Yup, seeing the future is a big impact it appears.
On a target mentioned elsewhere on the board, of Mae West, when I first saw the feedback, which was incredibly tiny and poor graphic, I actually though there was a man in uniform on the left, and her on the right, and then something between then (a goblet she was holding). In the session I described, initially, two people with something between them.
On feedback I was instantly aware that this was correct. Then later was aware that this was totally wrong, lol. That has happened to me more than once--that my session seemed correct for 5 seconds, then I realized I was seeing the FB totally wrong.
The REAL question is, was the session wrong because I saw the FB wrong, or did I see the FB wrong because I was so aware of my session data?
That is a question Dunne didn't think to ask, I suspect. ;-)
It's well known that feedback can have a big effect on a viewer, although the degree depends on the viewer. More important is the issue of what the viewer accepts as 'validation' (feedback).
A viewer who accepts data another person got, or a viewer they respect got, as validation, is far more likely to consider that stuff 'feedback' on a psychological level, even if it's not officially. This can be a real problem, since it is often difficult to keep all info except the formal feedback point from a viewer for all eternity of course.
If a viewer tends to get data based on what they validate as feedback and that scope is wide, then anything they hear about that target, including erroneous information, for the next 20 years may end up in the session. Although this comes under the heading of feedback, this is an example of a real problematic "delineation of the target", actually. It should be very clear prior to a session what the target is, and what the feedback is.
RV practice in a decent protocol resolves most feedback issues (beyond the fact that all feedbacks are 'partial' in some sense, of course). There is one target: there is one set of feedback. That feedback might have lots of components if desired (although most sessions are done on a specific aspect of something, and FB should be geared to the tasked session), but in any case, the feedback if it exists, for practice, is pre-determined.
In RV *practice*--using just photo practice here as the example, as there are other types of feedback and other types of tasking even on photo FB, in practice-- the goal is to describe 'the focus of the photo at the time the photo was taken'. So it doesn't matter what is outside the camera focus; the session is specifically about what is either captured in, or inferred by what is captured in, the feedback itself. That doesn't mean you're viewing the picture-on-paper, but it does mean that by nature, your tasking is directed to what has, or is inferred by, actual feedback (that pic on paper). The act of RV will make it obvious quickly that you are not viewing the paper, because there is too much sensory and even 'experience' that are IN the target.
Future memory may be at work in RV, as I suspect it is a big part of psi across the board--not all, but much.
A good way to really screw up a viewer in training is to regularly screw up their feedback. The whole point of practice with feedback is basic learning theory: action, response, correction(feedback). It ain't rocket science. But when this loop gets messed up, it's the viewer that pays. Their psychology after awhile of that is not learning to focus intent or validation solely on what is objective feedback and the original intent, but rather, on whatever the tasker says about the session at any point, and whatever else might be in any way relevant to the target (but isn't part of the focus).
Remote Viewing in my view comes down to learning how to pay attention in a way that excludes nearly all of the infinite universe except one thing, the target info. It's a little blurry at the sides because that one thing is not in a vaccuum, it's attached to lots of other things, and some degree of that connection is both/neither and might come through. But the whole point is training the intent, and the means of training is through very clear feedback, so it is an interactive experience. This learning theory model works for anything, not just RV. And messing up the feedback part of the loop will mess up the learning process for anything, not just RV.
There are two time points to best muddle feedback: at the initial point of FB ("Well the target was the moon, but while making this tasking there was a black cat on my desk, and I was looking at the print of 'starry starry night' on my wall while I considered 9/11 and the implications of it and worried about my mother who is ill and what would become of her horses.") and after FB ("Well you got A which wasn't in the FB but that's actually true, and here is a news article with 101 other points on or related to the topic in case it's interesting to you, and you got X which seems totally wrong but it's not because I was thinking about that at the time I did this tasking.") Either of those examples violates what could be considered a decent RV protocol--and if you blow the protocol, it isn't RV; it may be psychic, but RV got a good reputation BECAUSE considerations like this were taken seriously and upheld.
They are not always nowdays in the layman's field, which often demonstrates a profound lack of understanding about the topic, and kind of walks RV back into the 'plain psychic' stuff it always was, except with some method attached.
The more insidious part of the above examples is that the viewer is being trained, gradually, to consider the validation of the tasker/trainer to be *more relevant than the factual feedback* they were given officially. If you want to build a cult this is great, but if you want viewers who can work independently, it's not the approach of choice.
It also tends to train the viewer to greatly 'diffuse' the intent of the tasker, and happily pick up every stray thought they might have, and any remote aspect that could be considered part of the target, rather than focusing on--and only validating--the official intent.
It tends to create viewers who are fragile flowers, dependent on a perfect process, and a zen-level tasker, because the slightest variance in process or tasker intent is sure to end up in their session. This is the polar opposite of what someone should want to train into a viewer -- a viewer should be as independent, strong-willed, focused on intent-only, focus-only, as humanly possible. Everything in a training process should be set up to facilitate that.
As a last note, the primary work in RV practice is the change of belief systems. The primary change comes from very specific, as immediate as possible, hard feedback, under double-blind conditions. This forces the psychology to deal with it. There are no 'outs'. There is no amount of subconscious subterfuge that will escape having beliefs modified by this repeated proof (the mind will TRY--it's up to the viewer not to let it).
The more you open up feedback (the viewer's future as concerns a session), the less you demand the mind to deal with quick specific feedback, and the less change in fundamental belief systems happens. Which is to say, the less actual value to the viewer's psychology of the RV practice process.
Q. What part of RV 'talent' do you think is psychology?
A. All of it.
-- Joe McMoneagle
A real interest in what effect the future has on remote viewing--both the development of viewers, and the results in a session--can lead to a lot of insight. I think FM is a very interesting topic.
PJ
