To clarify, or later I will end up regretting the words I used for that:PJ said:I will say that with experience, being "off-target" becomes more rare for sure, and the chronic process errors gradually reduce (one hopes), so on the whole one's work feels a lot more reliable than when they began.
Evaluation of 'on-target' without carefully selected targets and a judge -- meaning self-evaluation mostly -- is a pretty 'soft' measure to say the least. Probably, our evaluations in the early days vary wildly in both directions.
Until a viewer develops a certain level of skill where in a hard protocol the data is pretty specific (and this includes not having 15 pages of 'other' data as well of course), the sort of session whether it's going to be "obvious" whether the viewer is on vs. off-target, evaluating this is just casual. But at that point, it can be taken more seriously and since usually most of the more egregious 'process errors' are also more rare then, the overall result is much better.
I don't know that the underlying target-contact-ability improves. The science lab implies -- remember their measuring means differ, and are consistent, and have measured a few viewers over decades -- that target contact operates rather like talent would, in music or sports. You have what you have. There might be a genetic component. Of course, practice and coaching and many other things can eventually change your experience of that talent and your performance with it a lot. But it doesn't necessarily make you more talented; just more skilled.
This is a point of debate in the larger field so I should be clearer, is all. Target contact is one thing (psi talent, I'll call it). Viewing skill is another. You can train skill, but you can't bestow talent.
Though since as some like McMoneagle say, the amount of viewing dependent on psychology is "all of it," it's possible that talent and skill are both lovely things but that the crux of the matter lies with psyche adaptation more than anything.