Training and Learning
I don't think it's possible to train someone to be psychic. That's like saying you can train someone to smell better. Few of us pay much attention to what passes through our nostrils, till it's strongly repugnant, or excessively appealing. Otherwise, a smell wafts in and out through our nose and we pretty much don't pay any attention to it.
Combat soldiers pay attention to smell. Ask any combat veteran what the odor of turbine fuel washing out of a helicopter engine, or the smell of blood rotting in the sun, or maybe gun oil, does to them. They learned to differentiate very quickly between the smell of the food they eat and what the enemy eats. I know guys who could step out on a trail under a triple-canopy jungle and tell you how long ago someone had passed, their nationality, whether they were men or women, and healthy or unhealthy, just by the residual body odors clinging to the still air.
Are we ever formally taught to smell? Clearly the answer is no. However, we can learn to pay attention to the differences. That happens through experience. If you don't experience the odor of jet fuel and equate it to something meaningful, then jet fuel is never going to make any difference to you.
People who suddenly discover they are psychic, begin to do this automatically. You help people discover their psychic nature by helping them to have their first psychic experience. If they are open-minded enough, they discover that it is part of their own nature, and they almost automatically begin to listen to their inner voice. They attempt to differentiate between the noise and what might be valid input. Standing outside of someone's head and dictating what is noise and what isn't, is impractical in theory and impossible in action. Like the soldier, someone wanting to capitalize on their psychic abilities in a big way simply needs to practice paying attention. Since no two people pay attention the same way or process information in exactly the same way, probably no one way is best for doing this. In other words, there is no magic method for turning someone into a gifted psychic. If you believe there is, you are already coming out of the starting gate backward.
This means you are more than likely to garner just about the same amount of "learning" from any one training program as from another. Your ability to pay attention and deal with your innermost processing rests totally on your own shoulders. This should be a loud warning about how much you believe about training systems.
Nevertheless I would like to provide some guidelines about what you should be able to expect or not expect from a valid training program, some ideas about what might be going on during any form of training, and the major differences I've noticed between training scenarios and actual applications.
What's Going on During Training
It has long been clear to me that no one learns anything new during any kind of training program. Actually an "unlearning" is taking place, a systematic and detailed destruction of old concepts and automated systems that have been installed since the day we were born. As we pass through life, we pick up beliefs like Velcro, none of which are based on fundamental truth.
We begin our instruction with parents who, while sincerely motivated, instill in us what they believe is true, whether it actually is or not. We are taught by teachers who attempt to pass on knowledge to us, at least as they understand it to be. Whether it is bound within their own idealism and rhetoric, or the fact that they themselves might have been duped or not, isn't material.
Then we have our religious ministers who are, like it or not, bound tightly within closed loops of spiritual perceptions or parochial rules they dare not exceed for fear of eternal condemnation.
And then we have our peer groups, which are almost always consumed with a concern for overall image, reputation, or the outside perceptions of others.
Other mentors, like radio, magazines, television, government, and newspapers produce effects that can have even greater subtlety.
Habits we form rule the way we actually process information. We live in an age that essentially requires us to process ever expanding amounts of information day-to-day, hour-to-hour, and moment-to-moment. We don't have time to give to things the kinds of focus and considered thought that we should. At least, that is the excuse. In reality we do, but most simply have forgotten how.
When we are faced with a problem, we rapidly collect what information we can. As the information begins to come in (some of it psychic, by the way), we rapidly accept what seems to fit and discard what seems not to. Eventually, enough information is processed to provide a needed conclusion. We take action on the conclusion, delete the information that wasn't apparently supportive, and file only the material that supported our action, then move on to the next processing requirement. When you overload a system that operates like this, you quickly learn that it is driven by two things:
1: Rapid information processing (minimizing input).
2: Rapid solution finding (quick conclusions).
As we are inundated with more and more processing requirements, the amount of information we collect to address any specific problem begins to become less and less, and our conclusions start coming quicker and quicker.
Jumping to conclusions without obtaining considerable input in my opinion thwarts the psychic process. Note: I did not say processing. Rapid processing or no processing is actually desired, because it has a tendency to prevent conscious manipulation of the data. Therefore, an appropriate goal would be to expand the amount of information you are letting in, while delaying the necessity for conclusion, but retaining the speed of processing. Which is somewhat the reverse of what is commonly accepted.
Observed Differences Between Men and Women
First I would like to make it abundantly clear that any comments, statements, or rumors you might have heard about any differences in quality, ability, or accuracy between women and men are fabrications. They are simply not true. However, over the years I've observed lots of interesting differences between the two genders. If for nothing else, these differences should be of value to researchers and scientists. Observed differences between men and women while remote viewing are not differences of quality or quantity, but in technique or approach.
During viewing women are more apt to describe the target verbally than through drawing. Men are just the opposite. In fact, sometimes you can get almost perfect drawings of targets from men, but their verbalization will be totally wrong; and vice versa for women. Experience will usually smooth out the degrees of variances somewhat, but this will hold true in many cases. That's why you have to be willing to let women and men do their own thing with regard to methods. Some women will feel a need to "channel" the information. Some men will feel a need to "construct" it. What's more interesting is how people deal with these issues.
If a man is attempting to do a remote viewing of a target and says; "I need clay to model this in," that's cool. He gets clay. If a woman says, "Wait a minute. I need to check with my guides," and opens a channel to her guides, she's almost automatically considered to be a raving loon. Throwing clay on a table—okay. Throwing bones from a jar—not okay.
I read an article once that talked about the differences in white matter and gray matter inside the human skull. Men and women have different amounts of each, one more than the other; but, the article said since men have much larger brain mass than women, they still possess the equivalent of whatever matter the women have the most of. This article, exposing the differences between men and women's capacity to deal with spatial perception, concluded that women would generally have more trouble dealing with spatial problems than men do. I'm not sure I buy that. Sure, men might be able to draw a map more effectively, but what's that got to do with figuring out how to get from point A to B? If these differences were meaningful, then we wouldn't have women piloting high-speed jets, driving racecars, or operating complex remote-machinery. It just means they do it differently. Where we learn to respect and employ the differences in perception or spatial ability, we can actually benefit to a much greater degree.
Another area in which men and women are different is emotionally. Women sometimes seem to be in closer connection to their emotions than men are. This certainly is true in my observations of remote viewers. Women are quicker to point out emotion-generating events within the remote viewing. Men are less inclined to talk about them. This presents a major difference in processing that needs to be addressed up front when dealing with remote viewing information. What is interesting is there is sometimes a belief that reporting on emotions or permitting them during remote viewing is either a sign of weakness or instability. This is wrong! Emotional weakness is not being open about what you are feeling, and thinking that you are being somehow judged because of it. Instability, on the other hand, can be indicated through emotion, but it is not the emotion itself but the person's inability to differentiate between his or her own emotion and that being generated by a target that should be questioned.
For the most part, differences between men and women have to do with internal balance, where they are centered. Imagine this as represented by a balancing scale. Most men have generally more male characteristics than female, and women more female than male. However, it is possible for men and women to be nearly equal in some cases, at least as pertains to characteristics. While there is no data to support it, I believe those who are closest to the center generally make the best remote viewers. This simply means they may be well-equipped to handle psychic input with fewer major internalized processing changes required.
Interestingly, where I have observed a severe unbalance of male and female characteristics or attributes, I've sometimes observed a high degree of instability in remote viewing. Formal testing may one day prove this observation to be correct or itself out-of-balance.
Differences Between Learning and Applications
One thing that most people do not recognize, especially those not familiar with remote viewing, is the difference between learning remote viewing and applying it. In the beginning, there was very little difference; the same protocols applied in applications and in learning. But over time, a lot of the developments in training essentially sidestepped rules of protocol. There aren't many differences but they are critically important, and can determine if you are actually remote viewing or deluding yourself.
First, let me say that if I were teaching someone to remote view, I would be forcing the use of strict and unforgiving protocols at the outset. Please note: I said "protocols" and not "methods." Protocols are the rules you will have to eventually comply with anyway, so there is no easy way to introduce them. You simply start with the minimum acceptable practice from the outset. I chose not to teach remote viewing but others do, so I will share with you some warnings.
Most of the training systems in use today do not recognize the necessity for keeping everyone in proximity to the remote viewing totally blind to the target. The argument usually made is something like, "How can we reinforce a correct response and not encourage an incorrect response, if we don't know what the target is?"
Not following the protocols during training, for any reason, leaves the door wide open to a result which is not necessarily being produced through psychic means. The student may have gotten the information through psychic means, but then again, may have gotten it through any one of a number of other ways.
Remote viewing protocol requires the remote viewer be blind, or have no other form of access to the target they are being asked to provide information on. This means no hints, no front-loading, no bending of the rules. In many, if not most, training programs, someone in the room, whether it is the monitor or not, usually knows what the specific target is. A sensitive person can then do what is called a cold reading: provide information by "reading" the non-verbal feedback they get from the person who knows what is real or not real about the target. A lot of people will tell you this isn't possible unless you are highly trained, and I will tell you that's hogwash.
When you were young, how many times did it seem to you that your parents were psychic and knew what you were going to do even before you did it? When's the last time your boss cut you off before you embarrassed yourself? How many times did you think, "Wow, what a gorgeous babe," only to have her suddenly come on to you?
None of this was psychic functioning, it was reading body language. We all do it. It's one of the reasons movies are so interesting. We aren't just listening to the dialog when we go to the movies; we go to see the visuals, the background. Even the music in the background is helping to deliver the visual message. If you don't believe that, then turn down the volume the next time you are watching a good movie on TV, and see if you lose interest in it. I recently watched an entire American movie in Hungarian on Hungarian National television. I didn't get all the meaning, but I'll bet I understood it enough to comment intelligently on its contents. Of course I don't speak Hungarian.
The point is if you want psychic information, you have to eliminate all other forms or possibilities of information transfer. These are commonly referred to as "paths of leakage" or "leakage paths." True, we could train to increase our other sensitivities and this will be effective in how we deal with problems, and that's nice, but it isn't remote viewing. Calling it that does a clear disservice to both.
So, we need to identify violations of protocols within a training schema and eliminate them. In the case of most training programs extant, that means no one knowing the target while you are attempting to collect information on it.
Another form of leakage deals with information handling and protection. I will be the last one to imply that anyone is cheating. In most cases, people do not cheat—at least consciously. However, in rare cases I have seen people innocently add information after the termination of a remote viewing effort—it was something they forgot to add during the session, or something they remembered they were thinking at the time. (Note: When this happens it should always be noted immediately and the remote viewing abandoned, discarded, and labeled as a blown protocol.)
This kind of reaction almost never happens in applications, but it should. This is especially true when someone is using applications to prove the efficacy of remote viewing to the public. The reason why is simple. It is a violation of protocol.
There are numerous occasions when a remote viewer will add that last little something to the information, as it is being logged or filed. The problem is, this might be after someone has seen it that might know what the target is. Just a raised eyebrow can generate a need to expound on something one way or another. In some cases, this could result in an accusation of fraud, even though it might not have been done intentionally, it's best to discard the information.
The problem is that the care taken in control of the information during training and during applications is usually totally different. During applications, if handled correctly, materials are religiously controlled and properly maintained. No one wants to negate whatever effort has gone into the actual information collection.
In training, this is usually not the case. Controls, if they exist at all, are minimized. This sometimes provides an opportunity for viewers to accidentally see each other's work; they might sometimes see each other's targets, or make comparisons and then talk a great deal about what is going on. There just isn't any guarantee that it isn't happening.
The problem this creates is that if it is done during training, the proper habits and exercises are not the only things being reinforced. The negative ones are being reinforced as well. It is always a lot easier to break protocol, unconsciously or accidentally, when appropriate habits are not being reinforced.
Habits go a long way toward insuring how the materials are being handled, logged, controlled, and filed, or who ultimately has access and why. Some people file training materials with applications materials, which further degrades the relationship between them. Bad habits contribute to the development of leakage paths. The smart person understands that when it comes to remote viewing their practices have got to be sound and beyond reproach from the outset.
Selection of Targets for Training
For obvious reasons, targets are not specifically chosen for applications. But for training or research purposes they can be. A considerable amount is known about how targets affect a remote viewer. For many reasons, great care should go into choosing which kinds of targets are used and in which combinations. Targets used for training (as well as research) should generally comply with the following guidelines.
Early Stages of Training
A: Training targets should stand alone, and be well-defined from their surroundings or other objects or possible targets in their proximity.
It is not a good idea to select buildings, objects, or things that are crowded in with other significant buildings, objects, or things. For example, don't select a single statue in a garden of statues, or a unique structure standing next to another unique structure.
B: Targets should not be too complex.
From an instructional as well as a research viewpoint, targets that are too complex are almost impossible to evaluate. Inevitably, if someone talks a great deal or draws numerous details, some of them will match something on the target. It is very difficult for most new viewers to separate details from major gestalts. It also compounds the evaluation problems of the researcher when trying to determine how to match the results to a stack of decoys (decoys are randomly selected pictures that are used for controls in experiments). It might seem that Niagara Falls would make a great target, but depending on where the outbounder might be standing, or how the targeting is set up, you could get reams of information that will all be pertinent in some way to the target. A better target would be the observation tower on the Canadian side of the falls.
C: Training targets should contain major gestalts.
Major features unique to the specific target should be present. As an example, a water-park with a long slide or a unique archway entry with a repetitive pattern would be desirable. These will produce a significant response in viewers, where items or features that are common to most sites will not. Remember, you are expecting new remote viewers to acclimate to a new system of cognition. This is difficult in the best of conditions. Targets with unique features increase the probability that they will notice them.
D: Limit the list of major gestalts.
This has to do with complexity as well. If there are too many variants within the target pool, the viewer essentially gets lost while trying to identify them. Major gestalts that seem to go a long way in training someone are: land water interfaces, varying degrees of rugged terrain, sparse to heavy influence of structures within the target, the type of terrain; desert, tundra, etc., predominant color, people, and activity. These alone provide for a wealth of possibility while instructing a new remote viewer. As an example, a target photograph could contain a mountain, hills, flat plain, valleys, or ravines. Each brings its own gestalt to the overall response.
Later Stages of Training
Variety is the spice of life. Once viewers begin to understand where the information is coming from (inside the head) it is time to begin to provide them with a greater variety of targets. What I'm talking about here does not require changing the original target pool. As viewers hone their skills, they will begin to provide more details about the content of the target. The increase in variety comes from changing the focus of what you are interested in them producing. In other words, it is no longer a question of producing a major gestalt about the target, you must let them know that you are interested in more details. If they say there is a building, what kind is it? If they describe hills, what about them? What's there, trees, grass, orchards, roads, a farm? They need to know they are expected to more accurately refine their responses beyond the major gestalts.
Only when the viewer has demonstrated that they can do this should any attempt be made to begin targeting things that violate the original a. through d. list above. It's only when they have demonstrated they can tell the differences that they should be burdened with picking a specific structure out of a group of structures.
What the Viewer Sees
It is unfortunate that the term remote viewing was originally selected to define this protocol of information production. It is constantly being misinterpreted to mean actually "seeing" the target. This is further complicated by a few who talk about being out-of-body when they are participating in a remote viewing. Since it's not possible to confirm out-of-body travel versus garden variety psychic functioning, it is impossible to know if someone is actually seeing the target. I can say that this is generally not the case. If someone does actually "see" something, it is almost always a close approximation or a close representation of reality, but not reality itself.
Putting out-of-body events to the side for a moment, if you believe you are actually seeing a target, you may assume that you can take your time in looking it over. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In actuality, when remote viewers open to a target or attempt to collect information on it, they are doing something akin to a quick taste. As in using our sense of taste, it is a sensation that strikes home very quickly. There is good in that, but also bad.
If, for instance, when you are blindfolded and someone puts a small bit of strawberry on your tongue, as soon as you rub it across your palate you know it's strawberry—not much processing going on there. But, if someone puts a small piece of something else on your tongue, which has been soaked in strawberry syrup, you are in trouble when it comes to identifying what it might be. Remote viewing is much the same way.
If you are overwhelmed by something in the target, e.g., a strawberry flavor, it is nearly impossible to dig out the details hidden by it. It can be done, but only if one doesn't jump to conclusions about strawberries. The same holds true for the opposite. If that's all it is, a small bit of strawberry, then it's nearly impossible to tell when to stop trying to perceive what might be there in addition to it, when there is really nothing else there. One prevents the flow of information, and the other encourages invention of information, all the while encouraging us to believe we are still in full contact with the original target, which we definitely are not.
When a viewer tastes the target, it is only for a few nanoseconds and then contact is broken. The rest of the exercise is internalized processing, or determining when strawberry is important and when it is not. It is definitely not a full-scale model or pictogram laid out in total wonderment before our mind's eye.
Sometimes this happens, but only on the rarest of occasions, and always for very specific and/or limited reasons, which further complicates the process.
Additional confusion enters regarding visualization, when viewers are told to expect specific kinds of information based on their degree of talent, their current stage of training, ability, expertise, or experience, when none of that applies or has any real meaning.
Unfortunately, anything can happen on day one or in your twentieth year of experience. This is important to know, because it is currently implied in the literature and in books, or in talks by those who really don't know, that this is what you should be striving for; and, it is mythological. I will tell you in full honesty that if this is what you expect and what you are striving for, you are wasting your time and eventually you will be sadly disappointed.
Information comes in many ways to the viewer, and if not primarily through vision then through what? Well, this is difficult to explain. You will have perceptions about the target that are as vague as a movement you caught with the corner of your eye, the faint hint of an aroma, or a feeling that puts goose bumps on the backs of your arms. It is almost never direct but needs to be interpreted in some way.
Many teaching programs out there claim to take most of this "interpretation" out of the process of remote viewing. If you buy into that, good luck. Humans are cognitive beings, and nothing reaches our waking mind that has not been processed. You may temporarily fool yourself into thinking you aren't thinking, you may bury the processing to a point that you actually don't think you are really processing, but you are. Critics of my position on this state that I don't have a full understanding of what is going on in such a case, that the mind can be trained to "automatically respond" to certain stimuli, without processing.
They are certainly right, but only when the mind is put through a long sequence in forced choice training. And as soon as you begin to overlay the mind with forced choice, you are simply reversing the system. You are putting the processing at the fore instead of the end, reducing the breadth of the response parameters, and eliminating unconscious spontaneity. The unconscious spontaneous result accounts for more accuracy and detail in remote viewing than any other form of response.
The best approach is to attempt to understand "how" you process information. Study how your mind works. Do you have a proclivity to envision backyard swimming pools whenever an in-ground fluid reservoir is part of a target? Do you feel cool to the touch when there is fear involved with a target? Does your nose itch when there is smoke? You should study your subtle body-mind responses and try to establish an understanding of what you do when you are subjected to something real within a target. You should develop an understanding for the language your subconscious uses to communicate with your conscious mind. The language is dynamic, it changes frequently, and it will surprise you at times, but that is where you will find accuracy in your perceptions. In the old days, it was called going with your gut.
Good Practices
A number of things that initially seem more difficult, in the long run assist in developing your remote viewing talent. These are what I consider good practices. I've listed the ones that I feel are probably the most important. (Note: These are applicable to the learning process and are somewhat modified when it comes to applications.)
1: Always do your remote viewing totally blind to the target—no hints, no front-loading, no one in the room with you who knows what the target is, and no other possibility of information transfer other than through psychic means.
2: Always keep your own notebook about what you are thinking and why you are thinking it, with the goal of learning something about your method of internal cognitive processing.
3: Initially try and stick with major gestalts, slowly working your way into more detail. Open to whatever your subconscious wants to share with you, when it wants to share it.
4: Retain your sense of humor. Your subconscious is a trickster, a joker. It will play with you. Enjoy the ride. This is important. When it can deliver information no other way, it will deliver it buried in the humor.
5: Understand that you are embarking on a learning process that never stops. Since your own personal language of the mind is a dynamic one, you will never cease having to learn or understand something about it. It is a never-ending process. If you think you can get away with a few weeks effort and then know it all, you need to take up bowling or something less stressful.
Bad Practices
I could probably write an entire book on this, but it really isn't necessary. Almost without exception, if you feel like you are fooling yourself, it's a bad practice. If you feel like you are not doing the right thing, it's a bad practice. If you feel like someone is pulling your leg, they probably are. But, just for clarity's sake, I will list some of the worst of the lot.
1: Don't make lists of things that have to "be" in order for it to work. All you are really doing is making a list of reasons for failure. Learn to operate regardless of the place, time, or circumstance. You don't learn to taste, smell, hear, see, or touch within narrow parameters, so why try and force yourself to "perceive" only under certain conditions.
2: Except for the formalities of protocols that should not be violated in any way, take whatever anyone says to you with a grain of salt. That goes for what you are reading here. No one has all the answers. Everyone is learning as they go. In fact, the way to judge if someone really knows what they are doing will be their willingness to admit this.
3: While learning, never, never, never accept hints about the target, accept any form of front-loading, or permit someone who knows what the target is to be in your presence while you are remote viewing. This is important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is—if there is any room for doubt in your mind, this will produce it, and you will never know for sure if you are actually remote viewing or just being duped into believing you are. If you have very little natural talent, or aren't cut out for this stuff, then it's better you find that out up front instead of later. It can be a very expensive experience otherwise.
4: Don't cheat. The only person you are fooling is yourself. It will be amply clear to those you are trying to impress later.
5: Try not to have any expectations beyond the level at which you are functioning. No one operates at a superior level of performance all the time. Think of remote viewing as hitting on a baseball team. Everyone has an expectation that you will put it out of the park every time you come to bat. However, the pros understand that "control" is everything. They'd much rather have a man who can guarantee a base hit almost every time at the plate, than someone who puts it out of the park now and then. Don't force it.
6: Don't make unsubstantiated claims. It does severe damage to the field and will quickly establish you as a fool.
How Information Might Be Processed
No one really knows where the information comes from, how it's delivered, or how we are able to process it. There are lots of theories but no real answers. The predominant theory dictates that there is some form of emission (usually thought of as coming from the target), some kind of transfer mechanism (a transmission device or method), and some form of receiver (remote viewer). No one has a clue to the truth of this. It just seems that way.
We are stuck with our observations and logic when it comes to deciding how reality operates. We can tear it apart, down to the smallest particle (which is probably not yet small enough), but we have no real understanding of how the laws of time/space really operate. There may not be an emitter, transmission, or receiver. It may be that all are one and the same thing.
Be that as it may, I do feel we process the information in some way. This has to be done in order to either verbalize or draw something about the target. This means we think about it. Without argument, this is where the problems lie, for a number of reasons.
First, many assume the information comes in totally intact and unobstructed. This would mean the emitter, transmission, and receiver, are perfect. I doubt this. Aside from that, many assume the subconscious is the first level owner of the information and that the subconscious doesn't make mistakes; I doubt this as well. And finally, many think that you can obtain information from the subconscious and use it at the cognitive level while doing no (or at least minimal) processing, which I believe to be totally fictitious.
All this sounds pretty hopeless, doesn't it? Nevertheless, somehow we still get accurate information sometimes. How? I believe it's just the opposite of what everyone else thinks. It's because we do process, we do cogitate on what's going on inside our heads. We apply high order logic along with feelings, about what we are actually perceiving or knowing, which oddly seems to add sometimes, and sometimes to detract perhaps from our ability.
Logic demands that we have a selection of things to choose from. It seems that the more we add in terms of selection the worse the accuracy problem becomes. But, only on the surface is that true. It's true if we force things into our perception instead of allowing them to settle there by their own accord. We force things through assumption, so the first thing we need to do is control assumption.
The other side of the coin is feelings. How we feel about things we are considering. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to separate ourselves from our own needs. We have a need to be right. We want certain things as a matter of personal bias or preference. We even demand that things go a certain way when we see what the potential list of outcomes might be. These things are all ego driven. These are conscious things that are born from our personalities. So, we need to learn to control ego. We need to learn to control our expectation for certain outcomes and go with the flow.
If you can curb ego and prevent assumptions, in other words, buy time for open-ended processing, then you go a long way towards allowing your innate talent for psychic functioning to operate. When this is married to an appropriate protocol that "allows" psychic functioning (rather than some pseudo form of psychic functioning) the combination is dynamite. But, it is a constant war. Like the pitcher on the mound, you are always at war with yourself, with control, in the search for the perfect game.
Techniques for Fooling the Conscious Mind (Ego)
Over the years, I've developed a number of techniques for fooling my ego or conscious mind, for lulling it to sleep while I attempt to produce psychic information. I have no idea if these will work for anyone else, but I list these here in the event they may.
1: Give your waking mind a menial task to keep it busy. Not something too difficult, but something that keeps it generally focused away from what you are trying to do remote viewing-wise. Pulling weeds in the garden, raking leaves, sketching a work of art, hiking in the woods, or, when trapped at a desk in an office, doodling. Anything that gives your active and awake mind something to deal with.
2: Develop an attitude that success or failure is not the measure by which you will judge your efforts. Judge your efforts on your ability to clear your mind, center your thoughts, meet the challenge, and glean as much from the experience as you possibly can. Don't think about being right, think about doing the right thing, honoring the skill, and accepting whatever you are gifted with in response. You don't feel a need to prove you can actually taste strawberries, do you? Ignore the need to demonstrate your psychic ability.
3: Understand that being psychic is just one innate talent. It probably takes about as much effort as playing a musical instrument, or some form of athletic prowess. The point being, there is an enormous range of talent that can be found in human kind. Allow that all human beings possess at least a few talents you yourself do not have. Bury your pride and acknowledge the skills in others. When you automatically respect another human, honor them above yourself regardless of their form of innate talent, you will know you are winning the battle.
4: Give up the idea that you will ever have the perfect answer or the total answer delivered to you on a platter. Lose your need for a conclusion, and automatically trash your assumptions. Bits and pieces—these are the skills of a psychic. You should not even be trying to determine what they mean in the scheme of things. Think of yourself as a conduit for unattached information. When you can do that, it will flow.
Processing Material
I can only share what I do. I've spent twenty-one years developing a processing model in my head that seems to work for me about as well as anything might. It goes something like the following.
When something, a word, phrase, pictogram, or thought comes into my mind, I file it categorically as just that—a word, a phrase, a pictogram or thought. Initially, I give it no further consideration. I then "re-taste" the target by opening to it again. I view each re-taste as different from any other. I do not assume that I'm getting the same thing, and I do not assume that anything I get will match or go with anything else I've previously gotten. I do this very rapidly three or four times. This begins to produce a feeling regarding the target, an overall concept—what we call a gestalt. Perhaps it's a feeling of a beach, perhaps a beach with some kind of a commercial flavor to it. I then go back and begin to look at specific items I've categorized or filed. Within the context of feeling, some might support one another. I make these initial, tentative combinations, and re-file them as just that—tentative. I begin the re-tasting of the target over and over again. I begin to receive more complex data at this point.
I believe that this is so because I've been able to lay a soft underpinning for the kind of structure my mind wants to build which will tell me more about the target. In most cases when I'm doing this for research, I don't have to go much further, since all that is necessary is a very good gestalt, with good detail, to provide the kind of data that's necessary to support the on-going study. In the case of applications, however, it is a repetitive process that begins to build more and more of a structure regarding the target, eventually producing enough data in my mind for a more cohesive picture to form. This process is never forced, driven, or overlaid with my own expectations. It is allowed to slowly and methodically crunch along till something is produced of its own accord. I myself am usually totally surprised by the end result. The more surprised I am, the better I know it's going to be.
A lot of times I'm asked if I can tell the difference between good and bad remote viewing. The answer is no. However, if I'm totally surprised by the result, I can almost assure you that it will be good information.
Analyzing the Material
Remote viewers should never analyze their own material. Let someone else do that. This is especially pertinent to the learning process. There are a lot of reasons why, and I will share the most important ones in order of importance.
1: You are attempting to defeat your ego by training yourself not to make assumptions or jump to conclusions about remote viewing material or input. By analyzing your own material, you are simply turning around and reinforcing the need for assumptions and conclusions. How crazy is that?
2: Regardless of what anyone tells you, you haven't a clue as to what is right or what is wrong about your material. At least someone who is privy to the actual target has some idea what should fit. So, let them do the analysis. If you become privy to what the target is, you have just given up any hope of ever re-visiting it, at least in the very near future.
3: As a remote viewer, you are tasked with analyzing and taking command of your internal workings, your internalized processing methods; remote viewing accuracy on the other hand, is assisted by someone who analyzes you. This takes an independent observer, someone separate from yourself. Over time, this person can recognize habits and things you would never recognize about yourself. Over time, they come to understand those tiny quirks in you that tell them when you are operating at your peak or operating in your valley. This assists substantially in the evaluation of material for use.
Record Keeping
Probably no aspect of learning to be a remote viewer is more important than record keeping. Psychologists will be the first to tell you that the way we remember things is generally not the way or sequence in which they happened. All human beings have selective memory. Our brains operate that way. It is meant to optimize our ability to survive, to categorize the things that are more important and more valuable to us, all within a framework that alters with a person's age. We are constantly compensating for change.
So, at a minimum, remote viewers should keep a log of all of their activities. This is hard to do. I myself violate it just about as much as the next person. But, if you rely on your memory, you will be betrayed. I recommend this log be a permanently bound book, like a diary, as you will be less inclined to pull pages out of it, or attempt to modify something within it. When I keep a log, I try to use a lab notebook that has numbered pages and is permanently bound. It's pretty much impossible to mix a sequence of events that way.
The person who runs the training should also keep a very detailed event log, with cross-referenced file numbers. If they don't, you really can't trust their memory either. Usually this habit helps to separate the real trainers from the "wannabes." They have to take the lumps and failures in their training techniques, just as the viewer does. Be very suspicious of anyone who shows you a log of events that is nearly perfect. I've been operating in a science environment for over fourteen years and I can tell you that as hard as one might try to insure that everything goes about as near perfect as possible, things always go wrong. That should be part of the record. It has a lot to do with everyone learning all they can about remote viewing, not just the viewing parts. It's through these records that progress is eventually made. Recurring errors in protocol, sequence, or possible information leakage paths will pop out at you when you've got the logs to study. All this goes to creating a system that is airtight and improved. The tighter the system is the higher the likelihood for success. Write everything down. In the end you will never be sorry that you did.
(Note: Keeping a personal journal is of value for a lot more reasons than just remote viewing training. It gives you a solid reference for reflection on other things going on in your life. Just remember personal journals contain very sensitive information and should be handled and stored accordingly. Never give your personal journal to anyone else.)
Scientific Journal Outline
There are a number of elements, which should be contained within a formal lab report on a remote viewing. Examples of these are provided below.
Consent to Participate
This is a paper that is signed by the subject or participant showing they have been fully informed about their participating in a parapsychological experiment. The following is an example of such a form:
Record of Experiment
This is a sheet, that becomes a permanent part of the experimental file and records the minimum data required by the lab for historical and study purposes. The following is an example of such a sheet:
Specific Targeting Material Used
This targeting material should be referred to as: "Sealed envelope: A001389"
This original sealed envelope would be verified still sealed by the witness when the remote viewing session material is recorded. It is then provided to the remote viewer for feedback.
(Care is always taken to differentiate between the actual material that is provided to the viewer for remote viewing purposes, and what was actually inside the envelope. What was actually inside the envelope will be noted as the specific "feedback" provided to the viewer in this case.)
In research circumstances where a photograph may have been sealed within the envelope, this photograph is only provided to the viewer for feedback after the judging has been accomplished. This precludes an information leakage path that could exist between the person who is evaluating the remote viewing and the remote viewing itself.
Example of the targeted envelope
Example of the information
contained within the targeted envelope
Example of Viewer data collected
(Unlike this example: All of the remote viewing data that is produced is logged in and stored, to include data that isn't pertinent or might have been inaccurate. Nothing is ever discarded in research.)
Example of feedback provided to remote viewer
Suggested Pre-Viewing Checklist
Just before you do a remote viewing, there are a number of things you should be asking yourself.
With regard to research or applications, if you have an affirmative response to any of these questions, except perhaps numbers twelve and fifteen, you might want to think about delaying or putting off the remote viewing until a later time.
With regard to training, you can view the checklist as a way to actually test which of these things might irritate you to the point of failure, or as part of the "learning-to-operate-under-most-conditions" condition.
Aside from number four, which you can't biologically avoid, I trained without the checklist. By doing so, I learned to overcome the possible irritations that can interfere with remote viewing.
1: Am I hungry?
2: Am I thirsty?
3: Am I uncomfortable?
4: Do I have to use the bathroom?
5: Is there an irritating or repetitive noise present?
6: Am I anxious about anything? (remote viewing doesn't count.)
7: Am I upset about anything?
8: Am I angry about anything?
9: Am I abnormally worried about anything?
10: Are there pets present that will interfere?
11: Are there people present that will interfere?
12: Can the phones ring?
13: Do I expect any guests in the immediate future?
14: Do I need pens, pencils, paper, or other materials?
15: Is the ambient light too bright?
16: Are there any distractions in the room?
17: Training and Learning