Who Makes a Good Remote Viewer?
One of the greatest problems faced by any of us who wants to use or study the art of remote viewing, is finding the remote viewers. A considerable amount of information has appeared over the Internet, in advertisements, books, magazine articles, and other media that describes this process. Much of this describes how to identify who would make good remote viewers or what skills might be necessary in order to learn remote viewing. Advice ranges from "anyone can learn it" to "only those with a great deal of psychic talent are able to learn." While there is actually a bit of truth in just about everything you read, the context in which the statement is made actually determines its accuracy.
Back when the United States Army decided to find, train, and use remote viewers for Project STARGATE, no one knew what this meant. There were no books or articles that clearly outlined a method for finding someone who might be psychic, nor did any known method for training someone in remote viewing exist. The people attempting to organize and establish the project decided to let common sense drive them where they had to go. The first place they looked, of course, was SRI-International, where remote viewing had already been studied for nearly five years, and comments relative to training and gifted versus non-gifted subjects could be found.
What SRI-International Knew Back Then
Back in early 1978 there wasn't much known about the "common traits" that might be found in the typical psychic. Depending on whom you talked with, you might get any one of a number of answers, nearly all subjective.
Nevertheless, some comments relative to the subject can be found in one of the original publications relating to remote viewing: A Perceptual Channel for Information Transfer over Kilometer Distances: Historical Perspective and Recent Research. Harold E. Puthoff and Russell Targ, Member and Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., (IEEE) Annals No. 603PR004, 1976.
In the first few pages of their report, Hal and Russell state:
"The development at SRI of a successful experimental procedure to elicit this capability has evolved to the point where persons such as visiting government scientists and contract monitors, with no previous exposure to such concepts, have learned to perform well; and subjects who have trained over a one-year period have performed excellently under a variety of experimental conditions. Our accumulated data thus indicate that both specially selected and unselected persons can be assisted in developing remote perceptual abilities up to a level of useful information transfer."
Lest anyone immediately jump to a string of erroneous conclusions, there are a number of assumptions that the reader should not automatically make based on these statements. These are:
"Perform well," as it was used here, does not imply world-class remote viewing, such as the kinds of examples that are held up for the media as examples of current remote viewing state-of-the-art. What they actually mean here is the ability to display psychic functioning under controlled conditions (or achieving a better than chance result).
Also, "subjects who have trained over a one-year period" did not automatically mean that they were taught some deeper secret or psychic ability no one else possessed. It simply meant, at the time, more exposure—or practice.
Of course, almost anyone who is allowed to practice something for a substantial period of time will show some improvement, if for no other reason than familiarity with the process.
Even though initially everyone understood that almost anyone walking in the door could display some degree of talent, what is not said within the document is that most of the people Hal and Russell worked with were the ones who:
A: Displayed some degree of talent from the outset.
B: Voluntarily chose to continue involvement out of a strong personal interest in the subject (which is obviously a form of self-selection).
We can learn from this that by pursuing experimental-data collection with the use of self-selected subjects, or subjects chosen because they initially tested as gifted, we would be emulating some of the more productive research methods used by others within the paranormal field.
What therefore becomes important is Hal and Russell's observations relevant to the common traits they found in the subjects they chose to work with, even though these may have been subjectively deduced at the time.
Going back and reading this publication with the intent of discovering some of these observations, one can find some very interesting tidbits.
Subject Traits
1: Subjects should have ability to process information within a high stimulation environment (e.g., a gansfeld setting).
A gansfeld setting is a procedure where the subjects would relax while viewing a uniform source of illumination through halved ping-pong balls taped over their open eyes, while at the same time listening to relatively loud uniform auditory stimulation (white noise background sounds).
2: Subjects should be self-selected.
3: Subjects should be able to learn through example.
4: Subjects should be open to the probability of paranormal information transfer.
5: Subjects should be able to deal with public scrutiny, the negative reactions of society, and ridicule as well as failure.
6: Subjects should have an artistic talent capable of expressing their perceptions, e.g., drawing, sketching, etc. (We now know that "artistic talent" can mean anything, including painting a high quality picture verbally.)
7: Subjects should be capable of providing imaginative (out of the box) solutions to problems.
8: Subjects should demonstrate right brain specialization characteristics, such as a flair for musical rhythm and melody, or a higher creative sense for shape, form, and texture.
9: Subjects should have a preference for reporting non-analytic data over a need for producing function or naming the target.
Additional Information
An additional document which was available and known to have been used by Army STARGATE founders to identify possible remote viewing subjects was a paper published in the Journal of Communications titled Psi Conducive States, by William G. Braud, pp. 142-152 (1975). At the time, William Braud was an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Houston, Texas.
According to his findings from research into different areas of study, including altered states of consciousness, cognitive psychology, hemispheric studies, Eastern and esoteric philosophies, mystical tradition, and parapsychology, he suggested that what he called a "psi-conducive syndrome" did indeed exist, and that it "has seven major characteristics. Some of these characteristics (or `syndromes') are physiological, some are psychological, and others are phenomenological."
While these depict specific psi-conducive states and not specific remote viewer characteristics, they do indirectly provide us with things we should be paying attention to or that might be necessary in a remote viewer. These are:
a: Subjects should be physically relaxed. [Which means capable of controlling their stress.]
b: There is a reduction in physical arousal or activation. [Subjects should be able to slow their body responses and quiet their physiology.]
c: There is a reduction in sensory input and processing. [Subject should be able to eliminate outside distractions, or meditate.]
NOTE: This may appear to contradict the highly stimulated environment referenced two paragraphs before (paragraph a.), but actually it doesn't. What Braud is talking about deals specifically with external distractions or stimuli that might capture or otherwise occupy the subject's attention; whereas the Gansfeld model is a procedure that effectively reduces sensory-perceptual, somatic, and cognitive "noise" interfering with the weaker psi-signals, thus encouraging psi performance.
a: Subjects should have an increased awareness of internal processes, feelings and images (including dreams and fantasy). [In other words, be able to at least control what they do with the information, reduce their assumptions, and try to separate imagination from reality.]
b: Psi functioning should decrease with "action mode/left hemispheric functioning" and increase with "receptive mode/right hemispheric functioning." [Subjects must be able to center themselves receptively.]
c: Subjects should have an altered view of the nature of the world. [Time is an illusion, there is a unity and relationship between all things, good and evil are human concepts—which suggests at least a suspension of judgment and interpretation.]
d: The act of psychic functioning must be (at least) momentarily important. [The subject needs to have a strong motivation to achieve an outcome. This would imply an empathic bond with someone who has a need for the information.]
The Military Input
To the above criteria, one would of course add common sense. Finding a psychic within a military structure is actually pretty easy. You look for someone who has repeatedly and consistently survived the impossible.
It is sort of like looking for that gas station that's never been robbed. In a computer run of gas stations, it will stand out like a white crow.
The military people tasked with finding psychics added their own list of possible indicators that would show up against a common military background. Some of these were:
1: Consistently successful whatever the task.
2: Liked by peers but considered different from the norm.
3: Generally operates outside normal boundaries.
4: Willing to pursue new avenues of approach.
5: Open to whatever works.
6: Capable of critical thought and unafraid to voice an opinion.
7: Highly and uniquely creative.
These were the general guidelines that were used to hunt down the original psychics used in the STARGATE program. Of course not all the above parameters were found in all the subjects, and not all the above parameters turned out to be completely accurate in terms of selection criteria. There were problems.
What I Now Believe Is True
I now know that when it comes to measuring specific traits or characteristics in human beings, there are no absolutes. Different characteristics and different combinations of characteristics when found in different people will mean different things, and almost always produce a different result. While some of these combinations might change the desirability of one person over another as a possible psychic or remote viewer, desirability really doesn't matter, nor does it equate to a display of skill.
Even so, some traits or characteristics are just too important to ignore. So, I will share what I believe is true about the aforementioned traits and characteristics and why this may be so. Understand that since this is based on personal observation it is highly subjective and should not be assumed as the final word in this regard.
Ability to Process Information within a High Stimulation Environment
This appears to be necessary for two reasons: because of how psychic information is probably being received, as well as what we automatically try to do with our processing.
Think of the canvas of the mind as being a forest. It's filled with trees—a lot of trees. Since the mind is so fertile, we can't stop the darn things from growing. These trees represent all of the mental processing distractions that could be taking place. Some of these trees are swaying one way (left to right) because we are thinking about them; the rest, or ones we are not thinking about, are swaying in an opposite direction (right to left.) Well, the psychic or remote viewing information we receive (since we aren't really thinking about it) gets lost in the right to left swaying trees. At the same time, we are also being distracted by a continual attempt at re-focusing on the trees swaying left to right. In order to recognize the arrival of remote viewing information, we need to do something that will cause all the other trees, or information that isn't remote viewing information, to sway opposite. There are two ways of doing this.
We can submerge ourselves in a background of generic stimulation or noise. This would be stimulation that has no meaning so all those trees sway in one direction. Or, we can do something with our consciousness that will fool it into thinking all the trees are going in one direction, usually by occupying the mind with something trivial, so it is occupied, but not so occupied that it won't recognize the incoming or psychic information.
This is kind of like looking for movement against the forest with our eyes. If you look directly at the forest you probably won't see the new tree when it suddenly pops into view. But, if you look with your peripheral vision, you probably will.
So, subjects who can teach themselves to operate automatically, while consciously being occupied with something trivial, will usually fare better at describing psychic trees.
The second important part to understanding how this works deals with processing. Once the psychic tree has been noticed, you should draw it exactly as it has been seen. No analysis is required. In other words, if you start thinking about it and/or logically analyzing it, then it will quickly turn into something other than what it arrived as.
Another way of saying this would be to say someone has suddenly stopped noticing all the background trees swaying in one direction, which almost automatically diffuses the outline of the psychic tree which then rapidly begins to change.
Think of it as a dual processing methodology, where you are trying to recognize things showing up on both sides of a fence simultaneously. As soon as you attempt to do more than that, you not only lose sight of both sides of the fence, you find you have already forgotten what information you'd gotten up to that point.
I know this sounds like an almost impossible task to accomplish, but there are numerous examples of our doing this in our everyday lives. Driving a car and listening to a radio news broadcast; cutting grass on a mower while thinking about something you are going to do later; talking with a friend while you are cooking dinner, are all good examples, as is walking point in combat. One minute you are totally focused on a trail, and the next you are suddenly in a crouch with a full flight of butterflies in your stomach. Why? You just know.
Subjects Are Self-Selected
This has absolutely no impact on someone's ability to display remote viewing talent or capability. However, it can be monumentally important when determining the psychological stability of a possible subject for training or for other reasons. I will go much deeper into this later in this chapter.
Subjects Should Be Able to Learn through Example
This sounds like no big deal, but it can be. There are a lot of people who are already deeply involved in the paranormal field. Most of these people have never seen a real remote viewing protocol. (I'm not talking about methodology here—but protocol.)
One of the keys to successful remote viewing is emulating a good practice—following protocol. If you think you can walk in the door and do it "your own way" and do a lot better, good luck.
Someone unable to set aside his or her belief structure as to how remote viewing information gathering might operate is probably in for Mr. Toad's wild ride, but they definitely won't be learning much about remote viewing.
Subjects Should Be Open to the Probability of Paranormal Information Transfer
If you close your mind to the possibility, then no matter how hard you try, you probably won't succeed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that someone who refuses to believe a bike can be ridden is highly unlikely to ride a bike.
This should not be confused with someone who might not think remote viewing is real, but is open to the possibility. I know dozens of avowed and honest skeptics who stated up front their disbelief. Entering the experimental process with an open mind quickly changed their viewpoint.
I have seen closed minds convinced, but not very often. Usually claiming to be completely closed to the idea, they themselves have demonstrated psi-missing. (That's violating chance in the opposite direction. Something akin to having told someone that they are psychic if they can call heads on a flipped coin 90 out of a 100 times—and trying so hard not to, they flip the tails side up 85 out of a 100 instead.)
Subjects Should Be Able to Deal with Public Scrutiny, Negative Reactions of Society, and Ridicule, as Well as Failure
This probably doesn't matter in terms of displaying talent as a remote viewer, at least initially. However, over time, it will wear a remote viewer down, especially the dealing with failure part.
Most people can deal with quite a lot of abuse if they are doing something they like to do. But, one element feeds on another. If you are not well supported by your little section of humanity or your social infrastructure, you will see it reflected in your failure rate. It doesn't take long before expectancy for failure begins to run you life. It also in turn feeds the social rejection syndrome. So these issues are inter-supportive of one another and over time can prove to be devastating. Kind of like being under a slow acid drip.
One needs either to have a thick skin when entering the process or be able to develop one along the way.
Society and culture might be unfair on the subject of remote viewing, but such scrutiny actually performs a function. As a remote viewer, if you can weather the broadsides from outside the system you will find you can weather just about anything. It performs much the same function as in the tempering of steel with fire and water. What comes out the other end is flexible and has an ability to deal with a lot of punishment while getting a job done.
Subjects Should Have an Artistic Talent
This was, in part, born out of a belief that the best way to display remote viewing information is through drawing.
Initially remote viewing centered around an ability to sketch or draw well. There was comment in the IEEE report that suggested that people who could draw were better remote viewers (". . . .drawings they make are in general more accurate than their verbal description." p. 337).
We now know that this isn't true in the way it was implied. However, artistic ability does seem important for other reasons. It's obvious that the more able you are to relate information in a number of different media, the better you will communicate that information.
At the beginning of the project, all of the methods for evaluating or judging the material were tuned to drawings.
Drawings spoke louder than words. If you were looking at the Grand Canyon and held a drawing of canyons up next to it, it had a great deal more impact on the judges or skeptics, than if you simply said "very large hole in ground."
Nowadays there are many valuable ways of communicating information received through remote viewing. Aside from drawing, one of the most valuable is modeling the target in clay, or building it from scratch. A 3-D display of a target element really talks. However, verbal descriptions can be of immense value too, if one takes the time to study and understand how they are used by a specific remote viewer. One viewer may mean nothing with the statement "awesome burst of light," because they use it for almost anything. But, another viewer might only use that phrase when confronted with a coherent light beam (laser). This is why long-term relationships between specific viewers and specific Analysts become almost as important as any other part of the viewing process. I can almost guarantee doubling the accuracy of a viewer when such a relationship between a viewer and Analyst exists.
The key to degree of artistic talent required really falls on the term "consistency" more than any other thing. Someone who draws stick figures for people may not provide the detail someone else provides; but if they are consistently correct when they imply people present at the target, then the stick figures attain a much greater degree of importance. Someone may draw a human very close to scale and display human form nearly perfectly, but if they can't place the person correctly in the perceived room, it's of no value.
Subjects Should Be Capable of Providing Imaginative (Out of the Box) Solutions to Problems
This could be desirable for reducing remote viewing training time, but it isn't necessary. The very art of remote viewing if taught and learned properly produces this kind of a person.
Subjects Should Demonstrate Right Brain Specialization Characteristics
Back in the bad old days, this made sense. It no longer does, in my opinion—except perhaps allegorically. We now know that where something takes place in the brain probably isn't as important as the modality of thinking being used by the person.
A better way of wording this would be to say that someone who wants to be a remote viewer should have balance—should always fall somewhere in the middle. (I know you are scratching your head now. "Fall in the middle? What does he mean by that?")
It means, a remote viewer is totally open to any possibility—female or male, night or day, open or closed, inside or outside, up or down, etc. If you can't presume to be on either end of a stick, then you must always be in the middle.
This also ties directly to belief. If you have to always be in the middle in order to sit at an optimum starting point for psychic perception, then you can't believe anything that will put you on one end or the other. Remote viewers have to be so "neutral" that they flow like water wherever they have to flow in order to seek ground truth. Adding a single thought or desire as to where that should be, or how it might be, will automatically put them somewhere else.
Not too much right-brain, not too much left-brain, but right in the middle.
Subjects Need to Be Relaxed
Obviously this requires the ability to become mentally relaxed. However, this is something that can be learned.
I am a triple A-type personality, but when I want to be, I can look and act like grass growing. It is not an easy thing to manage, especially when you've just walked in the door after three hours of fighting traffic, or you just left the monthly planning conference. But, one can learn.
Almost any form of meditation works in this regard. If you can learn to meditate, you may learn to be a good remote viewer. If you can't, learn to race cars or play racquetball to your heart's content, but don't waste your time on remote viewing.
Subjects Should Be Able to Reduce Their Physical Arousal Level
This has to do with focus, or the ability to cut out distractions that might occur while remote viewing. Another way of stating this is: viewers disassociate from what's around them and associate with the actual target site, person, object, or event. They actually mentally cease to be in the room where the distraction might be taking place. Again, it is something that can be learned and doesn't have to come at the outset.
Subjects Should Be Able to Reduce Sensory Input
This simply means shutting out audio or visual interference through an ability to focus. We do this all the time. Anyone with kids (any ages) who can carry on a conversation with their spouse at the dinner table, watch and understand the evening news, or think about a shopping list while driving them to the ball park understands what I'm talking about here.
Again, it's a talent that can be learned and does not have to be present when deciding if you are a remote viewer or not.
Subjects Should Have an Increased Awareness of Internal Processes, Feelings, and Images
If you do not currently have a general understanding for why you are depressed, angry, frustrated, anxious, bored, or in any other mental state, then you probably are going to have a very tough time with remote viewing.
One of the major keys to being a remote viewer is being able to look inside and study how and why you process or think the way you do. You need to be a clear and critical thinker, or you will face problems that may be insurmountable. Remote viewing requires being able to at least learn to control some of your most intimate mental and emotional processing functions.
PSI Functioning Should Decrease With "Action Mode/ Left Hemispheric Functioning" and Increase with "Receptive Mode/Right Hemispheric Functioning"
This was largely addressed already, but I would add once again, that I would separate action modes and receptive modes of thinking from the concept of right and left hemispheric functioning. I think they are two separate issues and do not operate as closely in unison as some believe.
Certainly, facilitating being in a receptive mode versus an action mode will go a long way to allowing remote viewing to operate. Most people can learn this through practice and it is not necessarily a characteristic that needs to exist from the outset.
Subjects Should Have an Altered View of the Nature of the World
Absolutely! This is definitely a requirement I would put at the head of the list. I am sure that time and space in their entirety are illusions, and these very illusions are why all things are related. There is no good or evil involved in remote viewing. There may be yin and yang, constructive and destructive energies, but good or bad exist only within the mind.
Now please note that I did not say that good and evil do not exist for me. They do. But I am saying that you cannot carry these concepts into remote viewing with you. By doing so, you build walls, construct tunnels, and essentially attempt to steer yourself to the information, instead of letting it just fall into your mind's hands. I could fill a medium-sized book with just my own arguments regarding good and evil. At the moment you will have to take my word for it.
It is absolutely essential that remote viewers suspend judgment and interpretation of the materials and information they might be receiving. Otherwise, everything you perceive will be tainted with the color of your desire, or shaded by the darkened glass of personal prejudice.
I know, I know. Some of you out there honestly believe you don't have a prejudiced bone in your body. Well, have I got news for you! Eliminating the last vestige of your personal prejudice is probably more difficult than performing open-heart surgery on yourself. And I can tell you I would not like to have to do that.
The best anyone can do is to temporarily set prejudice aside. And speaking from experience, that takes years of practice. Think of personal prejudice as how we like things to be. As an example; I am comfortable with the idea that grass is green. However, when I go into a remote viewing, I am comfortable with the idea that grass may not be real; I have to be. I think you get my drift.
If you are unable to set your personal wants, desires, likes, dislikes, etc., aside, then you are highly unlikely to make a good remote viewer.
The Act of Psychic Functioning Must Be (at Least) Momentarily Important
This is critically important to the success of any remote viewing. However, having said that, I must add that it is not really my problem as a remote viewer.
Take note, all you scientists, researchers, and applications-oriented people out there; it's up to you to keep me interested, make sure the results are important to me, and not the other way around. You can do this a number of ways:
1: The types of targets used and their contents.
2: The reasons you give me for doing the remote viewing.
–It's importance from a social, historical, cultural, or survival viewpoint, or
–You pay sufficiently to buy my interest in the inevitable outcome, or
–Ensure that success provides some other form of reward that is intrinsic to the effort (finding a lost child, kidnap victim, or similar sort of thing).
There are probably more exotic ways, but I dare not put them into this book.
The idea here is that the remote viewer must share in or enjoy the value and reward that comes with success.
Must Be Consistently Successful at Whatever Task
There are myriad ways to measure success. How people value themselves is of key importance. If they consider themselves to be successful, to be valuable, then it doesn't matter how society or culture might measure success. Such people, secure in their own perceptions, will be better able to deal with the kinds of treatment they are bound to receive from the outside world. This is especially true about remote viewers. So, it's how they feel inside and their comfort level with themselves that counts.
Liked by Peers but Considered Different from the Norm
This characteristic works when you have a baseline of comparison. In the military, where you have a large percentage of conformists, this characteristic might have just a tad bit more value. It can also be valuable in a corporate world where you have people who buck the system but still seem to enjoy a large degree of success. However, for the average person this will probably have no meaning, as they are not trying to keep up with the Joneses, and really are kind of mellow about the whole thing, or whatever might be going on. These are people who are not satisfied with doing the job the way they were taught to do it. They seek out new ways to get the job done and actually do it better.
Generally Operates outside Normal Boundaries
Again, as in the above paragraph, this would be important, but only in comparison with an overall baseline. One should look for a person who consistently demonstrates an ability to find solutions to problems that are not within the norm, or might never have been tried before. Or, maybe a demonstration of actions that are totally unexpected but successful anyway.
Willingness to Pursue New Avenues of Approach
This is important from the standpoint of being open. If people decide up front that there are only very delineated or structured approaches to problems, then they are not open enough to enjoy remote viewing success. This ties in to the premise that deals with personal prejudices.
Open to Whatever Works
In the land of remote viewing, anything is possible. It is usually the surprising information that proves to be correct. The more open someone is to any possibility and the least wedded they are to a fixed reality, the more likelihood of success.
Highly and Uniquely Creative
I've deliberately addressed this characteristic out of order, since I want to really emphasize the last characteristic in this chapter. However, this one is just as important.
Someone who is very creative is already half way toward being a good remote viewer. Creative individuals have an instinct that they cherish above all other skills. This is the same instinct that inherently drives a remote viewer to the right answer. The right answer more times than not is going to be unique.
But this is also a chicken and egg problem. Which comes first—the good remote viewer or the creative problem solver? There really is no answer. And it really doesn't matter. I believe wherever you find a very creative and successful person, you will also find good material for remote viewing. They are already practicing what they need to learn.
Of course, if someone is able to learn how to be creative while at the same time learning remote viewing, then s/he clearly wins both ways.
Capable of Critical Thought and Unafraid to Voice an Opinion
Believe it or not, this is probably one of the most important qualifications. It's important because this is an active display of a person's individuality and internalized strength. By retaining their critical thought in all ways, they are by nature taking the "middle ground" on most issues. Remember how important I said that was?
Aside from the Above, Who Should
Not Be a Remote Viewer?
There are two kinds of people who generally make terrible remote viewers: ones who under no condition will believe in it, and those who totally buy into it; no questions asked.
We even have a saying that's passed around the lab. "The worst possible participants are the believers." This means people who have become involved in remote viewing who have replaced their critical thinking ability with unquestioned belief.
Historically more damage has been done to remote viewing applications, research, and development by those who have bought it "no questions asked" than by all deliberate assaults on it from outside antagonists.
Critical thinking is essential to ensuring that both applications and research are polished and perfected beyond reproach. Critical thinking is essential to appropriately limiting how and when remote viewing might be used. And critical thinking is essential to weeding out erroneous beliefs, fraud, or any of the other thousands of things that can bring discredit on the field at large.
All scientists like to think of themselves as critical thinkers, but I will tell you that they are just as likely to lose their critical thinking ability as the next person.
Everyone who participates in remote viewing applications or research has the responsibility to continually challenge the techniques, methods, protocols, testing, evaluations, reporting, and the participants' actions with a critical eye towards improving and perfecting the methods. If we fail in this task, then we might as well all quit and go home now.
Another type of person who should not become involved in remote viewing is someone who is not completely stable. This doesn't necessarily mean crazy, either. A lot of people are quite stable and dependable—when involved in areas of endeavor where they are comfortable.
In the military we have people who function quite comfortably within the confines and constraints of normal military jobs and living. But, when moved into the paranormal arena, they lose their connection with real world boundaries that are necessary for their continued stability. At the outset of the military STARGATE Program, great effort was made to insure that stability. But testing, multiple interviews, and a long term vetting process is very expensive. Later in the program, a decision was made to no longer do this testing in order to reduce costs. Without going into specific personalities, I can say that in more than one case, otherwise stable individuals were stripped of their psychological boundaries, and subjected to areas of inquiry that they should not have been. As a result they became quite unstable, emotionally, mentally, or sometimes both. The field is still struggling with the damage resulting from these individuals' experiences. It is unfortunate for both the field as well as the people who suffered as a result.
As far as I can see there are no controls whatsoever on who becomes involved in remote viewing in the public arena. Individuals are welcomed through the door, enter sometimes unproven training programs, and are otherwise exposed carte-blanche to processes that unhinge them from their stable environs. A few ex-military viewers I know attempt to influence and screen those they feel might be damaged by involvement in remote viewing, but even so, this is not done unless the person wanting to participate is overtly acting out in some fashion that warrants exclusion. And, unfortunately, many who now claim expertise in this field make no attempt at all to screen participants.
About twenty percent of the people who contact me through my office at Intuitive Intelligence Applications are looking for help in regaining their stable pre-exposure attitudes. Since I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist, I am forced to refer them to qualified counselors for help.
I'm not sure how anyone could tell subjectively whether or not s/he will have an adverse reaction through exposure to remote viewing. One way, of course, would be to ask yourself if you have a personal fear regarding the subject. If yes, then it is probably not a good idea to become involved.
Another indication would be an inability to think critically about the subject. If you can't enter with a healthy skepticism, then your boundaries are probably not sufficiently established to protect you from the consequences.
Of course, irrational or absolute belief (as in, “I know this is true!") about things that are not yet proven might be another indication that one's boundaries are not what they should be.
Obvious things like hearing voices, etc., are not really as obvious as they might seem. It usually takes a professional to determine the differences between someone who is probably crazy and someone who is pleasingly eccentric or just plain strange and different. These are all questions that revolve around who should and who should not become involved in remote viewing. Many really don't want to hear this in discussion, as it may come across as elitist, detrimental, controlling, or perhaps even be seen as finger-pointing and judgmental. Nevertheless, it is crucial to the subject at hand. It is the responsibility of those already involved in remote viewing to evaluate a possible participant prior to exposure, not the participant's requirement to suddenly determine their own instability post initiation.
Determining the Probable Skill Level of a Remote Viewer
There is only one way I know of doing this. It's called testing. You demonstrate what remote viewing is and how it works to the individuals and then test them coming in the door. What they display in terms of talent is probably somewhere between fifty and one hundred percent of what they will eventually display after training. Most scientists I know agree with this statement. The ones that don't will usually say something like, "What you see is what you get." In other words, they have no expectancy for improvement of any kind through training.
Obviously I do not believe in the latter statement, or I would not be writing this book. What I have observed over twenty plus years is something like the following: If people are brought into remote viewing and shown encouraging examples of a remote viewer who is successful, and time is spent building confidence in the probability of remote viewing working, then, when tested, they will usually perform well from the outset. Over time, with almost any training system that stresses a methodology that's used within an appropriate protocol, they will attain polish and more confidence in their ability, and there will be some improvement. However, that improvement will usually range from minimal to probably less than fifty percent of what they walked in the door with as innate or natural talent.
So, appropriate subject selection or testing at the fore goes a long way towards identifying those individuals one might consider gifted. Overall, while gifted individuals will usually range around one-half of one percent of any given population, almost anyone (the balance of any given population) can demonstrate fairly consistent results sufficient to show functioning beyond chance. Many may lose their interest over time, as a function of losing sight of its relative importance within their lives.
But as almost anyone can be a black belt in karate, the same holds true for RV'do. All it really takes is a strong desire to succeed, sustained over a fairly long learning curve.