New Member
I was researching RV and found an interesting study. Essentially it says that the combined efforts of multiple viewers is no more effective than a single viewer. Also an ancillary observation was that the attitude (or PRO-attitude) of the viewer was important in 2 of 3 experiments. Text below:
Remote Viewing (RV) using a multiple-agent multiple-percipient design was attempted by a team of professional and amateur paranormal investigators. The study was divided into 2 stages. Each stage consisted of 2 parts: (a) a single-agent mode and (b) a multiple-agent mode. It was hypothesized that a committee of 3 agents would produce a stronger RV effect than a single agent. In both modes, a committee of 3 percipients was used. Stage I was run mainly to test the methodology, and for Stage 2 necessary changes were made to the percipients' visualization techniques. A total of 20 randomly selected sites were visited by the agent(s). and on each occasion, percipients privately recorded their mentations for each site, and the 3 mentation reports were then combined into a single report pertinent to each site (the mentations of individual percipients could not be identified in the combined report). Mentation reports were independently judged. In Stage 1, the directional hypothesis was not supported—the RV effect produced in the three-agent mode was not better than that produced in the single-agent mode. However, in Stage 2, the directional hypothesis was supported, although the performance of three agents was not significantly better than the single agent's performance. Evidence was found in two of three tests that a change in pro attitude may bring about a change in RV performance.

and info on pro-attitude:
Ethics, philosophy of action A term borrowed by Davidson from ethical theory for his causal theory of action. A pro-attitude is an agent 's mental attitude directed toward an action under a certain description. Such attitudes include wants, desires , urges, moral views, aesthetic principles, and economic prejudices. Such a set of mental attitudes, together with the agent's belief that acting in a certain way promotes what the agent wants or values , form the primary reason for an agent to act in that way. “Reference to other attitudes besides wanting, or thinking he ought, may help specify the agent's reasons, but it seems that some positive, or pro-attitude must be involved.” Davidson, Essays on Actions and Events.

Any thoughts?


Staff member
Thanks for sharing, that's interesting!

I'd heard this actually, the scientists and viewer McMoneagle were very clear about it as far back as 1997 at least, in public, not counting science papers prior to that.

I think in the layman's field it's the norm to assume that more than one viewer getting something the same on a target means it must be so. I know this is not accurate yet I still have a hard time keeping myself from 'assuming' that "consensus viewing" ('corroborative results between viewers') means something. It's like nearly everything else in this topic: It "can," and sometimes it "does," but it "never has to" and at least half the time or more, it doesn't.

There's a whole host of "psychology" labels/issues in viewing that suggest there might be many reasons for viewers getting data--only one of which is psi.

Viewers can have a lot of people get data A and one person get data B and it's as likely B is right as A. The "independent psychology" of the viewer is considered very important by all the scientists I know and given the viewers I know or suspect are truly good at it, I think this is a valid criteria.

Viewers can also get data that seems to mirror 'the data of the viewer they admire' -- even when it's totally wrong -- and even when they don't even know that viewer worked on it (or they don't until later), that is a bit brain bending, time/space not a big issue in RV obviously.

Viewers may get data more inclined to 'social validation or rapport' -- meaning something that matches what someone else has even if it's wrong, or what someone else (friends, other viewers, the tasker, the people one talks to about feedback, whatever) "believes," perhaps because there is a 'validation in feedback' psychologically from things like that.

This was stuff the scientists talked to me about way back in the 90s when I was trying to wring any bit of info about the topic at large out of anybody crazy enough to let me ask them questions. :D I think maybe most people are just not really interested in science, is probably the reality of it, but it's too bad because some very important stuff was learned over 20 years of funding and focus--not to mention the development of the RV protocol in general.

There are several other major 'categories of issues' that can overlap with this, things that appear to affect session data that are not psi, most being 'psychology' to one degree or another...

I sometimes think that shamanic-type trainings have a small advantage in that one's overall perspective and way of thinking about things is intentionally framed, and self-mastery is a fundamental, and I suspect that by nature, people serious about that study tend to be a little more independent and strong-willed than others (those who aren't usually get drawn into variations that are different arts, is what I've observed).

I appreciate enormously the efforts that brought psi out of the 'muck' of tradition, superstition, wishful thinking, fraud, cultism, commercialism, and all the other bogus stuff that tends to suffuse it and have throughout history. I absolutely love that RV is clean, based in science, a demonstrable, repeatable experimental protocol that really doesn't require any faith, it simply requires doing it until the hard feedback builds a belief system of its own inside you (or inside anyone well exposed to it). But I still think that there are a lot of 'traditional' practices, directly or indirectly related, that might actually have real value to a viewer. "How to think about it" in various ways, like the sorceror-shaman approaches, is just one of those things.



New Member
Goreh2000, thanks for posting that. Studies like that one, that go beyond the tired old "prooof in principle" research (research designed to demonstrate that PSI is real) are much-needed. I'd like to see a lot more research into the intracacies of PSI in general, and RV in particular.

Just one of the potential problems in PSI research that I've often thought about is the vast number of things that effect PSI performance that can't be very well controlled for. These include the items PJ mentioned plus many more. I first began thinking about this back when I was tracking my results vis-a-vis local sidereal time. I was also tracking moon phases, weather patterns, geomagnetic fields, solar storms, etc. At some point, I realized that part of what I was doing sort of assumed everything else that might impact PSI performance will remain consistent - or at least consistent enough for the impact of the variables I was tracking to show their importance, if they had any. The problem, of course, is that, since PSI is rooted in human psychology, it was probably wildly innaccurate for me to assume that all the other variables (the ones I was not tracking) would remain in anything like a consistent state. Everything from the sickness of a family member to an argument with a co-worker; from getting an hour less sleep than usual to having a slight case of heartburn; from hearing a depressing old song that reminds me of a former girlfriend to RVing at the end or the beginning of a busy day; from disagreeing with a politician on TV to a holdover effect of watching an extremely violent movie the night before; etc., etc. These are just a few I could think up off the top of my head.

My point is that, human psychology being as complex and convoluted as it is, with so many unrecognized things that impact us on a subconscious - not to even mention conscious - level, I soon realized that my own private little experiment was probably pointless. It would require scientists that really know what they are doing (and that's NOT me, lol) and/or large numbers of trials to approach anything that gives realistic, accurate results. But, without the government supporting PSI research, I don't know where the funding is going to come from.


do you ever dream you're someone else?
Yeah, I see what you mean. Of course, to me that kind of has two end-results in thinking about it.

The first is that the true crux -- or as Seth might have said, 'the point of power' -- is in the Self, not in anything else. I expect for viewers that's a good psychology to have anyway.

The second is that to me, it makes even more important that all the more obvious 'affective variables' which we can control, be controlled for (e.g. blinding).


New Member
The first is that the true crux -- or as Seth might have said, 'the point of power' -- is in the Self, not in anything else. I expect for viewers that's a good psychology to have anyway.

The second is that to me, it makes even more important that all the more obvious 'affective variables' which we can control, be controlled for (e.g. blinding).
Agreed. Especially important, I think, is the concept that the point of power is in the self. I think a strong ego is vital to being a competent remote viewer (and by "strong ego", I mean "a strong sense of self and self-determination" - not ego as in "an egocentric A-hole") . Maybe this is because RVing is essentially a lone endeavor; it's just you and your mind relating to, or interacting with, the target. There's no one in there helping us or holding our hand. Even the sessions in which we seem to meld with or melt into the target require us to maintain a strong enough sense of self to stay on-task, to be able to report back on our perceptions.

But I don't know how much a strong sense of self allows for control of the impact of subconscious (or even conscious) activity that might influence PSI performance. Day-to-day events (especially emotion-packed ones) seem to have an impact on all other human endeavors, especially mental ones, and especially those that require a firm yet subtle command of mental/neurological processes requiring a large degree of finesse - like RV does. Other comparable activities that immediately come to mind are archery and many other sports such as billiards, chess, etc. I'd guess that the impact varies from person to person and even from day to day in the same person. It likely involves a large degree of compartmentalization.


I think that to remote view, I have to let go of myself, I have an ego and that is tough, but I think it is important. It is going to another kind of awareness? Maybe not. I would love to see viewers on here just hit the targets and nail them! I would love to see people pick the Super Bowl winners, not for gambling, but because they can. It is like climbing a mountain. Just do it because you can.


New Member
Staff member
Fantastic thread, great question you pose.

goreh2000, could you tell me exactly where I could find the article you reference, please?

Our little RV group has been experimenting with this very thing. But to be clear, we are RVing as a group, not in a group. In other words, the viewer is the group, we are not a group of viewers. There is a big difference. Don made a good point, that you need a strong ego to improve on your RV. You need an ego so strong, it can be passive. It needs to be so capable and confident and trained that it can take a back seat and let the RV process work.

My experience had been that infrequent viewers, or newbies, or people eager to "get good at it" had a lot on the line for their ego-minds, so you tend to get from them (me included) lots of conscious mind noise, lots of AOLs, lots of "not writing it all down", lots of filtering. That's because its so important to the ego to be good at RVing, the ego-mind was getting in the way.

To solve that problem, we do not get RV data as individuals, but as part of the team. Not before, not during, not after the session are there individual people viewing. That way, each of the viewers is liberated of worrying if they are doing well, or right.

There is a lot more to it, of course, but I won't go into it unless you are interested. We use a small group of RVers and a small group of analysts, and have an unusual procedure to RV which adheres to our understanding of how RV works. We have been using the rank order analysis method of judging our success and its been impressive so far. But its a work in progress, it could be a fluke.

But as you can see, the thread topic is something important to me and I am glad to hear what yall have to say about it.