But nonetheless, you also had Coastal, Tidal, Boat, and Island. That's what the final summation stage is for - where you piece together the most important bits and discard what you feel is the mental noise, which did not specifically say "tornado." This is exactly the same problem that Stargate research ran into - the remote viewers were very definitely getting SOME sort of signal out of the noise, but they couldn't figure out how to extract that signal in order to use it for anything. I think user Craig Browning knows a bit more on the current state of things, but those viewers also have the advantage of having several viewers using the same target - this is a common technique in signal theory, and can work really well.
The whole ideology behind psionics and technical remote viewing (vs intuition and clairvoyance) is that it is controllable; you can use it to do things. Based SOLELY on your report, if I were the information officer in charge of reviewing your report, and I only had your report to go on, I might have thought a concert, a big event at the Guggenheim Museum or Sydney Opera House, a tidal wave hitting an important building in a populated urban area, really any sort of large natural disaster hitting a coastal urban area, etc. But I don't think I would have gotten specifically "A tornado hitting a small rural town in the middle of Arkansas." That's what I mean. I am hesitant to call it a "hit" because it's not a 100% hit, but it's not a "miss" either, because it does seem like you got the general feel of it. If you had gotten "Tornado" from the notes page and put it on the final page, I would call it a 100% hit. But even then, I would assume it were someplace like Mexico or Australia or Florida, or maybe near a very large lake in the Southwest.
Also, I would have to know what the results of the other 998 trials were in order to know if there is any sort of actual success rate. This is just one example you have presented. 999 trials is well enough to have a complete dead-on hit, just by chance alone. Like,if this is one of the only trials of this project that you guys consider a hit, then it's most likely due to chance. I would want to see about this level of correlation between mentation and target on at least a third (33%, that was basically the average hit rate determined in the AIR reports) of the trials, in order to call it a successful project.
I would LOVE to see remote viewing to be developed into a hugely powerful tool, however, things that set up for confirmation bias will actually slow down development - in the same way that practicing telekinesis on a psiwheel in a room with a draft will give you a false feeling that you're having success, when you're not, and thus you're practicing "wrong."Statistics: Posted by NucleicAcid — 29 Mar 2010, 23:08
]]>