Recommendations About Training
For twenty-one years I've been saying the same thing about training—you can't teach someone to be psychic.
Unfortunately, this has been interpreted a lot of different ways, most of which have been out of context, and in many cases with ill intent—to discredit in some way. When I say this, I'm usually saying it within the context of the question.
"Can I learn to do that?"
The "that" which is being implied, pertains to a specific example of remote viewing just seen—what I would call a world-class result.
Of course the percentage of what I would call world-class remote viewing is very small, or at least it has been with me. "Successful" has always been a relative term. Statistically, I can say emphatically that almost all scientists who have studied remote viewing would generally agree that even after training of some sort, the number of world-class remote viewers (world-class in this case means viewers who can systematically and consistently defy chance results in controlled studies in a lab) probably comes in at around one-half of one percent of any randomly tested group of people, or about one person in two hundred.
I think the confusion comes in somewhere between that reality and the fact that just about everyone who's ever walked into a lab and been tested shows some degree of remote viewing ability, a seemingly contradictory statement.
In fact, both statements are true. Putting them together should read: "Anyone can remote view; only about one-half of one percent can do it really well." Does training make a difference between just being able to do it and doing it really well? Yes, probably some, but not enough that it's going to push you from one end of the scale to the other.
This is actually very encouraging news. It means that there isn't anything about remote viewing that you can't get with a reasonable amount of effort and diligence, and you can probably get it from just about anyone who follows protocol and encourages you to practice, even if it's only yourself doing the encouraging. There are no secrets beyond most of those shared between these covers. You will also be able to tell if you are going to be any good at it from the outset.
I know this news will be discomforting to some because they might have been led to believe something different, but those are the facts, at least as I understand them.
I have always strongly recommended that when it comes to training or learning about remote viewing, you should set your own course and proceed with vigor. I've suggested there really is no great mystery in mastering it, as it requires practice more than anything else. Since it's predominantly talent-driven, much like athletic or musical ability, it will demand training from the standpoint of repetition more than anything else. In other words, follow the protocols and practice, practice, practice.
Aside from this book, other sources of material directly relate to the learning of remote viewing. Some of these relate directly and some relate less directly. There are also goals that you can reasonably expect to attain as well as goals that most will probably never attain. I can suggest how you might be able to judge your progress, and, quite frankly, when you should probably quit.
Of course you don't have to believe any of this, but you can expect to save a lot of money, effort, and time if you do. The thing to remember is that you alone can judge the effectiveness of what you are doing, and only you can determine when you've given enough in terms of effort, money, or time. Remember: think of remote viewing as a martial art. It is a way of, and not an end unto itself.
Reasonable Expectations
For almost anyone who has no previous knowledge about remote viewing, some reasonable expectations can be stated about learning it. Where you fall in relation to these expectations is solely dependent on whatever innate talent you possess when you walk through the door. No one can have a clue as to the level of talent someone might possess prior to actually testing it, but like athletes, it doesn't take much to tell whether or not you will do well with a specific sport or activity. One of the nice things about it is, it isn't like basketball or football. Size doesn't matter, and even if you aren't a superstar, you can have fun with it.
Almost without exception, anyone first exposed to remote viewing will be able to generate what are considered major gestalts. This means that once they understand what is expected of them, they should, from time-to-time, be able to tell the differences between islands, mountains, deserts, cities, or other major geographic features. Initially they will be able to do this about twenty-five percent of the time. Those who seem to be good at it—have demonstrable talent—will probably increase their ability to about fifty percent after sufficient exposure and practice. It's impossible to estimate how much time it will take anyone to get to the fifty-percentile point since each person will have differing degrees of focus, participation, and practice. But, I would plan on months.
During that period of time, bits and pieces of other stages are possible, and will be reflected in the results. You should bear in mind that sporadic reflections of more detail about specific targets does not necessarily guarantee someone has a great deal of inherent talent. The majority of people exposed to remote viewing will produce more sophisticated fragments of information about a target such as sensory values like touch, taste, sound, color, as well as dimensional characteristics, mental perceptions or feelings about the site. The average person may even provide statements about a specific object or function at the target location.
What's nice about this is that this is what almost anyone can do coming out of the starting gate. Misconceptions center on how often or how dependably someone can provide the more sophisticated forms of data. This kind of detail doesn't happen very often with the average person, and believe me, it won't be very dependable either.
Many are currently being exposed to remote viewing through training systems that underscore this level of achievement and provide a framework in which it can be displayed. The problem is, this is about as good as most will ever get. I receive dozens of phone calls now on a week-to-week basis from people asking me what they are doing wrong. They've taken one training course or another but can't seem to settle down into a high quality or consistent viewing product. Well, guess what? You're in the 95th percentile of any randomly selected group of humans.
Most training systems will provide a framework inside of which the information can be broken down into categories that are recognizable—from the easily recognized major gestalt to the more sophisticated details about a target such as specific objects, descriptions, or assessments. These training systems may even provide a disciplined approach to recognizing how and when certain levels of input are being processed. But, the degree of detail the target can be broken down into, the accuracy and consistency in which it can be reported, or the refinement one brings to the task is purely dependent on the person's innate talent, that is the perceptive skills brought to the table.
For those who fall in the one-half of one percent and have a great deal of talent, the training can be helpful in showing you how to break down the material as you are receiving it. To a certain extent, some forms of training will even provide a disciplined approach to how you might process the stuff coming into your head. However, you can look forward to a long and difficult road if you intend to master remote viewing. Because you are talented, you will have more hits in the "specifics or details" about targets, but you can also expect two things. First, attaining consistency and reliability will be a lifelong battle you will have to fight on a day-to-day, target-by-target basis. It's something you can never relax with. Second, aside from consistency and reliability, your ability will probably not improve, no matter what you do. Over the course of their careers, every exceptional viewer studied in the cognitive sciences labs at SRI-International (SRI-I) and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) have essentially produced a near flat-line in terms of ability. Independent surges and spikes of success appear now and then during a focused or narrow parameter study, but over all—that is, statistically—the best remote viewers don't change. They are as good walking in the door as they are when they exit.
Setting Up Your Own Training Schedule
There is no magic in setting up your own training schedule and arranging your own pool of targets, but for some reason I get letters from people all the time asking me if I know where they can plug into a target pool, or participate in remote viewing exercises. It's a simple process to explain, but terribly difficult to actually sit down and do. Or, even more importantly, to forget once you've done it.
The problem actually has more to do with what goes on in the mind after the target pool has been set up. Most people find they can't help but remember many of the targets they put in the pool when they were building it. So, when it comes time to do the remote viewing, their minds are flooded with snapshots of many of the targets they know are in the pool. Even randomly pulling a target from a pool with a hundred possibilities doesn't seem to help. The mind still has a tendency to fill with all those wonderful snapshots and all those things you thought about while you were selectively building the pool.
The only way around this is to have others build the pool for you and then not let them tell you anything about it. Assuming they follow the recommendations I set out earlier about what makes a good training target, you can reduce their load by telling them to only make four or five targets at a time. Since others are actually building it for you, and you are blind to what they have selected, the pool doesn't have to be very large. If you have no one to help you, then you are pretty much stuck with building a substantial pool or possibly finding someone over the Internet or through the mail who might be willing to share a pool with you.
Some people wonder why some of us remote viewers do not share our target pools with others. It's because it takes a considerable amount of time and effort to construct a good pool of practice targets. I've been building my target pool that I use for practice for about ten years. Most of the targets I've selected I have either photographed myself, or have obtained by looking through thousands of copyright-free photographs available through commercial sources. Most of these photographs have been cropped appropriately, extraneous materials excised, etc. I've even gone to the extent of erasing people and non-connected objects from the foreground so as not to have any distractions. I take the practice pool very seriously. This should give a very large hint about how seriously you should take making one for yourself. If you are serious about teaching yourself something, you should be willing to spend the appropriate amount of energy and effort to collect the right tools. The primary tool for a remote viewer is the practice pool.
Next in importance is making sure you have set aside a very specific time and place in which to do your practice session. Minimal requirements are:
1: Use the same place every time if possible, at least during training.
2: Try to fix a specific time that stays constant. If you are a working person, maybe this will be 7:00 A.M. or 9:00 P.M. on a Tuesday or Thursday, either just before you leave for work (if you're a morning person), or after you've gotten home and finished dinner or the rest of your errands. It could also be on weekends if you can't turn your job off after coming home. Those who are retired or otherwise can plan a time in the middle of the day. It should center on a period when you know you have good energy and nothing will interrupt what you are doing.
3: Turn off the phone, usher the cat and dog outside, put a cover over the bird, close the door and hang up a "do not disturb" sign. Your mind needs to be centered and focused for learning.
4: Keep a notebook and use it for everything you don't want to forget or that might seem important to you. Remember: if you think it, it's important.
5: Pay particular attention to details. You should be able to differentiate between the kinds of information you are processing: gestalts, sights, sounds, feelings, tastes, colors, dimensions, perceptions, details, actions, assessments, and conclusions. Try to focus on the ones that you don't seem to do very well with. Assume that the ones you do get routinely will take care of themselves.
6: Work at it for no more than fifteen minutes. Whatever you get in fifteen minutes is probably all you're going to get, initially. Later, when you can demonstrate an ability to get the major gestalts in a fairly consistent manner, extend the time to take into consideration other more detailed elements that might be pertinent to the target.
7: Always choose your target randomly and always work it as a blind target. (I've already stated all the reasons why this is necessary.)
Most of you will find that you can do a very good job with the overall gestalt for the target, but will consistently have difficulty with the details. For some reason you will not be able to hit those except every now and then. That's okay. Welcome to the 95th percentile. If you can do reasonably well with consistency on major target gestalts, with a few details about color or target dimension thrown in now and then, regardless of what anyone tells you, you are doing about as well as it's going to get.
How to Judge Your Own Results
This is where it's a lot more fun to be working with others: You have someone to share your "hits" with. That can be very exciting and helps to give you the drive to continue. When you work alone, it is a lot more difficult maintaining the momentum.
The results actually speak for themselves. What you find in most cases are very recognizable plateaus. These are like resting places, where after you get so much improvement, you find yourself suddenly stuck. Don't worry about it. It's normal and natural. These can last for weeks or months. It will mean one of two things:
1: You have reached your level of natural talent, in which case you can continue to try to increase your consistency and dependability at that level. Like most things in RV, this is not a fixed rule. Sometimes, after a long drought in progress, you will suddenly see a marked improvement. It will be as though a logjam has somehow unlocked up stream. If that happens, great, then you are at . . .
2: . . . a real plateau, and eventually you will move on to the next one. You never know ahead of time just how many plateaus you might encounter, where your level of talent might take you, or how long it will take to get there. It's always a surprise. Beware of training systems that give you a guarantee. If they say they can guarantee that you will be proficient at a specific level above the general gestalt, I would question it.
Knowing When to Quit
This is probably the easiest question to answer. You quit when you aren't having any fun anymore. Remote viewing should be fun, even when you aren't learning anything. It's fun to meet with others who enjoy it, it's fun to be with others who practice it, and it's fun to try using it in training and applications. If you are becoming frustrated, angry, depressed, worried, upset, anxious, or having any other unsettling feelings about it, then it's time to quit. If you find yourself arguing with others about what you are doing, it's time to quit. If you fear failure, it's time to quit. If you can't be satisfied with the degree of gift you were given walking in the door, it's time to quit.
One of the prime bits of information you should have gotten from this book is the knowledge that everyone operates at a different capacity and at a different level. You can polish your understanding of remote viewing to a degree that you can truly master whatever level of remote viewing you personally operate at. Even operating at the major gestalt level can bring you information you never dreamed of. Employed in a creative sense, it can open doors previously closed to you. When you start fighting yourself over it, you will only be doing damage.
Since I do not teach remote viewing myself, I've been asked many times over the years to recommend someone who does. I recommend you teach yourself. I sincerely believe that this is appropriate because I believe that individual perception is more a matter of unlearning than learning. The name of the game is discovering your own bad habits, at least in regard to internal processing, and eradicating them. Learning how to do this from someone else can only make that process more difficult. You pick up new habits along the way.
Now, having said that, if you still need someone to guide you along the path, there are two recommendations I would make, contact information for both can be found on the Internet.
1: Paul Smith. Remote Viewing Instructional Services (RVIS)
2: Lyn Buchanan. Problems, Solutions, and Innovations (PSI)
Neither recommendation should be viewed as a judgment about any other training facility, office, business, or person. Nor should it be construed to mean there are no others. I only recommend these two because I am familiar with both of them personally, I have a clearer understanding for how and why they train in a specific way, and I know they are open to change, improvement, and continued learning in the field of remote viewing, or at least hope they are.
When it comes to the science of remote viewing, I would recommend trusting absolutely no information that does not originate from a recognized scientific laboratory or spring from a peer-reviewed and appropriately refereed journal. So far, absolutely no evidence suggests that what can be learned about remote viewing requires changing the basic rules of science.