). This would not prove retrotasking; it would prove the viewer's ability to deliberately acquire psychic information, which I believe RV makes a given already.

We can armchair debate this all day long but the bottom line is
You wont knowit wont work till youve tried it ::)
Secondly its better to know for sure it is possible
with a viewers permision rather than to find out later without their permission.
In fact the real test would be to do this blind without permision. That way there is no
leak, no 'leader' to worry about running things and total blindness is assured.
All you would need to do at the end is see what target the viewer got. Real target or decoy.
It isnt rocket science.

There are many positive aspects to come out of doing experiements of this nature and
its not all doom, gloom and negativity. You just need to think outside the box.

NSA
 

NSA

New Member
PJ said:
Besides, it's a beautiful excuse for nobody demonstrating competence in RV, and for nobody demonstrating real RV work, which to me just ties right into several 'agendas' working against the development of this field (some from within it).

Another example of leaning towards the negative aspect to practical experimentation
of RV. Its not all doom and gloom lol You have to RV in the first place to prove an hypothesis works either way so no its not an excuse not to veiw in public.
The real danger to the development of the field that ive seen over the years
lies in not being able to back up theories, methods etc with actual data/stats and
sessions. If a viewer competently demonstrates he viewed a target that he was unaware
of existing and not his intended target there is still a lesson to be learnt from that.
All we have at the moment is talk and theories with no actual data to back it all up
mixed with a paranoid and somewhat irrational fear towards basic experimentation

NSA
 

Glyn

New Member
NSA said:
If a viewer competently demonstrates he viewed a target that he was unaware
of existing and not his intended target there is still a lesson to be learnt from that.
All we have at the moment is talk and theories with no actual data to back it all up
mixed with a paranoid and somewhat irrational fear towards basic experimentation
Absolutely. I don't think there is any need for fear of any kind, nor stop doing sessions in public. However, we do need to know what sort of thing is likely to interfere with our accuracy, and like it or not, if there are some conditions under which our accuracy is compromised, then like in any real world endeavour, we need to find out what they are, and if we can we need to work out how we can get round them. Denying them, for whatever reason, may just result in our treading water and not moving forward, especially with some types of target.

It may be as simple as refining our focus, or closing our sessions properly, but if FM theory is anywhere near the truth re how psi may work when doing ARV targets for instance, when we try to view the f/b associated with the future result, then we need to think about keeping the time around f/b disclosure 'clean', as far as what goes into our memories that is associated directly with the task. FM theory says that when doing our sessions we somehow go forward in time and access our own memories of what the picture (or whatever), was that is associated with the actual outcome. If that is so then it is possible that too much discussion or emotion, or even mental speculation around f/b time may clutter our memories by creating unwanted associations to the target in our own minds. Imagine taking a look at your f/b for the first time, or even the tenth time, and your husband/wife comes in and tells you that the seascape picture you are looking at reminds them of the time they went surfing...and you observe that one of your session sketches does look a bit like a surfer, and you think that is funny, put it down to coincidence...and forget about it....without realising that if FM theory is correct then indeed the future can affect the past...as far as psi is concerned anyway. What we should be doing is realising what is happening, and trying to reduce that 'noise'...keep feedback time clean and clear and quiet. Experimentation may identify a 'window' outside which we can discuss as much as we like, so ARV need not be kept out of the public eye, but inside that window maybe we need to be 'still'. We may all be different however, and that is why personal experimental is probably valuable.

Grins,
Glyn
 

blackcat

Member
On excuses for doing badly, I agree with PJ, that such can become and often does become, a crutch for making oneself feel better about a not so good session. I would argue however that there are plenty of excuses under the sun such that if one were not to talk about retrotasking and hijacking, well then those who wanted an excuse would just pick out one of the other many excuses. So I don't think talking alone is going to weaken any viewer. I do think any influence on people in general and in rv and with sessions, is most likely a sort of battle of willpower and clarity.

I also suspect that many decisions are made by us at subconscious levels and even at 'higher' oversoul type levels, such that we often agree/decide to do things that on the conscious level we may not agree to. I think this happens with rv and is part of the noise that we get in rv and I think a lot of that noise is also from inner turmoil of the viewer. IMO, the inner turmoil makes for a ton of noise. Weakness of the mind probably accounts for a lot of others' ability to influence as well. So I do think the best defense is to work on basic viewing skills and personal issues.

Other things we talk about a lot like trying not to contaminate the feedback the viewers sees as such contamination can apparently act as a sort of negative retrotasking or a sort, ie going back in time to contaminate the session. I think most viewrs have at least seen this happens.

Also on Pj's comment as follows:
"this would mean that both rank order judging and real-world applications wouldn't work, since by nature they both subject the session to an intense review of multiple possible targets. Yet they both DO work in reality, with sessions being accurate 'despite' that."

My response: No one is saying that hijacking/retrotasking would completely destroy the session, only act as a source of contamination. We DO see that often rank order judging does not work so well/reliably for most people. And look at the probs with ARV! It should work according to commonly accepted theory, but I have seen project after project using rigorous arv protocol go poorly, especially after the first 10 viewings. Perhaps focus lessons after the first few. I am not sure but it seems even long breaks from viewing do not serve to help with long term stats on ARV. Sure, there is a statistically significant psi advantage, but it is usually not that large an advantage. IMO, it should be more. The question is why.

Of course, the prob with retrotasking/hijacking is that it can't be tested ethically and it would be hard to set up a test that would exclude various alternate explanations. However, one of the reasons I like it is that it explains most of the weird phenomenon we see in rv like how you can be given wrong feedback and still describe right target (ie influence of the guy with the right feedback as he looks at it), how wrong feedback can contaminate the session, why entrainment can work even if done without knowledge of the viewer, why arv has so many probs, etc.

Sure I think mental clarity of the viewer also is very important. I think the stronger viewer cuts out more noise than the weaker viewer. I just don't think there is only one answer to the issue. I don't think it's as easy as saying there is only one thing that has any influence on the session. I think there are probably multiple influences.
-Eva
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
I don't think it's as easy as saying there is only one thing that has any influence on the session. I think there are probably multiple influences.
-Eva

Eva,
my thoughts exactly. PSI/RV will never be the same thing and work the same way both for two individuals or either for yourself from one year to the next, as differing things will affect how you and it interact.

Its one of the reasons why it cant be pinned down in the lab - the pinning it down ALSO affects the experiment and the participants.

I personally think that this is all just accessing quantum information and that we create this as we progress minute to minute. This information being what it is in interactive with the rest of the universe and instantaneous which also creates this state of flux that we seem to have with PSI.

All the best...

Daz Smith
 

blackcat

Member
Oh yeah, there was one other thing I wanted to mention. I think that having screeners not be allowed to view on other projects is going to be very painful for a lot of people. Maybe there could be a thing where screeners who opt to view cannot get access to the screener chat room when they are on an active viewing project, or maybe just cant get access at all, or maybe just can't get access for a certain amount of time.
-Eva
 
Top