PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF SRI/SAIC ANOMALOUS MENTAL PHENOMENA PROGRAM

CIA-STARGATE

PDF Scan: PDF

Open AI Summary

Text

Body:  08/30/95   09:12    $503 346 4911             UO PSYCHOLOGY
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200060001-0
 preliminary Evaluation of SRI/SAIC Anomalous Mental Phenomena
 Program
 Ray Hyman
 August 29, 1995
 For twenty-five years I have been in touch with the literature of
 psychical research, and have had acquaintance with numerous
 #'researchers. nI have also spent a good many hours (though far
 fewer than I ought to have spent) in witnessing (or trying to
 witness) phenomena. Yet I can theoretically no 'further" than I
 was at the beginning; and I confess that at times I have been
 tempted to believe that the Creator has eternally intended this
 department of nature to remain ba  in  to prompt our curiosities
 and hopes and suspicions all in equal measure, so that, although
 ghosts and clairvoyances, and raps and messages from spirits, are
 always seeming to exist and can never be fully explained away,
 they also can never be susceptible of full corroboration.
 The peculiarity of the case is just that there are so many
 sources of possible deception in most of the observations that the
 whole lot of them M be worthless, and yet that in comparatively
 few case can, aught more fatal than this vague general possibility
 of error be pleaded against the record Science meanwhile needs
 something more than bare possibilities to build upon; so your .
 genuinely scientific inquirer-] don't mean your ignoramus
 tiseientisty' has to remain unsatisfied
 -William James, 1909.
 Jessica tltts and I have each been given the task to evaluate the results of the research
 program on anomalous mental phenomena carried out at SRI and SAIL from 1973 through 1992.
 Because of the limited time allotted for this task, we have focussed on the reports of the work
 selected to best convey the outcome of this program. However, even this selective focus places
 severe constraints on the adequacy, of our evaluations. A fully comprehensive evaluation of the
 program would require a minimum of several months and would include visits to the sites of the
 experiments as well as some reanalysis of the raw data. Consequently, my present assessment
 should be considered the tentative outcome of a quick first pass.
 We were asked to assess how well the results meet scientific standards as well as how well
 the alleged anomalous mental phenomena can be harnessed for intelligence gathering. On the basis
 of our conclusions we were further requested to recommend whether investigations into this
 subject should continue and, if so, in what manner.
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200060001-0
 08/30/95   09:12     $503 346 4911             tiO PSYCHOLOGY
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200060001-0
 Remote Viewing Evaluation/ Aug 28,1995- 2
 The Scientific Status of the Program
 In their final report (1994) the investigators conclude that they have clearly demonstrated
 anomalous cognition, but not anomalous perturbation. According to common scientific standards,
 I would judge such a conclusion as premature. If, for example, a scientist announces the discovery
 of a new element, the claim is not recognized until the element's existence has been carefully
 documented in two or more independent laboratories. The reason for such caution is obvious. The
 history of science contains many examples of discoveries that subsequently could not be replicated
 and eventually had to be attributed to some artefact-known or unknown. Certainly, the claim that
 anomalous cognition exists is much more revolutionary in its consequences than the claim that a
 new element has been observed. So, at the very least, we would want to see the claim of
 anomalous cognition supported by independent this could be an unfortunate consequence of the resulhs have
 anything like this at this time. Possibly,
 having been classified as secret until very recently.
 My first scan through the reports impressed me with the apparent consistency with which
 the best percipients or subjects produced significant evidence for anomalous cognition. I was also
 impressed, in many instances, with the apparent sophistication in methodology and data analysis.
 However, as was my experience in dealing with the ganzfeld database, further examination began
 to raise questions and doubts. I also began noticing inconsistencies, incompleteness of
 documentation, and other problematic signs. Again, I suspect that some of these drawbacks can
 be attributed to the secret auspices under which the research was conducted.
 I was unimpressed by the results of meta-analysis on the psychoenergetic research
 conducted at SRI International from 1973-1988. Indeed, this particular report illustrates the
 drawbacks of relying on meta-analysis to draw conclusions. The meta-analysis is based on a total
 of 25, 449 trials. The probability of the observed hit rate for this total to have occurred by chance
 is vanishingly small. Obviously, the departure from chance expectation is real. The authors of this
 report conclude that, "Using accepted criteria set forth in the standard behavioral sciences, we
 conclude that this constitutes convincing, if not conclusive, evidence for the existence of
 psychoenergetic functioning." The "accepted criteria" that they mention refer to rejecting the null
 hypothesis; these same criteria are silent on the reasons for the departure from this hypothesis.
 The problem here is that plausible, mundane alternative explanations exist for this
 departure from the null hypothesis. The vast majority-of these trials were collected under the
 original protocol developed by Targ and Puthoff. In this protocol, a subject would be closeted
 with an experimenter at SRI. A target team would visit a randomly selected site within a half-hour
 drive of SRI. While the target team was at the site, the subject would describe his/her impressions
 for 15 to 30 minutes. When the target team returned to SRI, all the participants, including the
 subject, would visit the site and discuss the correspondences between the target and the subject's
 impressions. On a second day, the same subject would go through a similar procedure. An
 experimental series typically consisted of nine such trials with a given subject. At the conclusion
 of the series, the transcripts of the subjects' impressions were given to a judge. The judge visited
 the sites and, at each site, ranked the nine impressions from 1 to 9 in order of how well he/she
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200060001-0
 08'/30/95   09:13     1$503 346 4911             U0 PSYCHOLOGY
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200060001-0
 [a 004
 Remote Viewing Evaluation/ Aug 28, 1995- 3
 was significantly better than that expected
 to average
 thought they described the site.  the
 for anomalous cognition.
 by chance, the outcome was de
 ve trial clared
 i
 protocol has several problems. They all derive from the fact that th statistic each success at Targ and
 is not independent of the preceding ones. The first problem is that the
 Puthoff originally used assumed that the trials were independent. The consequence was that the
 statistical outcomes exaggerated the degree of significance actually present. More serious udge
 sometimes problems arose when David Marks discovered tto the
 against target site
 correctly match    the
 contained clues that were sufficient for the judge Y matc
 without assuming anomalous cognition. Even if such clues could be edited out of the transcripts, I
 pointed out that a fatal flaw still existed.
 Rather than to go into technical detail, I will give one illustration how leakage can occur
 with this protocol. Assume that the target on the first day ediatthe Hoover el     the firssession, he/sheStanford
 campus. Because the subject has been given feedback        Y after           second may reasonably avoid describing anything that resembles the
 PaHoover lto Tower train during
 ationtOn the third
 session. Supposed that the target for the second day was
 that closely resembles either the
 Y
 day, we can assume that the subject will not describe anything                     as
 Hoover Tower or the train. station. The impression for the third day, then, might be judged simply because it
 being closer to the target for the third day than to eithe{lOef~st first two targets ~ o~,  is compounded
 clearly does not correspond to either of the targets for
 as the trials progress through the entire series.
 Thus, a skeptic can easily imagine non-paranormal reasons why the judge might
 consistently match impressions against target sites significantly ar  biases and artefacts can be much more
 the possible artefact is obvious. In much scientific
 subtle and "elusive. New protocols, instrumentation, methodologies, and analytic I years uefore it
 require long periods of debugging. Often a new field of inquiry might proceed
 is discovered that hidden flaws have biased the outcomes. o conditions are s c ruc al in the sc etnces.
 and consistent and lawful outcomes across a variety
 The problem I have with the outcomes from the present program is that we are dealing
 and
 with novel protocols and methodologies which have not had time to be sufficiently debugged
 the results that have been obtained so far
 have not been independently replicated. In addition,
 suggest that anomalous cognition still comes and goes in mysterious ways. Consistency both
 within the program and with other findings in parapsychology is not impressive.
 c ewit them as
 I could go into similar detail for each of the other repo  . Instead,
 that wwere ill deal
 a unit. The reason is that these remaining reports deal with experiments
 conducted'with a better protocol. If alternative explanations       for the acunt for the results of
 these latter experiments, they are not as obvious as the explanations
 experiments. Although no obvious alternative explanations come to mind, warning signs abound.
 Of the 10 independent experiments conducted at SAIC, several are described as pilot attempts.
 Some fail to replicate previous experiments in the program. For example, the first attempt to
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200060.001-0
 0,8/30/95   09:14    $503 346 4911             UO PSYCHOLOGY
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200060001-0
 Remote Viewing Evaluation/ Aug 28,1995-4
 replicate the Chinese photon production experiment succeeded. However, a second, more careful
 attempt at replication failed. The investigators conclude that the original Chinese effect was an
 artifact. What will happen if the experimenters try to replicate each of the other "successful"
 experiments with more elaborately controlled designs?
 We know from the descriptions in the reports that some of the experiments provided
 possibilities for sensory leakage and other biases. The investigators either discount these
 possibilities or believe they adequately compensated for them. Not enough documentation exists
 in the reports to be sure that all necessary controls were consistently in place. In some of the
 experiments, for example, the experienced subjects operated from their own homes, hundreds of
 experienced subjects presumably
 miles from the laboratory and the principal investigator. These
 and the judge.
 know the procedures, the target pool, the laboratory personnel The judge raises another problem. The investigators do not try to explain adequately why
 the judging procedure in the ganzfeld procedure succeeds best when the subject does the judging
 while it apparently succeeds best in the remote viewing situation when someone other than the
 subject does the judging. Apparently only one or two judges consistently give good results. From
 what Ed May told us, I gather they typically use one judge and this judge is the same one across
 several experiments. Even if we assume the judge is honest, conscientious and otherwise free from
 suspicion, the scientific community will not readily accept conclusions that depend upon the use
 of particular individual. This is like the experimenter effect. Many parapsychologists argue that
 only certain experimenters are capable of obtaining evidence of anomalous cognition. If this is
 true, parapsychology faces serious obstacles in its attempts to gain scientific recognition.
 Scientific credibility depends critically on the ability of any conscientious observer to obtain a
 given outcome.
 From its inception in the late I900s, parapsychology has been plagued by such pic-blems
 as non-replicability, non-curnlativeness, lack of robustness, and inability to specify boundary
 conditions. The decline effect, which was the subject of one of the experiments in the cu rent
 program, is a case in point. When Rhine announced the discovery of this effect it was presented as
 a strong argument for the reality of ESP. Rhine argued that, he had discovered the decline effect in
 experiments whose investigators had not been looking for it. Rhine believed that the decline effect
 also explained why so many ESP experiments yielded overall results consistent with chance.
 Because of the decline effect the first half of many experiments typically showed an excess of
 hitting above chance. The second half, on the other hand, would show hitting below chance. The
 two halves, when pooled over the entire experiment would cancel each other out and yield an
 overall result that seemed to be due to chance.
 As the present investigators point out, the decline effect can show itself in multitudinous
 ways. Investigators have reported decline effects within a run, within a series, within a collection
 of studies, and even across subjects. When decline effects are found in a body of data, the
 parapsychologists do not hesitate to declare this evidence for anomalous cognition. However,
 when decline effects are not found, investigators, including the present ones, are still willing to
 assert the existence of anomalous cognition if other departures from a chance baseline can be
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200060001-0
 o /30/95   09:15    $503 346 4911             UO PSYCHOLOGY
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200060001-0
 Remote Viewing Evaluation/ Aug 28,1995- 5
 found. The problem this raises is that we have no way of specifying conditions under which psi
 will not be found. Just about any departure from a statistical model can be evidence for psi. We
 have no way of telling when psi is not present.
 I will here briefly mention other signs of potential inconsistencies. The central claim for the
 autoganzfeld experiments is that, as Honorton allegedly predicted, evidence for anomalous
 cognition was obtained for dynamic targets and not for static targets. In their first replication
 attempt, the present experiments obtained evidence for anomalous cognition only with the static
 targets and not with the dynamic targets. As always, they can generate a quasi-plausible i
 explanation. They do this in terms of bandwidth. Although, the second experiment to test this idea
 does apparently support their conjecture, the results are not altogether compelling and more needs
 to be done. Honorton and his colleagues claim that the most consistent personality correlate of
 anomalous cognition is extroversion. Yet, the major replication of Honoorton'sow work, which
 hest was
 subcontracted to the present project, shows the introverts, if anything, doing
 I can go on and list other inconsistencies and possible problems. However, I will stop at
 this point so that I can get this draft into the mail. The quotation from William James at the
 beginning of this report captures my feelings about the scientific status of the present project.
 th a
 My advice is that, if the project is continue that
 well as some non-parapsychological,
 number of independent parapsychological laboratories
 neutral investigators to replicate the key findings from the present project. The data from the
 present project should be sufficient, given the claims being made for it, to allow us to specify the
 appropriate conditions, the effect size, and the number of cases necessary to get a sin ca labs
 effect across different laboratories given that anomalous cognition exists. Presumably, could either use the best subjects from the SAIC experiments or use a similar screening device to
 find those individuals who belong the one percent of the population who supposedly have AC
 abilities.
 I have not discussed potential utility of remote viewing. If we accept the conclusions made
 by the investigators on the. current project, the potential for utility is bleak. Although they accept
 the reality of anomalous cognition, they state or imply,  several places, that operational
 applications of anomalous cognition do nlook very promising.
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200060001-0
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200060001-0
 (\ r        V     ? ' 6
 ~~//
 S G 1 J
 c
 C P, C4' '
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200060001-0