What does training do to your RV skills?

Hi all!

How has training changed your RV skills?

Does it increase signal or merely reduces the amount of mental noise?

I have a couple of alternatives in mind and would appreciate to hear everyone's view on this. feel free to express whatever effects training might have had for you.

For instance, does training improve your ability to produce or merely to decode ideograms? The former would refer to validity while the latter to reliability. Both might happen for any particular person but i could also imagine that some peeps just become more reliable, getting hits with their ideograms at an increasing rate (up to a point of course)

Similarly, in stage 2, does training facilitate your ability to generate sensory impressions or merely increases your sensitivity to subtle internal impressions that can be decoded in sensory terms?

I could imagine training could increase validity as it might open up new channels of information as you are probing them with training.

For instance, i could imagine that you could begin to perceive more visual data as you train.

alternatively, it could just be a matter of developing a better mental filter - that is, becoming more skilled in differentiating between different impressions and reliably decoding data that is available on paper.

Thank you
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
Training or practice in any skill will over time improve your ability with this skill - be it remote viewing or anything else in life.
when it domes down to it 90% of the learning within remoet viewing is actually learning about yourself, learning how to pick-up and interpret very, very subtle impressions that manifest within you, its also a lesson in trust, it takes a long time and lots of practice and experience to give yourself over and to totally trust all these subtle feelings enough to write every single one down and confidently believe that its correct.

In regards to training and a method - all the training does is the above and trains you to become one with the method of choice so that the method process become instinct and is done without bias and without thinking, it becomes a part of you.

Now, Any method may work just as well, for me its CRV - why? because I have documents form SRI that show that under scientific protocols it dramatically improved psi performance, and two form experience I know it worked for me.

Improvement will always be down to a mix of:
natural ability
practice
dedication

you have to work at it - im currently at a level now whereby I am hardly ever off target - but its taken sixteen years to get this far and like everyone I still have a ways to go. that's sixteen years of practice almost every week, of reading, thinking about RV, dialoging, and eating, breathing, thinking about Rv every single day.
 
Thanks Daz!

Ok, sounds like apart from automating the protocol, training has increased your reliability. That might mean that... training --> stronger connection to the signal line or alternatively, training --> make fewer mistakes in decoding impressions. sounds like you are supporting the latter idea.

That still does not sound like training has opened up new channels of info.... is that correct? I am wondering whether you can e.g. start getting more visuals over time.

What about error detection? McMoneagle said he edits his transcripts. have you become better over time at editing out environmental overlay and associations triggered by an impression? it does suresound like that might have happened with you.
 
katzenhai2 said:
With more experience in my RV training visuals that I got in the beginning faded away more and more.
Woudl that be with CRV style training? On Facebook, you can see that some people's visuals get better over time. perhaps it goes both ways? that is training with CRV can perhaps reduce visuals due to emphasis on other sensories while HRVG type training might enhance visuals.
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
All I can offer you is that studies done by SRI from Hal and ingo consistently showed an increase in viewer accuracy from CRV training with was significantly better than accuracy increases form just practice. Is it solely CRV or the practice parts that help make a better viewer - i would say its both elements working together added to with an open mind, meditation and years of hard work.
 

Don

New Member
My two cents worth:

I've been RVing since 1998. During the first two-three years, I was able to RV 2-4 times daily. The result was that, three years into my remote viewing experience, I had done a little over 2000 practice/training sessions. My practice rate slowed a bit after that, but after seven years of remote viewing, I had done around 5000 sessions. To-date, my best estimate is that I've done something like 8000 sessions. ( I still have 90% of them. I keep them in order to view the same targets again for comparisons between my former viewing and current viewing, for researching various questions that come up about RV, and "just because").

I have to agree with pretty much everything Daz said. A viewers' results seem to come from a mixture of natural talent, rate and intensity of practice, and dedication. The dedication part is the aspect many people don't think about. I found that, like out-of-body experience training, reading, thinking, writing, and talking about RV had a big impact. Saturating the mind with the subject seems to help a lot.

Like Daz, I've reached a point where I'm hardly ever completely off-target (and that's even with taking extended lay-offs from RV in recent years - a few days or weeks of practice and I'm back to performing fairly reliably - but it takes several months of daily practice to get back to "peak performance"). For me, what varies is (1) the amount of correct versus incorrect data, (2) the total amount of information I'm able to perceive regarding the target, and (3) the amount of conceptual and complex, abstract data I'm able to retrieve. The more I've been practicing recently, the higher the level of data I'm able to retrieve.

I've noticed that frequency of practice/training has an effect on my ability to consciously direct my attention around and within the target environment. The more "in practice" I am, the better I can direct and control my point of view. When I'm not rusty, I'm better able to direct myself to look down upon the target from a given height or to go inside a structure, for example. I'm also better able to give myself in-session directives about abstract and conceptual issues regarding the target such as seeking information of the targets' history, meaning, purpose, etc.

Regarding the ability to get visual data, I think that may be a personal issue. It seems that some people are just naturally more visual than others. However, I've had some experiences that makes me tend to believe that focusing on visual imagination improves the amount and quality of visual RV data. In other words, taking up visually-focused hobbies like painting, photography, drawing, etc., might have a positive impact on this.

By the way, I practice primarily ERV, with a few elements of CRV-style RV thrown in now and then. Like Joe M., I edit my RV transcripts as I go. What this really means is that, instead of writing "AOL" or "EOL"when the conscious mind or emotions intrude, for example, I simply refrain from putting it on paper. However, I would not recommend that a beginner do this, as I think writing "AOL" on paper helps the beginning RVer learn to be aware of and recognize it when this happens.

Well, that's my two cents. Hope it helps. Don
 

Don

New Member
RVTrainee01,

Insert Quote

Wow, Don, that is some excellent answer! Thoughtful points there.
Thanks. I remember what it was like when I started RVing. I had so many questions and it was so hard to find the answers back then.

I think the best advice anyone can give to someone who is new to RV is this: (1) Find a methodology you like and are comfortable with (whether it is CRV or some derivative thereof; ERV; a meditative, altered-state method; or your own self-developed method, etc.; (2) Set up a targeting system so that you are always working under double blind conditions - or use the TKR Dojo here, which does that; and (3) practice, practice, practice - then practice some more. It seems that a consistent practice schedule is needed to really improve, like with anything. Personally, I'd shoot for a minimum of 4-6 sessions per week. I don't know how long you've been RVing but that would be my suggestions to any relative beginner.

Differences in the way you perceive data will happen naturally over time. For me, the differences were more noticeable depending on how often I was remote viewing more than how long I'd been remote viewing. It is still that way for me. A really good description of the changes in a viewer's operating level is given in Joe McMoneagle's book "Remote Viewing Secrets", where he compares it to the various colored belts a student achieves in martial arts.

Many RV teachers say not to trust visuals (claiming they are usually AOLS) and even Joe says that perceptions don't really come in visual form. This is hard for a beginner to understand (and hard for an experienced viewer to explain), especially when you see some of the photo-like sketches that Joe does. Perceptions DO come in visual form but it's not like seeing a clear, static image.

For me, it's more like the fleeting visual I get in my mind when I quickly think of a subject - like the phrase "red bike", for example. That phrase causes something like a memory to flash through my mind, without ever really visualizing the red bike as a whole. I "see" parts and fragments of the bike, probably not even enough to even put it all together as a bicycle. But the fragments come to mind with a sense of "bikeness", and THAT (the additional "sense" that comes with the flash of fragmented images) is what enables me to sketch that part of the target. As I said, this a very difficult thing to explain.

Whatever you do, don't get bogged down thinking that something is wrong just because you may not be getting visual data. Some people are just more visual than others and excellent sessions can be produced without even a single sketch in them. And, as I described above, the way your perceptions come in will change with practice anyway. Over time, with plenty of hard work, you will see your performance improve in many ways. I hope this helps (and I hope it makes some sense, lol). Good luck! Don.
 

mizrael

New Member
Hi 4 all and for newbies also like as I am also ;) I think i can ask a lot but better to get some links where can i learn step by step.So if somebody would copy paste to me here some stuff it is gonna be great :p
 

mizrael

New Member
mizrael said:
Hi 4 all and for newbies also like as I am also ;) I think i can ask a lot but better to get some links where can i learn step by step.So if somebody would copy paste to me here some stuff it is gonna be great :p
Start checking the site so i think i am gonna find useful things but also any beginner guide is welcome ;)
 

Don

New Member
Hi Mizrael, and welcome to TKR.

Start checking the site so i think i am gonna find useful things but also any beginner guide is welcome
I would suggest starting by clicking on the "Simple Session" link in the "Free RV How-to" box at the lower left of this screen. There, you will find a brief and effective explanation of how to perform a simple RV session. To really understand remote viewing, you will need to do a lot of reading. There is a lot of information about RV to explore. But you will learn the most by simply practicing RV. Good luck! Don.
 
Don and Daz,

I haven't read all the displacement related threads yet (Sorry if this is already there, but couldnt resist ;D), but Don's response makes me wonder whether practice is also connected to variance in your ability to hone in on the target, that is to attune your attention to the right target as compared to everything else that might attract your psychic attention. What i am wondering is whether lack of practice could be linked to scattered psychic attention (ADHD variant of psychic attention)

That could amount to tendencies for
a) displacement to the following target in a series (+1 in time when e.g., using a service such as TKR's RV database),
b) displacement to the control targets if using a set greater than 1 (i.e. to the "wrong" outcome in ARV), as well as
c) displacement to another type of target, such as newspaper story or an event related to your own life.

If so, i am wondering whether those types of meditation that help increase your ability to focus on a specific object might be helpful in building up not just your signal-to-noise ratio but also your ability to reduce the number of displacements.

Yes, i have exeprienced these types of displacements recently. ;)
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
I cant really answer too much on the subject of displacement as this generally happens more within ARV experiments and I dont get involved with these much.
I dont really encounter it within normal RV practices. Just remember that we all had weird and puzzling things happen when we first start out in RV, this all seems to iron-out and normalise over time with practice. Don't worry on it all for now - juts keep your head down and practice and it will all come good for you.
 

Don

New Member
If so, i am wondering whether those types of meditation that help increase your ability to focus on a specific object might be helpful in building up not just your signal-to-noise ratio but also your ability to reduce the number of displacements.
Probably so. But nothing will help as much as practice. I have to agree with Daz here. Lots of strange things happen when you first start RVing. Even years later, weird occurrences crop up every now and then (at least for me they do). But, with lots of practice, things sort of "line out" and you'll reach a kind of plateau where your RV performance is stabilized and you get about the same amount and type of information most of the time. This plateau may be the ulimate level of your natural talent or, with practice, you may find that is was only a temporary plateau.
 

satyanveshi

New Member
I find this question intersting: what does RV training (consistent, properly done) do to your skill?

For me it has done very little -- granted I've yet to train years and as consistently as many others. So it's no proof.

Interesting comment from Joe McMoneagle from his recent interview at the Path podcast series :

http://thepathseries.com/2015/09/ep-25-joseph-mcmoneagle/

According to Joe, RV training ONLY (afaiu) improves consistency, not accuracy. In statistical terms, you get an increase in session-to-session reliability (consistency), but not necessarily any improvemtn on validity (i.e. accuracy).

Of course, many do disagree with this, yet I find his argument interesting and wonder what it is based on.

What I find somewhat sad in the training of RV is that many people assume that the only thing that matters is hammering at it.

The best in memory olympics, in mathematics or in finely tuned motoric skills (say gymnastics) do NOT get best by just "hammering at it".

They have most of the following components in their training practise:

- reason WHY they are training (motivation from the past)
- reason WHAT FOR they are training (motivation / goal / direction in the future)
- Well planned, mixed and thorough training regimen
- Combined with nutrition and rest & recuperation plan
- intentional practise: mindful, present, focused and non-distracted
- Along with an external peer or master who can see / refer to things that one misses oneself
- Clear, accurate and INSTANT (not delayed) feedback
- Honest statistical tracking of results along with what works, how progress is going and where are we heading
- positive mindset and growth-mindset along with celebration of wins (i.e. reinforcement of success into the subconscious)
- Learning from others by observing them and talking to them
- Learning to trust oneself when things don't work - trust the process
- Taking also breaks
- Practising detachment (not clinging) to outcomes
- Visualization of results (success/goals, not RV targets per se) - or more apt verb would be whole-body-sense embodiment (as the original buddhist text about visualization recommends, it's been mistranslated to 'visualization')

Then the rest is 'clocking in the hours' or 'hammering at it'. But just hammering at it very very rarely produces outstanding results.

This is basic skill acquisition research 101 and applies to almost all studied fields so far, be that neurosurgery, 100m sprint or even meditation.

I would be extremely surprised if it didn't largely also apply to RV skill acquisition (of course along with innate 'talent' or predisposition).
 

tbone

Member
I heard a quote once from an old coach (Vince Lombardi maybe?) : "Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect".
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
satyanveshi said:
For me it has done very little -- granted I've yet to train years and as consistently as many others. So it's no proof.
Oh! This could get confusing fast with the verbage, once you put it like that.

That's using the word training in the sports discipline way. Usually in RV when people say 'training' they mean 'someone showing you how to use a method.' (I think that is better called coaching, just to be clearer.) Training as ongoing exercise (much like how someone would train every morning for a sport) that can go on years is another thing and kinda just becomes the "doing it." Well, hopefully with some planned focus of course...

> Interesting comment from Joe McMoneagle from his recent interview at the Path podcast series :
> http://thepathseries.com/2015/09/ep-25-joseph-mcmoneagle/
Thanks for that link.

> According to Joe, RV training ONLY (afaiu) improves consistency, not accuracy. In statistical terms, you get an increase in session-to-session reliability (consistency), but not necessarily any improvemtn on validity (i.e. accuracy).
> Of course, many do disagree with this, yet I find his argument interesting and wonder what it is based on.
Lab statistics/results. Most of JM's comments on things are less opinions than something trackable back to decades of lab numbers.

This is one of those things that can't be addressed well in a sound bite, and that we could take on different areas of for discussion, so no matter what he said about it, there is room for some controversy, but I suspect that's mostly because he wasn't narrating a whole book on the topic in the middle of the podcast/radio show.

Basically it's about something else that "underlies" RV as a practice, and I always feel like arguing against it when it comes up, but stats indicate -- and I am not from the lab so I'm paraphrasing and I'm sure you'll get a better version from a closer source -- that people just have a given, sort of innate "degree of ability" for target contact. And this is as confusing as hell but stats say it just doesn't really seem to change, or not enough to be significant.

You might say that you can increase your adaptive-skill but not your innate talent. But in RV the talent is 'target contact.'

So when you walk in, the data will evidence a certain degree of ability for target contact. And 10, 20, 40 years later, the data still evidences that certain degree of ability for target contact.

Now, all the skills "surrounding" that have likely improved radically. RV is psychology for the most part so over time that hammers out, and that is likely some part of why consistency evens out as well, and RV is conveyed via communication skills, and those certainly can be improved in several areas, and of course there is also just a 'process' -- including knowing when to shut up, or leave something alone, that people can get a better handle on.

As well as other experience -- such as recognizing when somehow there are two targets you're tasked on not one, or the feedback is not going to match your session even if your session is accurate to the task, or when the tasker has utterly failed to mentally create a date/time focus point, or the variety of protocol screwups that can happen, a viewer can learn to recognize all that. A viewer can get better at translating symbolic data and at recording data in its descriptive steps instead of labels and so on.

But all of these things are basically "around" the core of viewing which is "target contact." Without that we have nothing, and that is what drives whatever accurate data we get (without protocol problems, and aside from some statistical overlaps due to language and the repeating forms/dynamics of reality).

Mind you, this doesn't imply that there is no 'wavering or cycling' in accuracy between sessions or over time, but rather, that fundamental target contact as a whole, by individual, just doesn't seem to change significantly. I assume it's a given that "up close," obviously our individual work varies. Most of us are influenced by the "wow it varies" point but in the lab since they're keeping numbers for decades, they see the larger picture differently (most of us don't see that larger picture at all). Well and most of us do not have tons of officially documented viewing for 40+ years to base such things on, which JM does.

What I find somewhat sad in the training of RV is that many people assume that the only thing that matters is hammering at it.
The best in memory olympics, in mathematics or in finely tuned motoric skills (say gymnastics) do NOT get best by just "hammering at it".
Well there's at least two areas to address here and they are kind of different. In neither case do I think the hammering referred to is actually addressing what you suspect. Or it shouldn't be, anyway. It's not really about the process.

(Although there is that infamous "10,000 hours rule" I suppose...)

I find that the original concept of repetition in RV is often with the idea that one will learn to recognize whatever has come before. So for example if you get 'copper' as data in a session and it feels like-so, that next time you feel like-so you may recognize 'copper' and then we add together a gazillion of these experiences and assume that repetition helps you learn. Although there is a small amount of that, I find that most data is actually kind of unique, and when it is not, it's usually a sign that before long a ton of my internal experience is all going to change at once, as if the "inner language" just went into dialect or something. In other words, the idea that the inner world and its conveyance is consistent and we will learn it by memorizing it appears to be wildly wrong at least for me.

If anything, "NOVELTY" actually seems to play a big role in most my inner work and often is the catalyst for good results. (This is likely why people often do well just over the cusp of changing methods. From/to any method.) In this case, the one thing ongoing practice does is, in a perfect world, actually help entrain one to "allow novelty" -- a form of vulnerability and a form of letting go of part of the headgame of 'trying to control' it -- the control used in the 'collection' part of RV is like walking a border... hold on only loosely.

When the repetition does work it's usually more 'in general' for me such as with ideograms, where you can learn to recognize a truckload of different ideograms, but often they're novel even when you're recognizing them, it's just that you know the shape and the feel of different parts from experience. I do find that ideograms and visuals for sketch (as a stupidly simple example, trees) seem to do better as "repetitive things learned" than the free-response of most data otherwise.

In past interviews and clips of talks, McMoneagle has commented more than once about psychology's role in viewing, and basically has said or implied that the constant 'hammering' is greatly about the psychology, getting and keeping it open. In other words he wasn't necessarily saying that doing a session made you better at doing sessions, or not directly anyway, but that doing a session made and kept you comfortable with opening up and allowing yourself to do sessions, if that makes sense. I hope I haven't misunderstood this, but it's what I got out of it, I don't speak for him or read his mind but I've been following his stuff for a lot of years.

My point being that there is one huge and fundamental difference between RV and every other skill in the world: the other skills are not combating our psychology which profoundly resists anything that messes with our perception of the nature of time, the nature of space, the nature of reality, the nature of our own identity, and more. We have 1001 doors attempting to slam closed in us all the time for psychological self-protection related to viewing. This acts out in many ways (including the weirdness daz and Don mentioned). And in cognitive dissonance galore. As a result, the biggest obstacle in viewing isn't the process but the allowing. That is usually what constant practice or 'hammering' is hammering ON -- not the sports skill but the psychology.

They have most of the following components in their training practise:
- reason WHY they are training (motivation from the past)
- reason WHAT FOR they are training (motivation / goal / direction in the future)
- Well planned, mixed and thorough training regimen
- Combined with nutrition and rest & recuperation plan
- intentional practise: mindful, present, focused and non-distracted
- Along with an external peer or master who can see / refer to things that one misses oneself
- Clear, accurate and INSTANT (not delayed) feedback
- Honest statistical tracking of results along with what works, how progress is going and where are we heading
- positive mindset and growth-mindset along with celebration of wins (i.e. reinforcement of success into the subconscious)
- Learning from others by observing them and talking to them
- Learning to trust oneself when things don't work - trust the process
- Taking also breaks
- Practising detachment (not clinging) to outcomes
- Visualization of results (success/goals, not RV targets per se) - or more apt verb would be whole-body-sense embodiment (as the original buddhist text about visualization recommends, it's been mistranslated to 'visualization')
Sounds good, you've outlined an entire lifestyle of focus there.

Also note that instant feedback in cognitive science is truly instant. In many areas of endeavor such as say, sprinting or baseball, one gets fairly instant feedback from the bat on the ball or the foot on the ground. Viewing alas is never going to have feedback anywhere near as instant as is generally considered most relevant for learning-theory. Best case it's probably a few thousand percent later.

Swann gave it a genuine try to arrange this but due to lack of tech at the time ended up with informed monitor viewing, which improved one area and destroyed another. We do have the tech to make this possible now but I don't think it's worth the focus to do it that way anymore. I really used to, a lot, I've just changed my mind I guess. I'm sure some others would disagree.

I think, now, that proper target selection for what the viewer is doing, along with BRIEF sessions, is the more important part. It is really a big deal that targets one is using for self-training in early days have a very clear singular focus, and that if you get a given data point or impression, you have a very good chance of knowing its accuracy and 'which' part of the target it came from when you get feedback. And that your session be brief enough that your data is limited and you can clearly 'revivify' the memory of its coming through when you get feedback, and one should basically walk through the memory of the session, the data and how it felt coming through, and the feedback together. (It goes without saying that the viewer should absolutely be double- or solo- blind during this particular work since we are trying to establish their ability to make and allow target contact, so all forms of pollution or influence even by % are best avoided.) Also to brevity, that one ideally has time to do another IF the initial one is utterly off target. And because again to psychology, spending eons on something makes one far more frustrated in process when it's less easy and far more attached to end-result outcome for obvious reasons.

I'll have to listen to the podcast later, time to go to work, thanks again for the link!

PJ
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
I actually didn't realize this was in the CRV section. Hi daz, hope you don't mind me joining the talk.
 
Top