Session Scoring

 

Home Up

 

 

 

 

 

III 1. Methods for evaluating RV data

 

III 1A. The Figure of Merit 
            Joe McMoneagle

"It's obvious that someone could read the encyclopedia and eventually get everything right about a target. It is also obvious that some information about a target, which correct, might have very little or no value (e.g. the grass is green). Therefore an appropriate algorithm needs to be created that gives a value to descriptive remote viewing that's better than a subjective value judgment. In the case of controlled targets this is easily done. When a target is placed within a target pool, there should be a prior and independent evaluation of the target to determine what could be said about the target or what one would naturally expect to be said about the target based on the method of targeting (e.g., target is a photograph - looking at the photograph what appears to be significant to the photograph, and what is important or significant to the description of the photograph.) These descriptions are written down and become part of the targeting package.

Once the remote viewing is done, the results or statements taken from the remote viewer are compared to what is already a part of the target package (the statements of expectation and import already written down and stored with the photograph). A determination is made of what percentage the remote viewer said that was expected as important and relevant to the targeted photograph, and what did the viewer say that was not relevant or pertinent to the targeted photo. One needs to also look at what was said that was wrong about the target or not material to the target as well. From this algorithm, one can derive a resultant value (we call it a Figure of Merit.) For obvious reasons, a figure of Merit of 60% or better would be considered a very good result. A figure of Merit of 95% would be considered exceptional and very rare. Statistically under double blind studies within laboratories, Figure of merits above 80% occur probably less than 25% of the time. "

[From Joe McMoneagle interview, JNLRMI II (2); also see May EC and Spottiswoode SJS (1998) The Correlation of the Gradient of Shannon Entropy and Anomalous Cognition: Towards an AC Sensory System. See Online Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association, 1998 at  http://www.parapsych.org/pa_convention_proceedings.html. Full paper available.]

 

III 1B From Lyn Buchanan's The Seventh Sense (Paraview Pocket Books, New York, NY 2003). Also see two very good discussions

"How Do You Score Sessions?" and 
"What is the Accuracy Rate of CRV?"

under PSI FAQ's
http://www.crviewer.com/crviewer/QandAIndex.asp

1. Success/Failure (in answering client question). See p.265

2. Applicability (provides "information on a viewer's true ability to "get to the heart of the matter" and get pertinent information, instead of just randomly viewing anything to do with a target site). See p. 266

3. Viewer Track Records ("establishes a track record or dependability rating for the individual viewer", and a "score for judging how well the viewer will perform when tasked against different types of targets and different perception categories") See p. 269. 

4. Rank Order Judging (establishes the likelihood of  psi performance without regard to viewer / analyst strengths) See p. 271

 

Replies / References

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright 2000-2006 EmergentMind.org

This page was last modified on 07/13/07 . For questions or comments regarding this web please contact Lian Sidorov at lian@emergentmind.org

  

 

 

Hit Counter