Download Remote Viewing and more Exercises Design in PDF only on Docsity!
Remote Viewing: E x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e Marks and Kammann Cueing A r t i f a c t H y p o t h e s i s C h a r l e s T. T a r t U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , D a v i s , and
Harold P u t h o f f and us sell T a r g ,
SRI I n t e r n a t i o n a l T a r g and P u t h o f f (1974; 1977; P u t h o f f & T a r g , 1976) r e p o r t e d a remote ' v i e w i n g e x p e r i m e n t w i t h s u b j e c t P a t P r i c e t h a t seemed t o i l l u s t r a t e t h a t ESP c o u l d sometimes f u n c t i o n a t v e r y h i g h l e v e l s o f i n f o r m a t i o n t r a n s f e r and a c c u r a c y. When t h e t a r g e t was a b o a t m a r i n a o n San F r a n c i s c o Bay, f o r example, P r i c e ' s c o n s i s t e n t n a r r a t i v e began, 'What I ' m l o o k i n g a t is a l i t t l e b o a t j e t t y o r b o a t dock a l o n g t h e bay... I s e e t h e l i t t l e b o a t s , some motor l a u n c h ( s i c ) , some l i t t l e s a i l i n g s h i p s... ' I. When t h e t a r g e t was Hoover Tower, a landmark o n t h e S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y campus, he d e s c r i b e d t o w e r s and ended by s a y i n g , ".. .seems l i k e it would be Hoover Tower." When t h e t a r g e t was a swimming p o o l complex w i t h two p o o l s , one a 75x100 f t. r e c - t a n g u l a r p o o l and t h e o t h e r a 1 1 0 f t. d i a m e t e r c i r c u l a r p o o l , he made a draw- i n g o f t h e t a r g e t a r e a a s c e n t e r e d a r o u n d two p o o l s , one r e c a n g u l a r t h a t he dimensioned as 60x89 f e e t , t h e o t h e r c i r c u l a r t h a t he dimensioned a s 120 f e e t i n d i a m e t e r. The r e s u l t s o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t w e r e e v a l u a t e d by a b l i n d judge known t o have s k i l l i n t h e s e s o r t s o f e v a l u a t i o n s i n o t h e r s ' e x p e r i m e n t s ; he c o r r e c t l y matched s e v e n o f t h e n i n e t a r g e t l t r a n s c r i p t c o m b i n a t i o n s , a r e s u l t s i g n i f i c a n t a t ~ = 1 0 - ~( P u t h o f f & T a r g , 1976). S i m i l a r , h i g h l y s i g - n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s were o b t a i n e d by a p a n e l o f f i v e u n s e l e c t e d b l i n d j u d g e s ( T a r g & P u t h o f f , 1974). Because o f t h e i m p o r t a n t i m p l i c a t i o n s o f h i g h l e v e l f u n c t i o n i n g o f ESP, t h e s e r e s u l t s b r o u g h t a b o u t c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s c u s s i o n i n t h e s c i e n t i f i c community. I n t h i s p a p e r we examine a n a l t e r n a t e h y p o t h e s i s t o ESP t h a t has b e e n p u t f o r w a r d by Marks and Karmnann (1978).
Marks and Kammann examined t h e t r a n s c r i p t s of t h e n i n e t r i a l s of t h e P r i c e series. While not q u e s t i o n i n g t h e d a t a c o l l e c t i o n procedures o r a s s e s s i n g t h e a c t u a l q u a l i t y of t h e d e s c r i p t i o n s o b t a i n e d , t h e y hypothesized that t h e judging procedure was d e f e c t i v e i n t h a t e x t r a n e o u s t r a n s c r i p t cues (such a s whether a t r i a l was e a r l y o r l a t e i n t h e s e r i e s ) had allowed t h e judges t o s i g n i f i c a n t l y match t r a n s c r i p t s and t a r g e t s on a n a r t i f a c t u a l b a s i s. They r e p o r t e d that one of them (Marks) was a b l e t o &itch c o r r e c t l y a s u b s e t of f i v e of t h e t r a n s c r i p t s a g a i n s t a list of t h e a s s o c i a t e d f i v e. t a r g e t s without a c t u a l l y v i s i t i n g t h e s i t e s , on t h e b a s i s of t h e cues a l o n e. They a l s o r e p o r t e d (with a d e a r t h of d e t a i l ) that two ( u n s e l e c t e d? ) p s y c h o l o g i s t judges t h e y used were unable t o match t h e s e same t a r g e t s and t r a n s c r i p t s s i g n i f i c a n t l y when t h e y had e d i t e d o u t p o t e n t i a l cues. S i n c e p u b l i c a t i o n of our r e p l y t o Marks and Kammann ( T a r t , P u t h o f f , and Targ, 1980), H.P. suggested t o C.T.T. that Marks and Kammann d i d not a c t u a l l y test t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h e y claimed t o be t e s t i n g. They, i n e f f e c t , claimed t h a t t h e r e were two k i n d s of m a t e r i a l i n t h e t r a n s c r i p t s , d e s c r i p - t i o n s (D) i n t e n d e d t o f i t t h e d e s i g n a t e d t a r g e t by o s t e n s i b l e u s e of ESP, and remarks which provided e x t r a n e o u s cues (C). They hypothesized t h a t t h e l a t t e r k i n d of C m a t e r i a l a l o n e was s u f f i c i e n t t o account f o r t h e r e s u l t s r e p o r t e d by Targ and Puthoff. When Marks judged h i s s u b s e t of f i v e , however, he a p p a r e n t l y worked w i t h both- D and C m a t e r i a l , v i z. , t h e complete t r a n - s c r i p t s. Marks' s u c c e s s f u l judging r e s u l t s , t h e n , might be due e i t h e r t o t h e adequacy of t h e (ESP i n s p i r e d ) d e s c r i p t i o n s of t h e t a r g e t s , t h e e x t r a n e o u s c u e s , o r a mixture of both. A s a r e s u l t , t h e i r methodology s u f f e r s from t h e same shortcoming t h e y c r i t i c i z e d a s e x i s t i n g i n t h e o r i g i n a l s t u d y. T h e r e f o r e w e decided t o examine t h e Marks and Kammann h y p o t h e s i s a d e q u a t e l y , c a r r y i n g o u t t h e experiment t h e y f a i l e d t o. With r e g a r d t o t h e p u t a t i v e cues themselves, c a r e f u l examination of examples g i v e n by Marks and Kammann l e a d s t o some doubts as t o how u s e f u l
"This is not t h e f i r s t " and t h e l i k e would be of no use. To g i v e t h e Marks and Kammann hypothesis its best chance, however, we t a k e a worst case posi- t i o n and assume t h a t a judge might consider t h e p o s s i b i l i t y. t h a t he had received t h e t a r g e t l i s t i n order and d e l i b e r a t e l y make use of t h i s o r d e r information i n conjunction with extraneous cues t o improve matching. Table 2 shows how t h i s would be done. The cues would be used t o narrow t h e range of choices about p o s s i b l e matches f o r each site.
- - - - - - - - -I n s e r t^ Table^2 about h e r e As can be seen from t h e t a b l e , i n t h e b e s t case f o r cues (Hoover Tower) t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of a c o r r e c t match can probably be increased from one-ninth t o one-third; i n t h e next b e s t case from one-ninth t o one-seventh; and i n two o t h e r cases from one-ninth t o one-eighth. The remaining f i v e cases g a i n no d i r e c t advantage from cues; j u s t i n d i r e c t advantage from not using a s p o s s i b i l i t i e s t h e ones a l r e a d y used i n t h e more advantageous cases. When one t a k e s i n t o account t h e r e s u l t i n g c o n s t r a i n t s due t o c u e s , t h e number of p o s s i b l e t a r g e t / t r a n s c r i p t matchings is reduced from 9: = 362,880 t o 68, combinations. Assuming now t h a t t h e cues a r e used t o maximum advantage, we f i n d t h a t t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l a s s o c i a t e d with obtaining a t l e a s t 7 matches (as was done) i n a forced-choice , non-independent assignment of t r a n s c r i p t s t o t a r g e t s i t e s ( t h e most conservative s t a t i s t i c ) i s only reduced from P = 1 0^ -^4 t o P = 3.9 X 1 0^ -^4 , s t i l l a q u i t e s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t. I f t h e o r i g i n a l judging and re-done judging ( T a r t , Puthoff, and n r g , 1980, described below) 03 t h e e d i t e d P r i c e m a t e r i a l had been only marginally s i g n i f i c a n t , t h e argument concerning p o s s i b l e confounding of t h e r e s u l t s due t o p o t e n t i a l cues might have c a r r i e d some weight. As we s e e , however, t h e change i n s i g n i f i c a n c e r e s u l t i n g from use of t h e extraneous cues is n e g l i g i b l e , considering t h e magnitude (seven f i r s t place matches) of t h e a c t u a l r e s u l t s. This supports our o r i g i n a l assessment t h a t , given t h a t t h e Marina t a r g e t was described a s a boat dock, Hoover Tower was named a s such, t h e swimming pool
complex t a r g e t was d e s c r i b e d a s having two pools i n i t , e t c. , t h e cueing a r t i f a c t s were probably n o t of major importance i n t h e o r i g i n a l a n a l y s e s. Our p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n i n r e t r o s p e c t , however, i s t h a t w e (H. P. and R. T.) should have e l e c t e d t o e d i t t h e P r i c e - t r a n s c r i p t s b e f o r e g i v i n g them t o o u r blintl judges ( a s has been s t a n d a r d procedure i n l a t e r e x p e r i m e n t s ) , r a t h e r t h a n having set a p o l i c y t o u s e u n e d i t e d t r a n s c r i p t s t o a v o i d p o s s i b l e criticisms of s e l e c t i v e e d i t i n g. Nonetheless, i n o r d e r t o settle t h i s i s s u e d e c i s i v e l y , because t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s of high l e v e l ESP f u n c t i o n i n g a r e s o i m p o r t a n t , and because w e r o u t i n e l y i n s i s t on t h e b e s t p o s s i b l e procedures being used t o e v a l u a t e ESP experiments, one of u s (C.T.T.), who had not been involved i n t h e o r i g i n a l Price series, decided t o independently re-analyze t h e d a t a , a f t e r e d i t i n g o u t a l l p o s s i b l y u s e f u l extraneous cues.. The. d e t a i l s of t h i s p r o j e c t
and i t s r e s u l t s have been r e p o r t e d elsewhere ( T a r t , Puthoff , & Targ, 1980).
B r i e f l y , C.T.T. e d i t e d out a l l p o t e n t i a l cues about t i m e and d a t e of a g i v e n t r a n s c r i p t , a s w e l l a s any comments comparing a t a r g e t t o some previous one t h a t could p o s s i b l y cue a judge a s t o which t a r g e t a p a r t i c u l a r t r a n s c r i p t was (^) - not i n t e n d e d f o r (as p e r Table 1 ). S i n c e t h e juding t a s k depends on a j u d g e ' s a b i l i t y t o e x t r a c t s i g n a l from n o i s e f o r c o r r e c t matching, C.T.T. began t o s e a r c h f o r a t a l e n t e d judge t o re-judge t h e series, t e s t i n g poten- t i a l c a n d i d a t e s (who knew nothing of remote viewing r e s e a r c h ) on m a t e r i a l from a d i f f e r e n t remote viewing s t u d y. The second p o t e n t i a l. judge t e s t e d d i d w e l l , and was t h u s s e l e c t e d f o r t h i s t a s k. She t h e n judged t h e e d i t e d Price series t r a n s c r i p t s a n d , as o u r p r e v i o u s s k i l l e d judge had done, s u c c e s s f u l l y matched seven of t h e n i n e. A complete a n a l y s i s of t h e judge's r a t i n g m a t r i x by a direct-count-of-permutations f a c t o r i a l method i n which t h e judge's r a t i n g matrix i s permuted through a l l p o s s i b l e t a r g e t / t r a n s c r i p t
assignments, y i e l d s a r e s u l t s i g n i f i c a n t a t P = 2.2 X 1 0^ -5. , o n e - t a i l e d.
S i m i l a r l y , t h e s u b s e t of f i v e t h a t Marks and Kammann's judges could not match w a s a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t a t P = .025, o n e - t a i l e d. Thus t h e Marks and
R e f e r e n c e s M a r k s , D., & Kamman, R. I n f o r m a t i o n t r a n s m i s s i o n - i n r e m o t e v i e w i n g e x p e r i - m e n t s. N a t u r e , 1 9 7 8 , 274, 680-681. P u t h o f f , H. , & T a r g , R. A p e r c e p t u a l c h a n n e l f o r i n f o r m a t i o n t r a n s f e r o v e r k i l o m e t e r d i s t a n c e s : H i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e a n d r e c e n t r e s e a r c h. P r o c. IEEE, 1 9 7 6 , 64, 329-354. T a r g , R., & P u t h o f f , H. I n f o r m a t i o n t r a n s m i s s i o n u n d e r c o n d i t i o n s o f s e n s o r y
s h i e l d i n g. N a t u r e , 1 9 7 4 , 252, 602-607.
T a r g , R., & P u t h o f f , H. Mind Reach. New York: D e l a c o r t e , 1977. T a r t , C., P u t h o f f , H. , & T a r g , R. Mind a t L a r g e : I n s t i t u t e o f E l e c t r i c a l a n d E l e c t r o n i c E n g i n e e r s Symposi.a o n E x t r a s e n s o r y P e r c e p t i o n. New York: P r a e g e r , 1979.
T a r t , C., P u t h o f f , H., & T a r g , R. (^) I n f o r m a t i o n t r a n s m i s s i o n i n r e m o t e v i e w i n g
e x p e r i m e n t s. N a t u r e , 1 9 8 0 , 284, NO. 5 7 5 9 '191.
Table 1 T r a n s c r i p t * Text Phrases P o s s i b l y Relevant a s Cues (^) C o n c l u s i o n s A Q: How do you f e e l about t h i s t a r g e t... v s. t h e o t h e r Not f < r s t o r second t a r g e t t a r g e t s.. .Q: Even more tha.1 y e s t e r d a y ' s two t a r g e t s? B The o n l y t i m e I ' v e been over t h e r e was t h a t day we went over t o t h e Tower... C... t h e i r second p l a c e of t h i s day...
Not Hoover Tower, not f i r s t t a r g e t Not f i r s t t a r g e t D They d o n ' t f e e l a s f a r away... h a l f t h e d i s t a n c e t h e y were t o t h e Marina... Not f i r s t t a r g e t and n o t Marina E No cues
F No cues
G No cues H... where you went y e s t e r d a y o u t on t h e n a t u r e walk... Not n a t u r e walk (Baylands), Nothing l i k e having t h r e e s u c c e s s e s behind you... o t h e r a t l e a s t t h e f o u r t h o r g r e a t e r than what you can p h y s i c a l l y s e e from t h e road, a t t h e t a r g e t , not t h e r a d i o t e l e s c o p e , r a d a r tower... Maybe a n o t h e r t h i n g l i k e t h e o b s e r v a t o r y I... i n an a c c e p t a b l e manner t h i s t i m e... t h e y d o n ' t Not f i r s t t a r g e t , probably not look l i k e S t a n f o r d l i b r a r y Hooverf i r s t t a r g e t )Tower (Stanford campus,
*Note: T r a n s c r i p t i d e n t i f i e r s A through I were randomly a s s i g n e d and do not correspond t o.^. o r d e r of t a r g e t u s e.
The N e g l e c t e d S e n d e r : P r e l i m i n a r y I n d i c a t i o n t h a t M u l t i p l e S e n d e r s May Enhance P s i Performance C h a r l e s T. T a r t , U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , D a v i s , and S t a n f o r d R e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e and P a u l Chambers and Melody Creel, U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , Davis
When "mental t e l e p a t h y " was a dominant model f o r p s i , t h e r o l e o f t h e s e n d e r o r a g e n t seemed i n t u i t i v e l y o b v i o u s : someone needed t o g e n e r a t e a s t r o n g p s i s i g n a l and "send" i t , a s w e l l a s t h e r e c e i v e r b e i n g " r e c e p t i v e , " i f s u c c e s s was t o be l i k e l y. When Rhine and h i s a s s o c i a t e s a t - D u k e Univer- s i t y found t h a t c l a i r v o y a n c e e x p e r i m e n t s , w i t h no r e a l - t i m e " s e n d e r t t p r e s e n t , f r e q u e n t l y seemed t o work a b o u t a s w e l l a s t e l e p a t h y o r GESP e x p e r i m e n t s , t h e r o l e o f t h e s e n d e r seemed l e s s i m p o r t a n t , i f i n d e e d he r e a l l y m a t t e r e d a t a l l. I n p a r a p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h t o d a y , t h e s e n d e r r e c e i v e s l i t t l e , i f a n y , a t t e n t i o n. Is t h e s e n d e r r e a l l y u n i m p o r t a n t , o r has he become
. (^) u n f o r t u n a t e l y n e g l e c t e d f o r e x t r a n e o u s r e a s o n s? Can a "good" s e n d e r make p s i f u n c t i o n more e f f e c t i v e l y? S e v e r a l y e a r s ago my c o l l e a g u e s and I began r e s e a r c h on f e e d b a c k t r a i n - i n g o f p s i c a p a c i t y , u s i n g v a r i o u s t r a i n k n g d e v i c e s t h a t p r o v i d e d immediate f e e d b a c k of c o r r e c t n e s s o r i n c o r r e c t n e s s t o t h e p e r c i p i e n t ( T a r t , 1966; 1976; 1977; T a r t , Palmer, & R e d i n g t o n , 1979). We n o t i c e d t h a t many p e r c i - p i e n t s t r e a t e d t h e p s i t a s k n o t s i m p l y a s one o f coming up w i t h t h e number o f t h e c u r r e n t t a r g e t , b u t a s a s p a t i a l t a s k , l o o k i n g f o r some k i n d o f I t (^) f e e l i n g " a s t h e y r a n t h e i r hand o v e r t h e c i r c u l a r s p a t i a l a r r a n g e m e n t o f t h e t a r g e t r e s p o n s e b u t t o n s. A c l o s e d c i r c u i t TV s e t u p a l l o w e d t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r /
T a r t - s e n d e r t o f o l l o w t h e p e r c i p i e n t ' s hand movements, s o t h a t he could t r y not o n l y t o send t h e number of t h e c o r r e c t t a r g e t b u t a l s o s i m p l e r messages l i k e "Now!" o r "Push it! " when t h e p e r c i p i e n t ' s hand was over t h e c o r r e c t t a r g e t. Various informal o b s e r v a t i o n s by myself and most o t h e r experimen- t e r s d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of s e v e r a l experiments ( T a r t , 1976; T a r t , Palmer, & Redington, 1979),as w e l l a s p i l o t s t u d i e s and demonstrations t o v i s i t o r s , l e d us t o become s u b j e c t i v e l y convinced t h a t our r o l e a s s e n d e r s was q u i t e important a t t i m e s. Obvious h e s i t a t i o n over a c o r r e c t response' b u t t o n i n time w i t h our sending a c t i v i t y , a p e r c i p i e n t ' s hand going back t o t h e tor- r e c t b u t t o n a f t e r p a s s i n g i t 'as w e^ & fsnt;^ 0 , l t t "Go back!", and t h e l i k e were sub- j e c t i v e l y impressive. P a r t i c u l a r l y impressive t o m e were a number of occa- s i o n s when I was demonstrating t h e experimental s e t u p t o s m a l l groups of v i s i t o r s , o f t e n g e t t i n g e x c e l l e n t r e s u l t s w i t h u n s e l e c t e d p e r c i p i e n t s ; t h e presence of a group of s e n d e r s seemed more e f f e c t i v e than a s i n g l e sender. I n o r d e r t o c a r r y o u t a p r e l i m i n a r y test of whether a group o f s e n d e r s was more e f f e c t i v e t h a n a s i n g l e experimenter/sender, a p i l o t s t u d y was c a r r i e d o u t , and t h e encouraging i n i t i a l r e s u l t s a r e r e p o r t e d herein. Met hod : Basic d a t a was c o l l e c t e d on t h e AppleIADEPT (AIADEPT) ESP t e s t i n g and feedback t r a i n i n g device. B r i e f l y , t h i s c o n s i s t s of a c i r c l e of t e n u n l i t lamps, numbered one t o t e n , w i t h a push b u t t o n b e s i d e each. The p e r c i p i e n t , M.C., i n d i c a t e d h e r c a l l by pushing t h e push b u t t o n b e s i d e t h e t a r g e t she thought had been s e l e c t e d on e a c h t r i a l. The c o r r e c t t a r g e t lamp then came on f o r 'immediate feedback. A c l o s e d - c i r c u i t t e l e v i s i o n camera d i s p l a y e d
t h e p e r c i p i e n t ' s hand movements over t h e response c o n s o l e on a TV s c r e e n
mounted b e s i d e t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r / s e n d e r l s console i n a n o t h e r room. This b a s i c experimental arrangement has been diagrammed elsewhere ( T a r t , 1976). For group sending s e s s i o n s , t h e TV s i g n a l was a l s o s e n t t o e i t h e r of two
T a r t -
f a l l d e a l i n g w i t h p s i e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n. While i t would have been d e s i r a b l e t o have a p e r c i p i e n t who had p r e v i o u s l y d e m o n s t r a t e d p s i a b i l i t i e s i n t h i s t y p e o f test, t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s d i d n o t a l l o w t h i s. Thus u s i n g M.C. as a p e r c i p i e n t made t h e p o s s i b l e r o l e o f m u l t i p l e s e n d e r s even more i m p o r t a n t t h a n i f a known, t a l e n t e d p e r c i p i e n t had been used. Four o f t h e planned e i g h t s e s s i o n s were t o i n v o l v e o n l y P.C. as t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r o p e r a t i n g t h e equipment and, s o l e s e n d e r. The o t h e r f o u r were t o i n v o l v e a group ( f i f t e e n o r more) o f s t u d e n t s from C.T.T.'s ongoing c l a s s on A l t e r e d S t a t e s o f Consciousness a c t i n g as a group i n one o r t h e o t h e r of t h e d i s t a n t a u d i t o r i u m s , as w e l l as P.C. c o n t i n u i n g t o a c t as e x p e r i m e n t e r and s e n d e r. These s t u d e n t s were s e l e c t e d b e c a u s e o f t h e i r s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h C.T.T. and e x p r e s s e d e n t h u s i a s m f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a n ESP e x p e r i m e n t. Time c o n s i d e r a t i o n s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t C.T.T. would l e a d t h e group-sending p r o c e s s on two o c c a s i o n s and h i s t e a c h i n g a s s i s t a n t , P a u l Hardy (P.H.) would l e a d them on t h e o t h e r two. E x a c t s i z e of a t t e n d a n c e v a r i e d i n e a c h group s e s s i o n , depending on when' s r u d e t i t s^ c , L^^0 L c o u l d come. It ranged from 1 2 t o 31. The e x p e r i m e n t e r and p e r c i p i e n t , P.C. and M.C., were k e p t i g n o r a n t o f which s e s s i o n s were group and which were s i n g l e s e n d e r. ' The c h o i c e o f which s e s s i o n s were which w a s randomly d e t e r m i n e d.
C o n c e p t u a l l y , w e wished t o make t h e p e r c i p i e n t ' s p s i r e c e i v i n g t a s k as s i m p l e and p r i m i t i v e as p o s s i b l e , viz.., d e t e c t i n g o r r e s p o n d i n g t o s i m p l e e x c i t e m e n t when h e r hand w a s o v e r t h e c o r r e c t t a r g e t , a s compared t o no s i g - n a l a t a l l when herhand w a s n o t o v e r t h e c o r r e c t t a r g e t. For t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r / s e n d e r , P.C., w e shaped h i s e x c i t e m e n t r e s p o n s e by mounting a c i r c u l a r c u t - o u t o v e r t h e TV m o n i t o r s c r e e n such. t h a t t h e p e r c i p i e n t ' s hand w a s v i s i b l e t o him o n l y when i t was o v e r t h e c o r r e c t t a r g e t on e a c h trial. A t t h o s e t i m e s he would t h i n k , "Push it!" o r similar t h o u g h t s. A t^ a l l^ o t h e r^ t i m e s^ he t r i e d t o keep h i s mind calm and q u i e t. He always announced t h e t a r g e t iden- t i t y f o r e a c h t r i a l a t t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h a t t r i a l o v e r a s p e c i a l i n t e r c o m
T a r t - c i r c u i t t h a t went t o whatever d i s t a n t auditorium was being used. The exper- imenterlsender s e n t and made t h e s e announcements i n a l l seven s e s s i o n s , w i t h o u t knowing, of c o u r s e , whether t h e r e was a l s o a group sending a t t h e same time. I n group s e s s i o n s , t h e l e a d e r (C.T.T. o r P.H.) i n s t r u c t e d t h e senders t h a t t h e i d e a was t o have a sudden b u r s t of excitement j u s t a s t h e p e r c i - p i e n t ' s hand moved over t h e c o r r e c t t a r g e t , and, i f h e r hand moved p a s t t h e c o r r e c t t a r g e t , t h e excitement should d i m i n i s h a t once. To accomplish t h i s , t h e l e a d e r i n s t r u c t e d t h e sending group t o keep t h e i r e y e s c l o s e d and t h e i r minds as calm and blank a s p o s s i b l e. When he announced, "Open," they were L
t o open t h e i r eyes and look a t t h e TV s c r e e n s. The l e a d e r announced "open"
j u s t b e f o r e t h e p e r c i p i e n t ' s hand seemed about t o move t o t h e c o r r e c t t a r g e t. A s soon a s t h e hand moved t o t h e c o r r e c t t a r g e t , everyone began t h i n k i n g and s h o u t i n g "Push it!" o r s i m i l a r words. A s soon a s t h e hand moved p a s t t h e c o r r e c t t a r g e t , t h e group immediately stopped s h o u t i n g , c l o s e d t h e i r e y e s , and calmed t h e i r minds a s much as p o s s i b l e. Excitement r a n v e r y high a t t h e moments of sending! P u t t i n g t h e sending group i n a d i s t a n t b u i l d i n g was, of c o u r s e , a b s o l u t e l y n e c e s s a r y t o be s u r e t h a t t h e i r s h o u t i n g could n o t c o n s t i t u t e a s e n s o r y cue t o t h e p e r c i p i e n t. A s t h e random s c h e d u l i n g turned o u t , C.T.T. l e d t h e f i r s t and t h i r d sending groups, P.H. t h e second and f o u r t h. C.T.T. was t h e c l a s s i n s t r u c t o r and so,much b e t t e r known t o t h e s t u d e n t s e n d e r s , and C.T.T. i s a known p s i - f a v o r a b l e experimenter, w h i l e P.H., h i s t e a c h i n g a s s i s t a n t , has no p a r t i - c u l a r i n t e r e s t i n p s i : t h u s i t seemed r e a s o n a b l e t o look a t C.T.T.'s and P.H.'s group sending d a t a s e p a r a t e l y. Time c o n s t r a i n t s on running t h e experiment f o r c e d us t o settle f o r a t o t a l of e i g h t planned (and sev.en accomplished) s e s s i o n s , which i s too s m a l l f o r a s e n s i t i v e between-groups a n a l y s i s , b u t could suggest d i f f e r e n c e s i f
T a r t -
p r o b a b i l i t y of .3 of o c c u r r i n g on e a c h trial. Examination o f t h e wider t a r g e t s c o r e s shows ( l a s t column o f Table 1) t h a t t h e group-sending l e d by C.T.T. was a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t h e - w i d e r t a r g e t s c o r i n g , w h i l e n e i t h e r o f t h e two o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s were. One of t h e group sending s e s s i o n s l e d by C.T.T. was a l s o remarkable i n having an a p p a r e n t l y s u s t a i n e d period of p s i f u n c t i o n i n g , c o n s i s t i n g o f a h i t , followed by a m i s s , followed by t h r e e h i t s i n a row, followed by a near h i t (-1 s p a t i a l displacement). We should a l s o n o t e t h a t t h e group sending s e s s i o n s l e d by C.T.T. a t t r a c t e d twice as many.student s e n d e r s a s t h o s e l e d by P.H., and b o t h of C.T.T.'s s e s s i o n s were i n mid (3 P.M.) a f t e r n o o n a s compared-to t h e morning (9 A.M.) s e s s i o n s o f P.H. Such p o s s i b l e confounding f a c t o r s should be taken i n t o account i n f u t u r e r e s e a r c h. The h i g h e r a t t e n d a n c e a t C.T.T.'s s e s s i o n s might have been due t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n s t u d e n t enthus- i a s m , t i m e of day e f f e c t s , o r problems i n scheduling. Discussion: T h i s b r i e f p i l o t experiment s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e n e g l e c t of t h e sender, cormnon i n modern p s i r e s e a r c h , should be i n v e s t i g a t e d. Perhaps m u l t i p l e s e n d e r s , who can c o o r d i n a t e a simple b u r s t o f s t r o n g emotion i n a t i g h t t i m e s l o t , c r e a t e s a p s i s i g n a l t h a t i s e a s i e r f o r a p e r c i p i e n t t o respond to. A s i m i l a r e f f e c t might hold f o r m u l t i p l e a g e n t s i n PK.
T a r t - R e f e r e n c e s Redington,D., & T a r t , C. ADEPT: A s t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t ESP t r a i n i n g machine. I n J.Morris,W.Roll, & ReMorris (Eds.), R e s e a r c h in Parapsychology
- 1975,^ Metuchen,^ N.J.:^ Scarecrow P r e s s ,^ 1976,^ Pp.^ 18-20. T a r t , C. Card g u e s s i n g tests: L e a r n i n g paradigm o r e x t i n c t i o n paradigm? J o u r n a l American S o c i e t y P s y c h i c a l R e s e a r c h , 1966, 69, 46-55. T a r t , C.. L e a r n i n g t o Use E x t r a s e n s o r y P e r c e p t i o n. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y o f. Chicago P r e s s , 1976. T a r t , C. Toward c o n s c i o u s c o n t r o l o f p s i t h r o u g h immediate f e e d b a c k t r a i n i n g : Some c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f i n t e r n a l p r o c e s s e s. J o u r n a l American S o c i e t y P s y c h i c a l R e s e a r c h , 1977, - 71, 375-408. Tart,C., Palmer,J., & Redington,D. E f f e c t s o f immediate f e e d b a c k on ESP performance: A second s t u d y. J o u r n a l American S o c i e t y P s y c h i c a l
R e s e a r c h , 1979, 73, 151-165.
