What does training do to your RV skills?

More than 40 years later, it is quite surprising that very little evidence has been brought forward on this issue. Ed May & Joe M have repeatedly hammered down the point that training does little but the details have been almost peculiarly absent.

I could find one document from the SRI files dealing with the kind of findings EM & JM speak of. and that document itself says: a) no consistent quantitative evidence in favor of training hypothesis except in one case, and b) qualitative evidence in favor of training hypothesis. then, there are obvious research design issues including study design and sample sizes. raises more questions than it really answers imho.

conceptually, scientific testing of skill/talent is going to be a nightmare. too many variables. too many caveats.

Yet at the same time i find it very difficult to believe that nothing happens at all after years of training. Like meditation or any other form of concentrated mental training, RVing is very likely to change how your entire brain functions and how you function as a human being. these may be both short-term as well as long-term that change functioning within a RV session. for instance, the effect of RVing can alter the emotional centers of the brain, increasing connectivity in visual region etc. effects can be numerous. even if we don't assume any kind of fundamental changes in target contact, the many changes in brain functioning are likely to translate into how well we do in a session in reporting and extracting information. just the ability to quiet your mind is a valuable outcome that is destined to increase sensitivity to the PSI signal.


Staff member
RVTrainee001 said:
Ed May & Joe M have repeatedly hammered down the point that training does little but the details have been almost peculiarly absent.

I could find one document from the SRI files dealing with the kind of findings EM & JM speak of. and that document itself says: a) no consistent quantitative evidence in favor of training hypothesis except in one case, and b) qualitative evidence in favor of training hypothesis. then, there are obvious research design issues including study design and sample sizes. raises more questions than it really answers imho.
Is the study for this in one of the books May recently published?? I'll have to ask him.

The summary of what a dozen different people have told me -- several of whom 'were there' when they did the big study (right after Puthoff left, so this was at SAIC not SRI) -- was that they did a trial for six months or so on a variety of different methodologies (including just relax-and-do-it), and the subjects practiced in that format daily. They measured the baseline and all the way through and the end result.

In the end the results don't even sound surprising to me: that some methods were better/worse for some types of data than others; that some methods were better/worse for some personalities than others; and that given the considerations of target type and personality type and working at it daily, in the end it pretty well balanced out with no one approach being significantly better than another. Honestly I have seen many methods for years now and if someone had asked me to 'wonder' about such a study I probably would have guessed it would turn out that way -- it doesn't seem unreasonable at all to me.

Remember it wasn't looking into whether a person could be psi and get accurate data using method X. Everyone is psi and most people can get accurate data using any method, with obvious variance. It drives me crazy when people say something like "CRV doesn't work" because immediately people aren't even talking about the same thing anymore. Work for what? It obviously works for data collection for some people since they're doing just fine with it. When May et al refer to it they are not talking about using CRV for RV -- Joe himself has actually credited Tom McNear more than once and he was using CRV after all.

When they talk about it, they are usually very specifically referring to the study of whether it makes people either
a) better viewers (than other method/practice approaches), or
b) better viewers (equal to other method/practice approaches) but "faster."
That was the study noted above, plus of course years of ongoing experience with this with viewers (and do recall RV was being done in the lab and around the world for a decade before Swann even began the first of his lowest stage training).

So "it doesn't work" in lab-speak means only, "If approached properly and with regular practice, that particular method does not evidence being significantly 'better' or 'faster' THAN several other methods, with caveats related to target type and viewer personality taken into consideration." Really does that hugely surprise anybody I wonder? It doesn't seem unreasonable to me at all.

I think it does CRV a disservice when people over-sell it, because then you get a whole field of people 'reacting' to the oversell (and reacting to the larger situation in the field related to commercial sales, revision of history, field control by US intell, exclusion of viewers who don't fit that party line, and so on). Maybe the method isn't for everyone, or maybe viewers want to tweak it to their preference, or use pieces of it (it's really 'a compilation of pieces of psi techniques that already existed' for the most part anyway), so what. I still think having information about the method available to people has value -- I recommend people study and try out everything they can -- and a lot of people who haven't a clue where to start use it for that, and then maybe later they realize it isn't for them, fine, but maybe it still got them to the door of allowing themselves to try psi in the first place because of its "logical structure" and history.

If we let it, damn near every conversation online will end up in arguments about CRV. Since as I explained people are not even talking about the same thing, it's just ridiculous and exasperating.

The only measure of what WORKS for VIEWING is proper protocol data and feedback. Everything else is armchair rhetoric.

Yet at the same time i find it very difficult to believe that nothing happens at all after years of training. {...} even if we don't assume any kind of fundamental changes in target contact, the many changes in brain functioning are likely to translate into how well we do in a session in reporting and extracting information.
I hope they do; it SEEMS they do, I mean from the perspective of viewers, me at least!. But maybe it DOES have positive effects and it just doesn't happen to be those.

Maybe for example it greatly increases our ability to make emotional rapport, mental rapport, experience greater degrees of immersion, experience more subtle datas and identities (metaphysical stuff) and things like that -- maybe it in fact does "expand our ability" in many ways, maybe it's just not expanding it in the particular way that we expect (like target contact accuracy % of basic data).

I mean, all decent viewers gradually expand the kind of data they're able to acquire, right. That is an improvement. Perhaps target contact is not changing but target depth and subtlety is.

Also, sometimes stats just can't see certain things. Let us say you start out viewing with minimal data, and you end up viewing with a great deal more data and more of it is highly specific and sensitive. Statistically those sessions could come out the same in terms of accuracy and hence assumed target contact. But you might have gotten more data. And/or you might have gotten significantly *better* data -- just because data is not wrong doesn't mean it's useful, let alone specific.

Quoting directly:

"Six training efforts were conducted during time period under consideration; three were qualitative and three were quantitative. There is no quantitative evidence that remote viewing can be taught to novice viewers. Of the qualitative efforts (...) All three showed some qualitative evidence, however, that training improves remote viewing skill. Quantitative experiments were conducted with 18 novice viewers in three separate experiments comprising 481 trials. (...) one demonstrated significant evidence for improvement."

Source: http://www.irva.org/library/pdfs/may1989review.pdf

1. evidence in favor and evidence against.

2. 481 trials involving 18 viewers = 26.7 trials per viewer. not too impressive.

3. It may be interesting that if you look at other SRI documents, they speak of first timer effect and how it takes around 20-30 trials to regain the initial slump that occurs after the first timer effect has waned. so you could perhaps say that you would not expect a training effect to occur in small sample studies like the one reported above. in fact, around 30 trials you would probably expect exactly what was reported - no training effect. but what happens after the initial slump?

I asked Dr. May in a separate email about the results and he could not share any specifics. he did not remember these ideas either. Judging from the contents of his new book, the research is still not in the public eye.


Staff member
Interesting! Thanks. Yeah sometimes I have stuff people told me many eons ago and I have no idea how to connect it to whatever might be in the public domain, darn it. :-(

The stuff you ref does sound pretty limited. I don't see ref in your quote to the trial set in the qualitative group.

Though that summary does imply: that of the 'different methods' looked at, generally none of them seemed significantly better than others. That doesn't mean nothing worked or nothing was useful and it says the opposite. Just that there wasn't one that was the be-all/end-all in the group of what was tried.

So one method wasn't "better" or "equally-better-but-faster" which I guess if that was truly a focus -- I mean science is specific -- would count as a failure to evidence that, but that's a completely different thing than its value in any other way.

I think it's like comparing martial arts or something. If the going-in assumption was "Is X better than Y?" then all the tests and answers would only be on whether X was better than Y. They wouldn't be on "Is X useful" or "Does X do some or all of the things claimed for it" or "Is X worth doing" or anything like that. Every time there was a test and X did not seem "better than Y" the testers would say "X failed to prove itself" because the measure was the "better-than" focus, not X on its own merits. So all of X's fans would be in an uproar every time it came up because they had all this good evidence for the value of X. But that wasn't even the measure.

We let this happen in the field, that so many conversations start out good and end up locked in this pro/anti-CRV thing. IMO the only measure of viewing results should be viewing results. So maybe someone besides daz who is into CRV needs to start viewing publicly, perhaps.

Fwiw, at least one of the better dojo viewers is a TRV viewer, at least dominantly.

Well if this is the study that EM and JM keep on "quoting" then, they need to seriously consider looking at the limits of their claims. Science is about skepticism. Any claim has to be questioned. When we say that training does not work, that does not sound very scientific. it is too definite, lacking the skepticism that science is supposed to invite. Perhaps if EM/JM were to say that based on the research conducted at SRI, they did not find evidence in favor of training hypothesis, it would not sound as bad. but the way the two have repeatedly made claims about the benefits of training in public - they might be well served by re-visiting the very study they once were part of.

The issue of whether some methods are better than others in some regards is also something interesting. unfortunately, there is no research that has delved into such topics. Personally, i am not entirely certain that methods like CRV/TRV/TDS/SRV are appropriate for all people whose tendencies conflict how they get information. Certain methods may also invite certain types of information which may be desirable on occasion. for instance, in HRVG there a strong emphasis on visual information. the method pushes the viewer to produce such information. and you get what you want. CRV on the other hand is more kinaesthetic. the matrix furthermore pushes the viewer to produce certain types of information, thus influencing viewing process and the resulting the data output.

The last few weeks, i have been doing what may be sort termed mini-ERV (10 minutes quick altered state session laying down and speaking out impressions). it has been a lot of fun. however, the information that i get that way is less conceptual than in CRV. It is fun neverhteless moving around the target in a state that is closer to bilocation. big challenge will remain how to interact with people at the target and how to fight AOL. in CRV, however, that is part of the structure and the structure invites/encourages that type of data through the EI column. So methods do, imho, alter not just the viewing experience but also potentially the kind of data that the viewer can produce.


New Member
PJ said:
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."
I think we are talking about the same thing.

The aim in any intentional, planned and goal-oriented training or exercise is skill/performance acquisition/improvement. This separates it from mere training for leisure, for fun or for whatever reason with no improvment goal.

In professional sports, be that mental or physical (the line is of course blurred here) the goal is to improve in skill and in results. Become better (improved results), more consistent (less variance) and sometimes also more resilient (always able to perform, under varied conditions). Granted, many sports train only for very specific test conditions. This is now understood to be detrimental for skill improvement even under that specific condition. That is why most top athletes cross-train these days, in order to improve their results.

And that's why, I 'd guess, many RVers recommend drawing, painting, sculpting, music performance, even dancing, sensory awareness training as cross-training for CRV protocol itself.

Lab statistics/results. Most of JM's comments on things are less opinions than something trackable back to decades of lab numbers.
Yes. I just found this out and my take is still probably an over-simplification, but here goes: Targ seems to agree somewhat, Puthoff disagrees somewhat. The issue of what does CRV training do to RV resulting skill (using an undefined metric) was discussed in the Eight Martinis no.13 (2015) issue in the Hal Puthoff interview (pp. 12-15) by Daz (thanks, Daz!). You know this, I'm just point it out to others' benefit, as I just read the issue myself :)

And this is as confusing as hell but stats say it just doesn't really seem to change, or not enough to be significant.
So, IF this is true (reliability may increase, variance decrease, but accuracy may not improve significantly, nor viewer confidence accuracy about results), THEN I'd suggest that all CRV training start as follows:

1. Do various quick sessions with minimal training, under varied conditions.
2. Calculate reliability and validity
3. Compare results against publicly known benchmarks
4. IF own reliability < the benchmarks OR own validity ~> benchmarks THEN encourage more training (as defined above)
5. IF reliability ~ benchmarks OR validity << benchmarks THEN recommend person not waste his/her time in doing CRV for the purpose of getting useful results (it may be done for other reasons, like self-growth, introspection, etc")
6. Based on the results, device a plan for targeted training/learning

Then again, that's in the ideal world AND presupposes that the McMoneagle/Schwartz/Targ argument (i.e. "no significant improvement from CRV training") is correct :-D

You might say that you can increase your adaptive-skill but not your innate talent. But in RV the talent is 'target contact.'
In the end, it matters very little, if the aim is good results (for other aims, it may matter more).

Of course, I am now sidelining the whole problematic discussion of how to validly/reliably measure in CRV sessions what is the validity/reliability/variance of the results. As we all know, this is not trivial to do accurately.

Also, the whole idea of "innate talent" is so often disputed in modern psychology that I'm not sure that it is a very useful concept (as a monolithic idea, it needs to be componented to thinks like aptitude, attitude, early exposure, sensitivity periods, etc).

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
If this is indeed true, and I have to add that psychological "facts" with much more repeated statistical results behind them (i.e. more open replications) have been incorrect, then I should may be just quick CRV altogether before I waste more of my time on it (improvement has been non-existent so far) :-D

(Although there is that infamous "10,000 hours rule" I suppose...)
Infamous indeed. I'd venture a guess, that 99.9999999999% of the people using the '10 000 hour rule' have NOT read the original Ericsson papers or understood them.

Like in any skill acquisition, the 10 000 hours is not all additive, it's not all linear nor can it always be compressed in time scale. So, 10 000 hours at 12hrs/day at 7d/week over a period of 2.3 years is NOT the same (nor result in same learning) as 5 hrs/day for 5 d/week over a period of 7.7 years.

Also, intentionality, intense focus and reflection are key. No amount of "mindless hammeting at it" with no conscious intentionality will result in any where near the same performance as those who engage in intentional, focused and reflective practise.

Also, many claim that after 10000hrs one "becomes an expert". No. Ericsson never claims this. It is often seen in subsequent studies that conscious level expertise starts to be acquired on the average near the 10000hour mark, for some earlier, for some later. Some become more rigid, crystallized experts (e.g. dogmatic pattern recognition machines) while others grow the ability to become fluid experts (and handle also new/novel situations well in their fields). It all depends.

So, any 10 000 hours is not equal to any other 10 000 hours. It all depends on what is put into the practice and over what span of time.

Here, I believe and the research on expertise literature faintly points to this direction, is that intensive bursts of activity with enough slow time for reflection (i.e. requiring an overall longer time altogether to complete 10k hours) is the better approach for superb expertise. Yes, there are exceptions to this very vague rule of thumb (like 15 year old world top level chess grand masters). So, many factors apply here.

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,
I agree. I personally call this getting to know one's own internal landscape and it's language.

If anything, "NOVELTY" actually seems to play a big role in most my inner work and often is the catalyst for good results.
Marty Rosenblatt seems to think the same (as do many of the original RVers) - esp. when it comes to target focus acquisition. What is your reason for thinking this (I don't disagreee, btw)? Is it mostly due to, as you state, letting go of control, and being more in the state of play and discovery?

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
Good point. It's then, perhaps, more due to the psychology of self-belief, trust and neuronal memory (i.e. ability to trigger something fairly automatic, rather than trying to force or control it through too much conscious effort).

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.
Well, I hear you, yet I have to counter-argue slightly.

The performance at the highest level, say in extreme sports (read Kotler's 'The Rise of the Superman') during flow states, clearly indicates processes dealing with loss of ego, loss of boundaries of self, loss of time, loss of story-based identity limitations, loss of reality structures, etc. For example, climbers may describe time-dilation, future-seeing, hearing voices, feeling what it is to be a rock surface, becoming an animal (i.e. 'shapeshifting') etc.

These are normal, innate human powers and when they arise in any activity, they may pose serious psychological and epistemological barriers to pop up for the experiencer.

With that said, I do agree, that CRV (and many other so called time-space 'anomalous' processes) may contain a higher occurence of these experiences and require them to be surpasses for high levels of performance and or advancement in the depth of experience.

allowing. That is usually what constant practice or 'hammering' is hammering ON -- not the sports skill but the psychology.
I have to say that even in sport psychology this is well understood, carefully planned and taken into account at the highest levels of expert sports performance. It's all a head/heart game at that level. Most have such high and nearly indistinguishable physical skill that the psycho-spiritual edge is what separates the winners from the 2nd and 3rd placers.

Sounds good, you've outlined an entire lifestyle of focus there.
Heh :-D

More like consistency of approach, taken from other fields, where the efficacy has already proven several times over.

I just read a story of British cyclers who decide to be on the top in the world in a few years. Everybody laughed at them, as there was no historical precedent, nor did they have a proven superior training/skill/gene pool to tap from. What they did was holistic and incremental improvements in EVERYTHING they could think of : attitude, training, recovery, massage, technique, sleep conditions, sleep cycles, food, hydration, emotional work... everything you can imagine. And bit by bit, with each minisucle improvement their overall scores improved and they achieved their goals. They didn't just take their bikes and try to ride harder or faster than everybody else. They would have just burned themselves out like that.

Another exmaple: if the buddhist meditators a couple of thousand years ago knew the reasons for eating such and such foods or abstaining from certain drinks (in order to reach their internal, contemplative goals), why isn't the same level of seriousness taken into account in RV training?

It's more like: hey, I can eat pizza that destroys my brain chemistry, drink beer that hammers at my hormonal and endocrine system, don't sleep properly and it's all ok. It doesn't matter. I can still RV.

Yes, but at what level, compared to what you could? To some that may be a moot question. To others a difference that makes or breaks the usefulness of their RV work.

Granted, there are people who don't stack everything in their favour (all the small details), and still perform at a very high level, but usually the best of the best in the world have optimized most things (sleep/rest/mindset/food/feedback/etc).

If anybody would like to venture into this, pls contact me. I'm interested in delving into this deeper. My knowledge is more in psychology, expertise and some in skill acquisition, but I find enough parallels there that one could apply these to any serious RV skill improvement efforts.

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.
I agree. This is why I also think that the old motto from the game of Go applies here as well "lose your first 50 games early and fast" (paraphrased). That's why I also like the automated, quick and dirty (but plentifully feedback giving) training systems in the beginning. You can do the session, cool down and immediately watch the feedback. Of course, self-denial can skew the learning, so judging/mentoring would help, but I think fast feedback here trumps very delayed and structured feedback. Probably it's better to have both. Don't know if this has been studied in RV. In expert performance in other fields they use both.

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
Makes sense to me.

Thanks for all the provocative and well explained thoughts.

My apologies if my text may feel argumentative or rude to any. English if not my first language and I've often found that when I get interested and inquisitive about a topic, my English expressions (although not my native tongue) comes across as arrogant. This is not my aim, so please take it into account. Thank you.


Staff member
I'll be back before long to this thread, work is overtaking me. But this tidbit:

RVTrainee001 said:
Well if this is the study that EM and JM keep on "quoting" then, they need to seriously consider looking at the limits of their claims.
Took me awhile to find this. I knew it was somewhere on the firedocs archived website...
it was in the HUMOR section http://firedocs.com/remoteviewing/humor/
the quotable quotes page http://firedocs.com/remoteviewing/humor/remote-viewing-quotes.cfm

(My evil twin says thank you, PJ, for the endless hours you spent transcribing and archiving stuff from '95 to mid-98 so we'd have all this 20 years later... but wait, there's more... LOL)

I have a great problem with those charging so much money for something that -- the government paid me a lot of money, actually, to find out whether you could train remote viewing, and we found -- because obviously they'd have a need, they'd like to go train psychic spies -- and so we looked at hundreds of different training routines and schemes and what have you, and I must say, I'm sad to report that we found no evidence to date that you could actually train remote viewing. I can't teach you to become Yasha Heifitz if you don't have that natural gift [but] I can certainly [help you go from] squeaks to at least a recognizeable tune. In that sense, I could give you pointers; [but] I think I would be wholly unethical if I asked you to pay me $3000 to do that, 'cause I could give you enough pointers in about a paragraph to go ahead and try it on your own.

Dr. Edwin C. May
March 2, 1997
Jeff Rense Radio Show
Discussing the difference between remote viewing and what some people were calling remote viewing and charging thousands to learn
And if you'd like to see the whole show, yes we have that too, here:

"so we looked at hundreds of different training routines and schemes and what have you, and I must say, I'm sad to report that we found no evidence to date that you could actually train remote viewing."

"Looked" at?



The only person that really seemed to have looked at "hundreds" is probably Jeffrey Mischlove discussed in PSI Development systems, his dissertation.


Staff member
Yeah, I'm not sure what all he is referring to there, but I know that in the lab they often included as at least "casual knowledge" (to some degree) the results of science that was done in other areas or prior work, or fields (such as the areas of cognitive science).

I tend to doubt there is any actual single study which has hundreds of those things all at once done, though he may have been referring to two decades of study in general which might in various capacities have covered that.

Still, your point is valid I think, that if someone is making public statements about something, having something official documented to point to for evidence seems reasonable.

Then again if we demanded documented evidence of everything claimed in the name of viewing or any method in the last 20 years, there'd be a pile of demands to the moon and all unanswered. So to be fair I'd say this problem is even more developed on the other side of the argument.

Then again they aren't claiming to be scientists. Well except one.

Then again they usually are claiming to be experts.

It's easier to just not believe anything but what you learn from hands-on doing.



Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
Thats not what Hal Puthoff says about training. he stands by his 200+ blind trials study of CRV that showed a three fold increase in ability after training - see the latest 8 martinis for this.


Staff member
Would be great if it were comparative to other methods. Because every skill in the world improves once you do it for awhile, even the most rudimentary things (like weight lifting) (which may not have a 'method' at all except 'doing it').

I'm only partway through the current 8M and have been skipping around.



I'm going to keep practicing because my personal opinion is that there are two issues involved in being a successful RV'er. One is inherent ability, the second is the ability to manifest it. If you can hear beautiful music in your imagination but never practiced writing music or playing any instrument, you probably won't be able to demonstrate the music for others at all satisfactorily. I know I have intuitive abilities, but I also think, feel, emote, imagine... so tuning into the intuitive ability (the "signal" in this case) and not letting in a lot of "noise" from the other stuff going on - this is what I very much need to do to improve, so I believe that in my case practice will have a payoff. I don't know that it will improve the intuitive function, or if that is even possible, but learning to tune into it can be significantly improved, at least that is my hope.


New Member
When I first started CRV practice, I made goals to test accuracy and withstand distraction. I am sure it is not recommended to cut out cool down sessions or have random noises around, but this has been my choice. I began teaching myself and practice with mentorship from Daz, with my phone nearby. I get Open Source CRV Manual displayed on my phone, which I text on or answer if needed. (I plan to use binaural beats and tools when I learn structure and format to my satisfaction, but learning under pressure is benefiting my focus for now).

My experiments and sharing of my experiences are intended make CRV more possible in needed realtime, or on demand. This way I think that practical use can start to function...maybe and potentially Better. I love doing the public viewings, here on TKR, because Daz wants the sessions to be of the proper format. That helps me So much. Though my "noisy methods" may be very unconventional in trials, I want to be true to the science. Having proper tasking is the only reason I have been able to practice this far and so I am very appreciative of the work of the many people who have learned, developed, tried, and fought to get CRV out in the world, and continue to make my opportunity to learn correctly available. I take it very seriously. Thank You.

If I could give any advice as a beginner to anyone learning, I would agree that knowing proper format is key. I still have not attempted Stage 5 in my efforts. I mention this because I think starting on the Correct basis for comparison (by using proper format) is necessary and respectable to experiment with in weird or challenging ways.
Also, if you do plan to test your results with background noise or traffic that is not condusive to a "conduit mindset" then I suggest creating art, playing music, or letting out extra energy, Some How, After your session. Even after a great session, not changing the pace or activity level has had a noticeable effect on my mood. The heightened awareness drains/provides energy in different ways each time. I will say that I am learning to adjust better after a session, now. At first it was difficult.

I am hoping for more and more positive developments with my attempts to produce a practicality, using CRV properly. But I want to reiterate, if you do a session with distracting background noise, keep in mind that positive feedback and positive subject matter of the target does not always elevate your energy, though it certainly can. It can be a mega Informational Overload and I stand by leaving on a high note (then dealing with any remaining tension).

The motivation that I got to approach this "noisy method" kept daily life at arms reach. In not clearing away extra stressors, there remains an awareness that I want to keep until I know CRV scientifically. When I memorize all of the shorthand and learn everything more concise, then I can allow myself to relax with it more to have more fun.

Since learning this way is very challenging, I think that trained and seasoned CRVers could possibly benefit by integrating these ideas. Even after a cool down, having worldly noise perk up during session time may also improve awareness in the ways that I have tested for anyone who has not intentionally been, or have had to CRV under odd and stressed environments.

Because I saw a potential snag down the road, I began training under semi-chaotic surroundings. Also, I block out the target to feel it, rather than try to resonate with the signal. This leaves my attitude about the feedback open and carefree.
I would like to know if anyone else intentionally tests this environment setting, and any findings or thoughts about outside interference. What other factors have you tested that can create temporary discomfort, but yield great results?