• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
  • Hi Viewers! As you see, we have new software for our forum. Updates will happen to make this a little more personalized to TKR eventually. :-) -- PJ

Definition of the word blind in remote viewing.

#1
We have observed that the word “blind” is used extensively in remote viewing, but it is not defined. There are also forces working for to prevent the word from being defined.

If a viewer start a session, he can describe how much he knows about the target or the general task, beforehand. If he writes the word “blind”, what does that mean? What does it mean to him, and what does it mean to others?

As it is now, the meaning varies from person to person. And in a specific case it is impossible to know what is the level of information known beforehand.

It ranges from:
1. No information is given to the viewer.
2. No information is given and measures are taken so that the viewer can not even anticipate the target or the context of the task.
3. Any amount of information can be given to the viewer, as long as he is not given what is called “the targeted information”.
4. Variations of the above. Where 1. or 2. is officially claimed but 3. is used.
5. The claim that the word blind is already defined in science and we can’t change that, while not revealing how it is to be adopted to remote viewing.
6. Fill in the blank...

There are probably pros and cons to using a word that is not defined.
What are the dangers and benefits of doing that?

How much information can the viewer have beforehand and still claim he is “blind”?
 
#2
Very true, much fake legitimacy can be gained by claiming "Blind"

In reality, the term blind comes from experimental academic tradition wherein it means that a participant has no idea as to what may be going on in an experiment, removing the influence of expectations. in RV, there is plenty of leakage from taskers past targets for instnace.
 
#3
The benefits of having an undefined word is obvious for those that want to cheat. For those that pride themselves of not missing a target. For managers that want to lead the viewers in a certain direction. And so on.

It is also a golden opportunity for anyone who wants to ruin the reputation of RV.

I sense that as long as we can not agree on the very fundamental condition for the viewer in RV, the whole thing can not even pretend to be scientific.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
#4
I hang out in the areas of online "food" world that tends to have ketogenic, paleo/primal and intermittant fasting involved. Today I was reading this conversation and a buddy of mine observed with humor that while people can argue about there being no "degrees" of "fasted state" -- that 'anything but water is not fasting' -- that still, most people don't have any problem agreeing that there are varying degrees of the "fed" state.

That made me laugh, because I realized it was the same language dilemma as Remote Viewing: we can argue that blind is "utterly," either/or thing; but there are different degrees of "informed."

PJ
 
#5
There are obviously different degrees of informed, and even on the lower end of the scale we must accept some rudimental information.

We can not expect a RV task haphazardly to fall out of the sky, with us not knowing where it came from, who created it, and when it should be done; And even not knowing if it is a RV task or not. Essentially, in science, blind can mean that we do not even know if we are participating in an experiment or not.
 
#6
We can add another proposition from elsewhere. I'll put that to the end of the open ended list as number 7.

It ranges from:
1. No information is given to the viewer.
2. No information is given and measures are taken so that the viewer can not even anticipate the target or the context of the task.
3. Any amount of information can be given to the viewer, as long as he is not given what is called “the targeted information”.
4. Variations of the above. Where 1. or 2. is officially claimed but 3. is used.
5. The claim that the word blind is already defined in science and we can’t change that, while not revealing how it is to be adopted to remote viewing.
6. Fill in the blank...
7. Viewer is blind when he does not know the cue beforehand. He can only know the target reference number.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
#7
Howdy Slorri,

Slorri said:
3. Any amount of information can be given to the viewer, as long as he is not given what is called “the targeted information”.
4. Variations of the above. Where 1. or 2. is officially claimed but 3. is used.
I rather feel like you have put far too much in the basket of #3 on that list, or rather, that this number alone sums up 99.9% of all the viewing done now or ever.

#4 is your reason for reaching out on the point to begin with I expect. This an issue in the layman's field, where people who are disinterested in validly applying the protocol or properly using the RV term abound. You can't change others' behavior by redefining words.

The people who take viewing seriously enough to care about things like blinding protocol will usually be communicative and have integrity about it in the first place. (Whatever it is, it is. Sometimes it's not ideal. So what. Communication is the key, not perfection to begin with.) So it becomes an issue of preaching to the choir, as we say.

Slorri said:
5. The claim that the word blind is already defined in science and we can’t change that, while not revealing how it is to be adopted to remote viewing.
OK, that might be a fair critique.

The problem (as in private conversation I know I've said ad-nauseum) is that sometimes, both assessing something, and communicating about it, require at least some degree of "intelligent discretion" and "accurate communication." Starting with the former.

Because the reason for X (blinding protocol) will depend on the reason for Y (why you view, what's done with the data), which means there are tons of variables, and every protocol is a distinct combination of settings as a result.

In the end some of the evaluation for why a viewing team might "allow" something that interferes with blinding might come down to,
"a/ the experience and skill of the viewer" or
"b/ too late, had no choice" or even
"c/ because feeling good about it all, or d/ the method$ getting credit for situation-X with enthusiasm, is more important than the objective validation of the data," or
"e/ because we just don't think it matters or care to think about it too hard at all."

But when the reason is truly C onward, if they chose to communicate about the session later, people are unlikely to recognize or admit the true reasons for the blinding protocol and more likely to conveniently leave out as much info as possible to make things appear 'more blind' than they were. So you don't find out some dude who knows the target is sitting 3 feet across the table until you inquire in detail.

That's bad enough, but add that to no feedback on the target in question and even true believers start rolling their eyes. That isn't RV. It isn't even valid as psi. It could be songwriting or free association for all we know. Neither would be any more or less valid applied to the task.

This is pretty consistent for what, 23 years of public RV now, so I don't see it changing anytime soon. Particularly since -- much like the old unit -- the field suffered such problems it has ended up being led by psychics instead of viewers. (An issue that's more a mindset/approach difference than the work itself, of course.)

So going back to the 'breaking it down' bit:

The question is: "Who cares?" I mean literally, who is it that we are doing this for? Don't the people who genuinely care about blinding already consider carefully their own protocol, use discretion when reviewing their own or others' protocol, and communicate with integrity about protocol? So that's the "choir" I refer to above.

So for whom are we further-defining the blinding word? Do they care? Would they use it? If they don't even carefully evaluate things now, or communicate accurately now, why would other people on the internet, with any new word or term or way of doing things, influence them to do so?

I'm just pointing out the reality that I and others have faced for a long time and that you are reaching many years after we did. You still have hope. :) Most of us shrugged and finally gave up long ago. I want to encourage that hope... maybe it will accomplish something for the sheer reason of not knowing you can't. But if you want to change something you have to look at what you are targeting for change so you can measure if it happens. Because I suspect in the end it won't be "remote viewing" you want to change, but rather, "loud public influential people presenting about remote viewing," and there's nothing you can do about those.

Slorri said:
7. Viewer is blind when he does not know the cue beforehand. He can only know the target reference number.
(I consider the cue to be whatever indicator is given the viewer to begin (e.g. 'Describe the target'). I think you mean the task name or tasker-intent or whatever, that's fine. Some people use these words differently.)

I would hope the vast majority of the time this defines the work. But of course, unless the viewer has their own project manager, usually they will also know, at a minimum, the source of the task. This is assuming they're working soloblind so there are no other considerations like informed people in physiological proximity.

And that assumes on no more subtle issues, like the tasker being a True Believer(tm) of some kind, which I consider just as damaging to end result as wrecking the blinding in its own way, but never mind, that is a different topic.

As I've said privately, every blinding protocol is custom to the reason for viewing which is usually the focus of the judging/usage of the data. So it should be "appropriate" "for that distinct situation."

The same viewers may use very different blinding protocols depending on what they're doing. It's a "reason for viewing" -- if they get more out of some frontloading and even midloading and they feel it's educating their growing experience as a viewer, then that blinding protocol is their choice; the only "issue" is, if they share the session data they should be honest about the protocol.

There isn't a single setup that says "this is remote viewing" or "this is not remote viewing," but there IS an "appropriate" element, based on the science-lab origin that says "anybody with half a brain ought to be able to learn this and make decent decisions about it in context."

The problem is that people who do have half a brain learn it and make poor decisions about it, for many reasons that have nothing to do with objective evaluation of what is 'appropriate.' And sometimes they teach this or influence it upon others.

So then people like you, onlooking, say, "This makes no sense! Person X is doing ___ and person Y is doing __ and they don't even compare to each other, yet X is using the same term to describe it!" Yes, yes they are, and sadly there is not a darn thing anybody can do about that.

We could certainly develop an "idealized examples of blinding protocols" for a variety of situations if you would like, as a simple guideline for new viewers who might be having trouble understanding the "appropriate in context" part. Is that something you think would help?

PJ
 
#8
PJ said:
Howdy Slorri,

...
PJ
You are doing here what I am well prepared for, you are creating straw-man arguments.

So I will kindly but firmly redirect back to our question at hand. We are not talking about any RV-protocols, how RV should be performed, how people behave or any claim that we can't change things.

We are only talking about the meaning of the word "blind" when used in RV. That is, the semantics of the word.

If we did put in the word "blind" as our condition in a session, then we must have meant something with it, unless we happens to be a robot, who just writes words without knowing what they mean. Same thing if we claim, for instance, that RV must be done "blind", or it doesn't need to be fully "blind". Or what ever like that.

We go to the sewing supply shop and ask for some black darning thread. And they just reach up on the shelf and hand us some. Because the words are defined and understood. We do not go to the store and say: "Guess what I want? I'm not going to tell you. And there is nothing you can do about that."



The number 3 in the list was intended as a horror example of liberal definition of a word. It stretches from no information up to all the information in the world, except for the "targeted information". Number 3 is sifted directly from out of the TKR protocol.

Number 3 reduces the meaning of the word down to nothing. With that definition there is no way possible we can be anything else than "blind". If you give the viewer also the "targeted information" beforehand, what is he then supposed to do?
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
#9
Well, this has become a murky topis over the years becasue so many people are taught incorrectly or are self assumed experts making things up as they go along, add to this the internet, words and human communication and you get an inevitable scale.

Wikipedia states blind as:
A blind or blinded-experiment is an experiment in which information about the test is masked (kept) from the participant, to reduce or eliminate bias, until after a trial outcome is known. It is understood that bias may be intentional or unconscious, thus no dishonesty is implied by blinding. If both tester and subject are blinded, the trial is called a double-blind experiment.
What this doesn't state is how much information differentiates what is or is not BLIND.

Now, lets look at this list shall we:

It ranges from:
1. No information is given to the viewer.
Yes, IMO that would be BLIND and IF the takser is also BLIND then this could be Double BLIND - the preferred science method, but also not very practical outside of a lab and done part time by only a few people like 99% of most remote viewing.

2. No information is given and measures are taken so that the viewer can not even anticipate the target or the context of the task.
Getting towards being double blind but not quite there.

3. Any amount of information can be given to the viewer, as long as he is not given what is called “the targeted information”.
Not blind at all and incorrect.

4. Variations of the above. Where 1. or 2. is officially claimed but 3. is used.
Not blind, not correct, and is bad practice.


5. The claim that the word blind is already defined in science and we can’t change that, while not revealing how it is to be adopted to remote viewing.
I dont understand, is this a statement?

6. Fill in the blank...
Definitely NOT remote viewing.

7. Viewer is blind when he does not know the cue beforehand. He can only know the target reference number.
This would depend on if any other information is given?


SOME people especially when doing ops work and NOT Validation of psi for labs, Use front loading. I personally do not mind this 'IF' everyone is informed in all claims/documents/media that front loading was used and how much was given.

I have no real problem in time and cost sensitive projects in a viewer being told the target is a:
structure, object, event life or location.

This allows them to tailor their information to achieve the best results without knowing any real 'specific' information on the target leaving Billions of possibilities.
anything more than this is a rocky road to ruin, IMO.

The real confusion is in people making claims and NOT properly detailing exactly the project proposition and how it was constructed. and in poor overall RV education. Leaving people confused - but in reality its very simple. I believe.
 
#11
Daz Smith said:
...
It ranges from:
1. No information is given to the viewer.
Yes, IMO that would be BLIND and IF the takser is also BLIND then this could be Double BLIND - the preferred science method, but also not very practical outside of a lab and done part time by only a few people like 99% of most remote viewing.

...
Thanks for this . It helps narrowing it down.
I sense you that you tend to lean towards the number 1 option in the list.

To expand the number 1 a bit we can use an example that proves that it needs more specification, and more rigour as it were.

A well known viewer, not named here, performs a talk on RV, and says that RV must be double blind. Then he goes on specifying what double blind means. That viewer and people around him has no information on the target. But then, lo and behold, he reveals that they had an outbounder that should go to the target. Obviously the viewer was well aware of this beforehand. The viewer knew the target was a place, and that it was within a radius from where they were, he knew when it was, because they did it in real time.

So obviously "no information" does not mean no information; At least for that specific person.

I would argue that if the viewer knows that it is an outbouder task in real time, then he is front-loaded, and not blind.
 
#12
Slorri said:
...
We go to the sewing supply shop and ask for some black darning thread. And they just reach up on the shelf and hand us some. Because the words are defined and understood. We do not go to the store and say: "Guess what I want? I'm not going to tell you. And there is nothing you can do about that."

...
The problem is know since a long time. Here is an episode where Stymie goes to the store and ask the clerk for IT. He does not know what IT is, but he has a knot tied around his finger to remind him to give the clerk a note that specifies IT. But none of them can read. The clerk asks Stymie if he would know IT if he saw it. No, says Stymie, but I might know IT if I taste it. So they go on offering all the items in the shop for him to taste. One after the other. For each item Stymie say: No, that's not IT.

Stymie and Wheezer........
https://youtu.be/T4DMl4pFdRY
 
#13
Slorri said:
We have observed that the word “blind” is used extensively in remote viewing, but it is not defined. There are also forces working for to prevent the word from being defined.

If a viewer start a session, he can describe how much he knows about the target or the general task, beforehand. If he writes the word “blind”, what does that mean? What does it mean to him, and what does it mean to others?

As it is now, the meaning varies from person to person. And in a specific case it is impossible to know what is the level of information known beforehand.

It ranges from:
1. No information is given to the viewer.
2. No information is given and measures are taken so that the viewer can not even anticipate the target or the context of the task.
3. Any amount of information can be given to the viewer, as long as he is not given what is called “the targeted information”.
4. Variations of the above. Where 1. or 2. is officially claimed but 3. is used.
5. The claim that the word blind is already defined in science and we can’t change that, while not revealing how it is to be adopted to remote viewing.
6. Fill in the blank...

There are probably pros and cons to using a word that is not defined.
What are the dangers and benefits of doing that?

How much information can the viewer have beforehand and still claim he is “blind”?
There can be some types of blindness.

(1)Not blind target and completely known to remote viewer and remote viewer has memory of the thing.
ex)Remote viewing today's my breakfast time.
Pros:
You can re-experience the feeling.
You can watch yourself in third person point of view
You can verify the data because it is same with your memory.

Cons:
No new data will be discovered( maybe 99.9999%).
You exactly know of it. So it can give you huge AOL.

(2)Not blind target and completely known to remote viewer and remote viewer has memory of the thing. But do not know which one of those.
ex) Find the food that made me stomach ache in the breakfast time, And describe the food.
ex) Remote viewing one of target in the pool that i created.
ex) Remote viewing my action that results in my friend's anger.

Pros:
You can easily verify the result of the session by yourself.

Cons:
You know exact every possibility. So it can give you huge AOL.
But if there are more various choices, like 1000 targets pool, then you can persuade your brain to calm down.
Also if you can't connect the target, completely wrong but excellently described target is made.
And this is pool targets, so even though how hard you try to read the found or selected target, our intuition only sees which is more obtrusive. So its result will be sometimes wrong.

(3)Not blind target to remote viewer. The target is known to remote viewer, but remote viewer can't remember it.
ex) Remote viewing some accident that happened at XXXX date(that You can't remember)
Pros:
You can remember forgotten memory.

Cons:
You can verify it or You can't verify it even though it is your memory. (50% possibility, because you can remember it or not)
It can also give You AOL somewhat because it is one of your life pattern.

(4)Partially blind target, You only know its category. But do not know it exactly
ex) Remote viewing my mother's health
ex) Remote viewing tomorrow's weather
ex) latitude/longitude target
ex) Finding lost pet, lost person case

Pros :
You can get quick result of it.

Cons:
You know its category, so it can still give You AOL somewhat.

(5)Partially blind target but it is added to targets pool.
ex) Same with (4), but it is in the pool.

Pros :
It is more blind than (4), so You can persuade your brain to calm down.
This is final choice for Single Remote viewer's session, it maximizes its blindness, and you can do it alone.

Cons:
You can't check its result directly. And if more various targets pool are made, then it will take long time for checking it.
Also Same with (2) -( even though how hard You try to read selected target, our intuition only sees which is more obtrusive. So its result will be sometimes wrong).

(6)Complete blind target to remote viewer, but tasker knows of it.
ex)Describing tasker's dog.(it is in the envelope, so Remote viewer don't know of it)
Pros :
Every little AOL feelings can be valuable. Because tasker can distinguish which one is valuable or not.
And tasker directly give direction and advice while doing session.

Cons :
Sometimes tasker's imagination also comes from the target.
You need tasker.
Remote viewer can't choose target.

(7)Complete blind target to remote viewer and partially blind to tasker
ex)Describing the picture that marked in today's newspaper by tasker.(newspaper is also in the envelope, so Remote viewer don't know)

Pros :
You can get quick result of it.
Every little AOL feelings can be valuable. Because tasker can distinguish which one is valuable or not.
And tasker directly gives direction and advice while doing session.

Cons :
Sometimes tasker's imagination also comes from the target.(But not that much like (6) )
Sometimes tasker's direction and advice can lead to complete wrong way, because tasker do not knows of the target completely.
You need tasker.
Remote viewer can't choose target.

(8)Complete blind target to remote viewer, but tasker made targets pool and select random of it.
Pros.
It is more blind than (7), so impact of tasker's imagination can be minimized
This is final choice for Remote viewer and one Tasker, it maximizes its blindness.

Cons.
You can't check its result directly. And if more various targets pool are made, then it will take long time for checking it.
Also Same with (2) and (5) -( even though how hard you try to read selected target, our intuition only sees which is more obtrusive. So its result will be sometimes wrong).
You need tasker.
Remote viewer can't choose target.

(9)Complete blind target and also complete blind to supervisor, and target number is sent by someone else.
Pros.
This is maybe final choice and complete blindness that remote viewer and multiple supervisor team members can make.

Cons.
You need a team.
Remote viewer can't choose target.
 
#14
Blind is as good as double blind if the only contact you have is via email and its the message is standardised ie "work target 567446648 etc. As the point is to eliminate leakage
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
#15
The 'double' in double-blind is not making the TASKER blind. The tasker is the tasker. They are the ones with the "psychic intent." They are not blind, de-facto.

If you mean "the monitor, controller, person providing the task number," then that could be it. Sometimes people loosely say tasker when one of those is actually what they mean. I think that's what daz meant was simply if there is a person THERE with the viewer, THEY must be blind. Sometimes that's a tasker like the person supplying the viewing -- but that's not the actual tasker as in originator-of-the-target since obviously, THAT person knows the target, wherever they are. :)

The 'double' term is referring to "any person secondary-to-the-viewer who is present during the process of the data-collection session."

A viewer getting a task# via email, if they work it alone or with someone who is not informed, is double-blind to the task. (Just not to the tasker. Usually one knows the tasker or source.)

Solo-blind would be working alone, NOT-informed.

Blind or double-blind can both mean working alone or with another person when both are NOT-informed.

But 'blind' is sometimes used (coyly or disingeniously, sometimes) to "imply" the viewer is NOT-informed, "without volunteering" that someone else present with the viewer IS.

So that is why the terms 'solo' or 'double' are usually used -- to clarify that NOBODY part of the viewing data-collection process was informed.

However...

Slorri's point is not really about what blind means generally -- I think he knows that --

-- it's about "how can this be falsified" when there are "gradient degrees" of "informing" a viewer that go all the way from "a random number from a database, no other info," to "the viewer even knows the target, with others sitting there who know the target, but is describing something NOT known, such as where that target (person) might be located, or their health, etc."

Examples of the latter might be Joe's work in Japan or other media or law enforcement work that others have done. Sometimes they know everything about it except the data intended. And sometimes it could be anything in the universe.

Slorri is meaning, I think, that there is no official setting for what is "appropriate" for blinding and what is not, if you're going to "call what you're doing Remote Viewing."

So for example, McMoneagle doing the Japan stuff is pretty informed -- except about the target data, which was unique and extensive enough to obviously be viewing (and they found half of 'em, and a lot toward the rest, which is the real test). Daz talks of doing applications work basically informed of the task "context" at least. But the measure of that and whether it's appropriate is whether he can do it, whether it works for the PI. If it does, then it can be appropriate -- for him, for that situation. Doesn't mean it's right for anything or anybody else.

But it's pretty tough to compare a session with someone sitting across the table who knows the target (=not Remote Viewing by my standard, though we call it 'viewing' as slang, as a process, but obviously many people including most the methods-trainers disagree strenuously), and someone working alone and getting a random number from a databased collection of potential tasks.

As Slorri pointed out privately once, it's not even the same thing.

He's right, it's like a totally different hobby in a way. It's like comparing a sled on the bunny hill to snowboarding the halfpipe. (You can tell the Olympics have recently inspired me LOL! Shawn White rocked the world!!)

So he observes, why do we use the same term for such VERY different things, when surely the challenge of how "psi" it is -- if it is AT ALL -- is pretty different.

I say we've been fighting that battle since 1995 when our most infamous starry-eyed Major (ret) started ranting on late night radio about what he called RV (whether the CIA paid him to do it that way, we'll never know).

I think this question is about the integrity of people "claiming the term" -- or lying or misleading about their protocol -- that it's not really a question about RV, because "an appropriate blinding protocol" is, and has been, known to everybody who is most publicly vocal in claiming the term injustly. They don't do it by accident.

PJ
 
#16
Sparkling said:
...
There can be some types of blindness.

...
You use expressions like: "Partially blind", "more blind" and "Complete blind".
Would you say that the word "blind" alone covers all of them?
Is a viewer "blind" if he is "partially blind"?

If someone else uses the word "blind", do you know how much information they have beforehand?
 
#17
PJ said:
...
-- it's about "how can this be falsified" when there are "gradient degrees" of "informing" a viewer that go all the way from "a random number from a database, no other info," to "the viewer even knows the target, with others sitting there who know the target, but is describing something NOT known, such as where that target (person) might be located, or their health, etc."
...
Yes. This is my observation. If a situation can be specified as being "blind" then there must also exist possibilities to specify it as something else than "blind". It must be falsifiable. For instance, this specified amount of information qualifies as being "blind", any amount of information beyond that makes it "not blind" or something else, like "front loaded" or similar expressions.



...
Slorri is meaning, I think, that there is no official setting for what is "appropriate" for blinding and what is not, if you're going to "call what you're doing Remote Viewing."

...
No. I am not meaning this at all. I'm not talking about what is appropriate or if it can be called RV. I'm only talking about what is the meaning of the word "blind" when used in RV. I'm not criticising anyone for doing whatever they are doing, I'm only trying to figure out, for the sake of all of us, what is meant by the word "blind".


You also say:
Blind or double-blind can both mean working alone or with another person when both are NOT-informed.
If someone can be "NOT-informed" can they then also be "NOT-blind" ?
 
#18
We should avoid talking about "double-blind" until we have established what "blind" means.

The "double-" in the expression "double-blind" appears to be much less controversial than the "blind".
 

Gene_Smith

Administrator
Staff member
#19
How about something that even someone from Oklahoma can grasp. :-*

Blind: The viewer has no idea what the target is when they begin. There is no one in the room with the viewer who knows anything about the target when they work.
 
#20
Slorri said:
Would you say that the word "blind" alone covers all of them?

Is a viewer "blind" if he is "partially blind"?

If someone else uses the word "blind", do you know how much information they have beforehand?
No. The terminology "blind" can't cover all the meanings, and the terms that i used, "Partially" and "More", are also ambiguous.
Its meaning would be used differently.

If i can choose its term, i want to choose "Black-box blind", "Foggy-box blind" and "Glass-box blind".

"Black-Box Blind" is "complete blind".
"Foggy-Box Blind" is "partially blind".
"Glass-Box Blind" is "not blind".

And if target is randomly selected from targets pool, i want add "Roulette" into these terms.
So if it is complete blind and also selected from pool, you can call "Black-Roulette-Box Blind".
Also "Foggy-Roulette-Box Blind" and "Glass-Roulette-Box Blind" terms are possible.

The terms "Black-box" and "Glass-box" or "White-box" are used in the field of Software testing.
"Black-box testing" is done by someone who does not know about internal flow of the software.
"White-box testing" or "Glass-box testing" is done by developers who are actually knowing about internal source code.
But foggy-box is something new just made by me.