The key principle of improving


New Member
In an interview [1], Joe McMoneagle said this:

I think a lot of people think that there’s some kind of magic that occurs. There’s some form of magic or you study the right thing and something goes click in the back of your head and then you can do it. It’s not that at all. You have to hammer on it over and over and over, day in and day out until you get it. It’s extremely difficult to do that.
When you’re looking for the smallest nuance on let’s say, a mental trigger in the back of your mind and you don’t know what that mental trigger looks like, you have to start pulling every trigger you have until you find it. And then once you find it you have to find out how to replicate that pulling of the trigger. So just getting there is extremely difficult. It takes months and months of effort.
In my case, particularly with the remote viewing, I was basically paid to do that. I spent 12-hour days for years and years just learning and perfecting what I do. So I have a benefit that many people don’t have who have regular jobs, who have regular responsibilities that are somewhat different than that.
In other talks [2], Joe has suggested that people's ability effectively amounts to what they start out with and that it cannot be improved.

Whether or not you can improve being psychic becomes argumentative, when you start talking to people who say, "I can train you to be a better psychic". I will tell you the scientific answer to that is, "No you can't". You're stuck basically with the talent you walk in the door with. You may be able to improve consistency. You may be able to improve reliability. You may be able to improve a whole lot of things about being psychic. But you're not going to improve normal, natural talent. It's like playing baseball, or playing golf, or tennis. Everybody can play baseball, there's no doubt about it, anybody can pick up a glove, a baseball, and a bat, but not everybody can play National League Baseball. Not everybody can play little league baseball. It's just simply the truth of it. You can practice until you're blue in the face, and that's just a fact.
On one hand, he is saying in no uncertain terms that psychic ability cannot be improved. On the other hand, he seems to be saying that he improved greatly as a result of thousands of hours of practice. Are these ideas contradictory, or is he talking about different things?

Aside from what Joe is saying, what is your own take on this based on your experience?

My best guess is the key principle of improving at remote viewing is learning to detect and decode the subtle signal within. This happens in two parts: 1. Learning to quiet the mind and remove the noise so you can detect the subtle signal within, and 2. Learning over time, probably by trial and error, to decode the subtle signal and correlate it with some meaning. In other words, you should be able to improve, but it will means you spend months busting your butt, and then finally you have a breakthrough: You learn how your subconscious communicates "red". Then you spend 10 years learning to translate enough of the subconscious vocabulary to produce actionable results. That's my best guess so far. What do you think?



Active Member
Just my take. I don't want to second guess or detract from what Joe says. I heard statements like that before from various people.

I look at it more as potentials, and this is purely my opinion. Within a certain range of ability I think we are slotted. The practice and growth process comes into play when we are attempting to live up to our abilities.

So lets say normal genetics, normal aptitude, normal upbringing, ha I got to stop there you'd probably suck as Remote Viewer. OK, it takes a lot more than normal across the board to become a great Remote Viewer. That is the kicker, Joe states that a person has to have endured a certain amount of abuse to really have the knack for switching in and out of our common base reality.

But everyone comes to the table with potential. It is living up to that potential that makes you better and better. Normally a person cannot exceed that potential. I have my personal opinions about altering that potential involving past lives and life contracts, from the Shamanic point of view that might slant things a little.

With practice and lifestyle management you will become a better viewer, with more consistency etc, but probably never reach your true potential, because I feel that most people's potential is so high that even if they knew what they could do self doubts would keep them from achieving it.

A couple of things, give yourself permission to do the impossible, should you fail, you were trying to do the impossible anyways right? If you believe yourself to be just a highly evolved biological entity you've created your toughest barrier. If you believe yourself to be a spiritual being having a physical experience, you've eliminated most of the self limiting barriers right there.

I and others, I'm sure, could go on for hours. Just practice, just do.

Hi Snorble,

I hadn't seen Joe's first quote before and I think it is one of the most suggestive of his I've read or heard. He does try to convey what these mental processes are at the APP Conferences, which is the only place I've heard him in person, but it's hard to get a handle on them, get a sense of what specifically he is doing.

Once he did mention an image that was symbolic (e.g. slippers but they mean something else- that's not the example he used) and he had to interpret it (if I recall correctly), so apparently those are some of his "triggers".

The phrase "mental trigger in the back of your mind is very suggestive" - to me anyway. And the fact he says it takes months of effort is actually encouraging - to me anyway.

Not only that, at other times Joe has said that these "mental triggers" may vary over time. So you may have to...recalibrate (I really don't want to say, 'find another mental gun') from time to time. It isn't a fixed symbolic (or literal) system, is what I gather from what he says. (Perhaps it is more stable for some viewers than others?)

The second quote addresses something very contentious, of course. Seems to me if you admit that training can "improve consistency" and "improve reliability", and "improve a whole lot of things about being psychic", you are admitting that training can make you a "better psychic". But Joe wants to limit the phrase "being a better psychic" to natural talent, which he says is fixed and limits what field you can play on: major league, Little League and by implication the "psychic field".

The other side of the issue is that trainers of CRV and offshoots claim that one can indeed become a better...remote viewer with training; produce better results. From what I've seen, I concur. But how many people can become very good remote viewers and contribute meaningful results? That is an implication of what Joe (and Ed) are driving at. And I gather they haven't seen enough evidence of it to convince them that large numbers of CRVers or other "method viewers" can in fact perform at a high level.

I don't know what Joe would say, or has said, about his cohorts at Ft. Meade who used CRV - high natural talent which shone through the CRV, or ?

As Mycroft said, just my take on this, trying to understand what Joe has said. I would like to ask Joe about both topics, esp. the first, at APP 2016 in Las Vegas.



My own take is that you already have psychic ability and Joe is saying that it won't improve with practice. He practiced a lot, and was in the company of other people who practiced a lot, for years, so he may be accurate, I don't know, but really to me it doesn't matter.
I think most people if not all have psychic ability, so the issue and challenge is tuning into it, that is where practice will pay off.
How many other things are going on inside you that will distract you from the "psychic information stream" if you focus on any of them? I read a book titled *The User Illusion which I highly recommend, where the author imo demonstrates that a very small percentage of what is going on inside us can be fit into the conscious awareness at any given time. All of that other stuff is potentially very distracting.
Ultimately I believe that if you practice enough you will resolve the two issues Joe commented on for yourself.

Joe's comments about the potential cap on RVing skill are not based on any published or even peer reviewed research. as such, until the research based on those claims is published and we get to evaluate its limits, the jury will be out and should remain out. no single study, researcher, or lab has authority over truth. claims such as those about potential boundaries of RV skill should be expected to be evaluated, studied, and corroborated by multiple sources.

if anything, SRI reports, hal puthoff's recent interview, and anecdotal evidence across trainers suggest the opposite namely that RVing capability does increase with practice. and why the heck wouldn't' it? we are not talking about a physical skill like singing that has some physical limits. i dont think making comparisons to exercise is appropriate either except perhaps purely for the purposes of argument. consciousness is certainly more flexible than the body. just my 2cents.


Staff member
I guess I don't see why any of it seems complicated. It seems like there is this really "over-literal" interpretation of things that is just not appropriate when applied to this. There are different elements in every skillset.

I think about it like sports. Basketball because that is so visually and intuitively obvious. Can someone improve their basketball playing? Sure. Heck even just lifting a weight up and down will better train your neuronal pathways and see improvement even in how you shoot through no training except doing it. Can you give them a coach or trainer or choose-a-word-here and have that person with experience help them with advice? Yes. Can you get them to practice, A LOT, and see a great deal of improvement in many areas from that? Yes.

Can you train someone to be good enough for the NBA? No. Height aside this is going to be genetically built in and I don't care how much your dad spends on basketball camp, you are never-but-never going to the NBA if you aren't biologically hardwired for it, and anybody trying to sell you basketball weekends implying that all it takes is their seminar and a bunch of hard work and you'll be world class -- that would just be inappropriate. Mostly, I think it's slightly more rare this is done in today's world. In public history it was more common and I suspect some people are still a bit knee-jerk in reaction to that.

Now, if you WERE hardwired for it, are the chances of your getting there much better if you practice a lot and get advice from experience and so on? Sure. Will it keep you out, not getting that? Depends. Just 'doing it' will naturally bring a lot of that as a side effect of the process and interaction. Probably the guy doing it all the time under the hardest conditions is going to be one of the best players, regardless of whether those conditions are on a college court or a Navy court or a tough New York neighborhood.

I happen to agree that a lack of published and even replicative studies makes any comment about anything controversial. However there are some things that came around not as a result of an official study but merely as a result of 'doing it' for decades. We cannot simply walk into a lab today and replicate the decades of viewers' experience to see how some baseline changes or doesn't for them. And refusing to at least consider the experience of some of the MOST experienced people in the field, solely because certain experience points were not formal studies etc., would be silly as well.

I think the underlying problem here is a lot of defensiveness, even panic, about this need to believe that people can buy their way, or at least practice their way, into near-omniscience, into a depth "context" talent. I don't think there is any way to know that this is true or false because the few people who DO demonstrate this, may simply have been the ones most innately talented to begin with; maybe that is why they were so driven, maybe that is why they stuck with it when so few did, maybe that is why they learned more, from less, than others.

Did viewer X get that skill from practice? Some of it, sure. Did they get it because they used method Y? Maybe. But there is no way to prove a negative. We don't know that if we went back in time and gave that viewer a different method, and a little less practice, maybe they would still be a hella good viewer right now.

You see this in music, you see it in art, you see it in sports -- some people can barely practice and get better anyway, as if their brain is working on it in the background, and some people can practice industriously every single day without fail and just not improve anywhere near as much. Our culture allots this to "innate talent." We don't know what else to call it.

That seems to be what the guys from the lab consider it. You can improve 101 things that impact viewing but "innate talent" is probably both a) genetic and b) hugely if not entirely driven by psychology and what it allows.

As for anectdotal evidence, anything coming from people whose entire lifestyle and income is based on convincing others that their sales/training makes people omniscient, should probably be taken with AT LEAST as much "grain of salt" as someone who has been working in the lab for 30-40 years but has an experience set that wasn't an official research study in some cases. I am not dissing the experience of training so much as pointing out that this situation is hardly 'objective' and certainly not moreso than the alternative that is getting some heat here.

we are not talking about a physical skill like singing that has some physical limits.
I don't know about that. Both Ingo and Joe in their writings suggest otherwise and anybody doing RV has got to know how it comes through the nervous system, it's obvious by abreactions, the effects of dehydration, preceding exercise, and more.

I dont think making comparisons to exercise is appropriate either except perhaps purely for the purposes of argument. consciousness is certainly more flexible than the body. just my 2cents.
Consciousness (a very fuzzy word) may be infinite, but if it's going to end up written down on a piece of paper or dictated to a tape recorder, it's going to have to filter down through the bottleneck of a human body. Where psychology, the nervous system -- both of which may be inherently part of what we call "innate talent" for lack of a better term -- may apply.

These are only thoughts. Nobody knows these answers yet, it's just discussion.

It would be interested to talk to some people who have extensive experience in teaching clairvoyance. people who have mentored students over many years. I bet some of them might have very interesting insights about what makes some people more "trainable" than others. People like the late Bevy jaegars comes to mind as a person who might have a lot to say about it (one would hope). Also people with more esoteric background might offer some valuable point of view. i recall a hypnotherapist in this forum claiming past life regression type work could remove some psychological blocks that limit viewing.

Personally, i think the question is not whether training works or not but rather what kind of training is needed for which person .... and what are the types of issues that need to be attended to create improvements in viewing. Whether it might be focus, doubt, a variety of bad mental habits etc. time frames are also likely to be different as some people are fast learners and others slow ones.


Staff member
Yeah -- excellent points, all.

Since a great deal of this relates to the allowing and believing and psychological integration (all the more obviously-direct skills, like communication for example, are kind of built-in to the practice/experience) one would think that anything which really helped an individual with the psyche part of it would be useful -- even if, like you said, it came from other fields of similar study.



New Member
"What part of RV is psychological?"

"All of it." - Joe McMoneagle - when asked.

The hardest part I have found is not learning new skills. That comes natural to me and I enjoy it.
The hardest part is UNlearning old habits and UNlearning limitations I have put upon myself by reading other people's experiences or assumptions I have made.

UNlearning is much more difficult then learning.

I have found that my own experiences are unique and I would rather keep an open mind about what a thing is rather than have somebody else's experience taint me and give me things to unlearn.

This goes further than RV and into personal experience psychology.

Keep a beginner's mind.

“In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's mind there are few. ”
― Shunryu Suzuki