Giving feedback in 'real'/operational RV tasks where answer is not known


New Member
let's say I task myself or another person to use RV to solve a problem such as a business decision, find me an optimal school (like in this thread ), best time to make an investment, etc.

after a session the tasker could tell the RVer the question (.e.g "Optimal School for xyz person"), but the tasker himself doesn't know the right answer to tell the viewer. The RVer may not get feedback for years. In the case of choosing an optimal school you might never know if you made the best choice.

Is it bad for the viewer to work without feedback? or it's ok as long as the RVer does regular practice with verifiable targets?


Staff member

I always have to decide whether to give a simple answer or whether to go into more detail that ends up kind of rewriting the question from a larger context.

I don't want to bore you or make simple things hard, they don't need to be. :)

But pondering stuff in more detail is so seldom done for serious viewers to think about or talk about, it's nice to have some now and then...

jack123 said:
let's say I task myself or another person to use RV to solve a problem such as a business decision, find me an optimal school (like in this thread ), best time to make an investment, etc.
I'll address the practical realities (e.g. "answer the question") in a bit. But first, from a higher level it helps to have a clear concept of the use of psi for what you want to do. Your approach might affect your psi avenue (e.g. dowsing vs. viewing), your format (e.g. your methodology), and your protocol (including how you handle task provision and viewer feedback).

So: you are asking a question that
a/ has no singular answer, or
b/ if it does, you could never possibly know every factor that went into the defining of the filter that resulted in whatever was the singular answer.

In other words "best" according to what? Generally that word, left to the wisdom of the subconscious, is going to implicitly include a lot of stuff you'll probably never know about, from how your psyche knows it will react to certain things (it may wish to avoid some), to other unknown factors (real or imagined, present or future) that may affect outcome.

So you are looking to create a psychic algebra equation, "solve for X," like:
SituationQ * BasedOnFactorsY = X
where: X is "best"

but either X doesn't really exist;
or X is arbitrarily defined (could be 47 different options all equally good but in different ways);
or X can only be defined by divine means... (trust your subconscious/fate/divine will to work it out);

or you can't fully solve that equation at all, because you may have "SituationQ" but you're missing "BasedOnFactorsY" value, because you don't know what is best and you may not even know what you don't know about what factors are part of 'best.'

That's just semantics, but if you're going to task, it's important to take seriously what you're doing and understand some of the implications. So so now we have something we might think about slightly differently when we break it out:

1. Either I have a specific list of specific things which are part of the tasking and which will define my filter for "Best;" in which case, define them *for yourself* because it's your intent that is driving this task, so the purpose of our going through this is to help you pay attention to that and work out what those may be.
2. You think, I'm never gonna know #1, so I'm trusting that me and the viewer's subconscious will work out something assumedly "very good," and if there's more than one thing in the same range of "good"-ness, just choose one.

Either of these approaches are fine. It's just important to consider, as tasker, which one you are actually taking. Since if it's the first one, you will want to define a lot more in your own mind up front.


"Optimum trajectory" taskings, by definition, may utilize psi but are not technically remote viewing (which is a protocol combining psi and certain process elements/rules). Reason: the tasking definition precludes feedback, because one cannot provide feedback for 'optimum' compared to the infinite realities which did not occur. Optimum is a "comparative" term. You can't compare it to every other outcome to decide it's best if there were no other outcomes manifest (since the future only has ONE outcome that we consciously experience).

So, OT tasks cannot objectively have session data validated as 'correct' -- meaning "optimum/best was X, and data is X, and therefore data is accurate, and therefore we assume it is sourced from psi." The criteria for definition of viewing, is that you have to be able to know it's viewing compared to some form of outcome/target comparison.

It may of course be based on psychic functioning still -- many things are, not just remote viewing. Psi in my view is woven through everything -- reality and us both -- it's not fully separable from anything, and there's lots of ways to apply it that aren't "officially" RV.

Some "outcome" tasks DO have singular-results or feedback clear enough to qualify under the RV label. For example, event Z will happen WHEN. That's going to have a measurable result that can be compared to data. Or, event Z will have Jane some money, or object Z if we find it or if we buy it will turn out to be worth some money with this vendor or that market by a certain date. All those things are outcome-specific, and so although some forms of tasking could find a way to make them 'trajectory' type taskings (as opposed to merely dowsing or timeline taskings), they can still fall under viewing as long as it's free-response data without over-pollution of protocol (e.g. messing up blinding in a viewing situation).

OK so now we're getting to the question finally:

after a session the tasker could tell the RVer the question (.e.g "Optimal School for xyz person"), but the tasker himself doesn't know the right answer to tell the viewer. The RVer may not get feedback for years. In the case of choosing an optimal school you might never know if you made the best choice.
Exactly. So consider all the above armchair discussion for onlookers because you clearly 'get it' already. :)

Is it bad for the viewer to work without feedback?
Best Practice(tm), for learning theory and some degree of motivation, will give viewers what feedback you can. Also, too little feedback can serve an extinction paradigm for any skill (even non-psi stuff) so we avoid that for sure.

Best Practice(tm) for viewing development, a/ once they are fairly comfortable with the process, and b/ assuming they are regularly getting feedback on other {specific-task/specific-feedback/double-or-solo-blind} work, would have some tasks that do NOT have feedback for reasons like:
a/ reduce viewer dependency on the experience (emotional, or within-10-minutes) and data (e.g. visual) of FB
b/ reduce the inevitable at-least-mild distortion much feedback provides*
c/ sometimes you might want follow-up sessions and don't want to reveal task yet
d/ to help encourage the viewer to "let go" of the "lust for result" and focus on "the process in the moment" -- to be less "attached" to outcome -- as this not only improves the process, but the result, and the psychology, so it's a win all around.

* by this I mean all FB is limited. Give someone visual FB constantly and they may skew to that kind of data and less conceptual or audio for example. Give them in-person personal-experience tasks/FB constantly (which is the best kind by far for learning due to the max-bandwidth of feedback), that's awesome, but not if it means they can't view something where the FB is only a photo, etc. That's a bigger topic. But the overall gist of it is simply that the more "variety" in form and process and experience you can provide the viewer, probably the better.

or it's ok as long as the RVer does regular practice with verifiable targets?
Your development (or your viewer's if you're working with someone) is yours to design. There isn't any "not ok" thing except by the criteria you define. It's wise to choose criteria, to begin, that will not do damage to viewer development, data integrity, process integrity, etc. -- so get basic protocol as good as you can. In many cases there is no "absolutism" in protocol -- it's not always simply "right" vs "wrong" or "good" vs "bad" as there's a lot of different reasons for viewing, and a lot of situational elements that are going to change the options, or the priorities, etc.

Protocol is what you might call "a concept recipe" in cooking where there are some basics, and there are some factors that are critical, if not on their own at least in relationship or scale to something else, but the details and degrees are up to what you want to do with it.

See RV PROTOCOL for a rundown of the basic requirements and a little bit of breakout for the 'degrees and details' of some of the more complexly-variable areas like blinding.

It will not hurt your viewer if they don't get feedback sometimes, and as noted above, there are various reasons for making it so, now and then.

I would say that when it comes to viewer psychology it is probably more important that the viewer not develop a paradigm that it is ever possible to truly know an "optimum" outcome, so it might be good to create a less impossibly-specific definition for your labeling/tasking of these things. It could be whatever you like that gets the point through without implying there is only one possible answer. "Wonderful" or "close as possible to ideal" or "very good" outcome, whatever.

The reason is mostly that viewing as an experience gradually tends to mess with our conception of "what we think we know" already. It is difficult to separate a viewer who had any kind of visceral session (which tend to be increased by working physically with people during session, most especially with protocol violations for blinding) from attachment to their data being correct even when there is feedback to show them it is factually incorrect. Even if they intellectually accept it, often their mind will go into a whole fractal exploration of the possibilities why they are actually correct in SOME reality or for SOME reason or by SOME definition even though they are provably, totally wrong about a certain thing based on feedback.

This is reasonable because any experience you have, that you live, is 'real' by our mind's definition, so if you experience something it then seems "inevitable." It might be the future but for the viewer, in a way, it already happened. What we intellectually can handle is not the same as what our subconscious may believe.

This may seem harmless, but it only takes a couple of looks at a future with uncomfortable data to realize the psychological impacts it can have on a viewer if they are convinced they "must" be right, or that there is "one" outcome in any situation. Or, a paradigm that builds-in a certain expection type may, when it turns out to be wrong data, cause them to invalidate their own ability to be right about other things.

For reduction of the (inevitable, but able to be minimized with effort) destabilization effects, design your viewer psychology intentionally and carefully, and in this case it may be good to believe you can absolutely find a fabulously-good-answer ... without necessarily believing that there is ONE answer, about such subjective, possibly arbitrary (or at least infinitely complex) things.

Viewing development is greatly driven by internal validation, so it's important to only validate what is reasonably estimated to be accurate. If we allow ourselves to use a "very good" concept instead of "optimum" (which is both singular and unprovable), then we CAN get feedback on that. We can certainly measure whether an outcome or experience, even subjectively, was good. And it creates a bit of an opening for the future itself to help define what is so good about that outcome or why.

Alright I'm tired of typing now. I hope that helped in some way other than putting you to sleep. ;-)



New Member
Thanks for the thoughtful reply

Hmm where did I get this idea about "optimal"targets. Years ago I read on a different forum, folks were tasking themselves with "optimum trajectory," 'tell me the best life path' type targets. I'm not aware they ever did that kind of tasking in the SRI/military programs.

as for a paradigm where there is only one right answer. in classical RV certainly there is only one set of data that is 'accurate'. when asking for advice/optimal paths, one would hope the unconscious/whatever would be able to provide at least one best-case solution if multiple equally-good solutions were available.

I suppose the feedback would be in presenting it to the tasker/client who would then investigate the data and see if it is plausibly optimal, then take the suggested action and a year later tell the RVer how things worked out.

yes I can see how this isn't really classical RV, it's using RV methods and skills to solicit advice from psi/the Source/ the matrix/ the unconscious etc.