This manual is a publication of Problems Solutions Innovations
26944 Bosse Drive Mechanicsville MD 20659

This manual posted with permission.

There is presently no standardized terminology for all the interactions and processes involved in the field of controlled remote viewing. Each "authority" creates terms for his specific methodology. The terms used in this paper have grown from several years of practical usage in P>S>I's normal operations. They are plain, earthy, and definitely non-scientific. Most have arisen from comments or pet names the viewers and students have used. P>S>I's objective has not been to create a definitive set of proprietary terms which will become the community's standard. The objective has been to use words and phrases which are utilitarian, highly accurate, and easily understood and remembered by those people who come into contact with P>S>I, whether for training, or for acquiring information, analyzing and/or reporting it, or acting upon the information produced, either repeatedly or on a one-time basis. The terms included within this paper have served that purpose well for many years. I offer them for general usage to anyone performing this service.

It must be understood that this terminology is a live, evolving body of language. In effect, it is the slang which is used by the "real" people instead of the more formal language of the research laboratory. Where applicable within the body of this document, the formal terms are given, as well.

It must also be remembered that the terms listed here, while they may be "slang", and therefore transitory, nonetheless represent those fundamental and permanent problems, actions, and aspects of controlled remote viewing which can also be considered generic to the entire problem of using parapsychology for gaining useful information.

The terms have been divided into five main areas of concern:




Remote Viewing: Remote viewing is the action taken by a remote viewer. If that sounds like a vague definition, it is. Such is the present state of the parapsychological world. "Remote viewing" is presently a generic catch phrase which can mean almost anything dealing with parapsychology. It is so many definitions that it no longer has a meaning, and therefore causes much confusion. When a person claims to be a "remote viewer", it does not signify that he/she is a controlled remote viewer. In fact, it signifies only that the person is a ractitioner of some undefined parapsychological method, often self-devised and completely uncontrolled. In such a case, saying that a person is a "remote viewer" does not tell you anything about what they do.

Controlled Remote Viewing (CRV): Perhaps one of the greatest and most widely accepted myths about parapsychology today is the belief that "It can't be done in the laboratory." In actual fact, it can, and with just as great accuracy as outside the lab. There are certain common problems which have caused this myth:

1. The psychic is normally unaccustomed to the controlled lab experience, and therefore does not perform normally. One answer to this problem is to train the person within a controlled environment. That person will then work normally within the lab environment.

2. In the laboratory, all the "waffling", "BS", and "pumping the client for information" is blocked. The psychic, who has grown accustomed to having these "aids" finds that he/she must actually perform pure parapsychological functioning - and finds him/herself incapable of doing so. The failure is usually often blamed on the lab condition, or on the myth than on the psychic's personal habits of working under polluted conditions.

3. The researcher is not trying to do anything of "practical" value, or dealing with interesting, one-time problems. He usually gives the psychic tasks which are repetitive, dull, and against which all but the most dedicated person will rebel, if not on a conscious level, then at least on a subconscious level.

4. The researcher decides ahead of time what the answer to the research should be and devises the lab setting to test for and prove that answer. In short, the researcher most commonly performs directed testing of a theory instead of open minded research. Even if a miracle occurs, the psychic who does not meet the researcher's statedgoals is considered to have failed.

5. Many more such problems exist to cloud the issue and to further the myth that parapsychological functioning cannot be tested or analyzed accurately. It is still just a myth.

Taking the entire parapsychological process, no matter what form it takes, to its most basic elements, it consists of only three parts: The tasker: The person who has a question. The source: That undefined and hotly debated source of the answer. The conduit: The person who finds the answer and delivers it to the tasker.

In parapsychological work, it is rarely possible to place controls on the type of questions one will receive. The tasker, for all general purposes, cannot be controlled. We do not even know what the source is, much less are we able to control it. We are left, then, with only one part of the process which can be controlled: the conduit. In the case of the CRV process, that conduit is the CRVer and the controls are the process with which and the environment in which he/she works.

Controlled Remote Viewer (CRVer): Perhaps the best way to define a CRVer is to tell what one does. The CRVer (one who works for P>S>I, at least) receives tasking to find out some information which cannot be gained through normal means. In other words, to go to a person, place, or event, and describe it. Then, in a completely controlled environment, through a combined process of mental concentration and scientific, organized work habits, he brings the information from the source to the tasker in as unpolluted and accurate a condition as possible. In effect, he provides an eye witness account via mental and physical means. The tasked site may be hundreds of miles away or years removed into the past or future. He can, for example, be assigned to witness a crime for which the police have no other witnesses. He can witness and describe places so inaccessible or so hostile that no other form of data collection is possible. In the most extreme example, he can enter a guarded building, pass beyond bolted doors, and search locked file cabinets to read papers no one is supposed to see... all without tripping alarms, being spotted by guards or dogs, or featured on closed-circuit TV. He can then report back without leaving a single trace that security has been compromised in any way. He can see into the body of a child in Manila, to aid in a medical diagnosis there. An hour later, he can peer below the surface of the Sahara to aid an archeologist in the search for Mankind's history.

Most people who believe that parapsychological functioning is possible also feel that the talent is held only by seers, shamans, spiritual mediums, or other "gifted" individuals. Experience indicates otherwise. The talent appears to be nothing more than a natural ability which probably served primitive Man as a means of self-protection. Proper scientific training is able to make the most of whatever vestigial amount lies dormant within each person. That is true for even the most non-paranormally-oriented man or woman on the street. In fact, a person who dives wholly into the mystic or occult is prone to accept anything without scientific method or empirical proof. As a result, he/she appears to have less of a chance to acquire a logical, structured mastery of the ability than the average person who is more grounded in reality. Like playing the piano, very few have its mastery as a natural gift. Most of us, however, can take what ability we do have and develop it. For most of us, mastery of the skill requires proper training and lots of disciplined practice. Like in all other areas of life, the person who has less talent and strives hard to master the art will usually perform with a higher degree of precision than the person who has the natural talent, but no discipline or training. The training which P>S>I provides is directed at the development of a normal person's latent remote viewing potential, rather than seeking natural "super stars".


The person who is interested ONLY in inner self-improvement or gaining "a soul-link to the universe" can undoubtedly gain a great deal by learning controlled remote viewing. P>S>I, however, is not the place for that person to train. P>S>I is dedicated to developing and providing trained, qualified CRVers who are willing to put their skills to work in such areas as finding abducted children, aiding in the advancement of science and the healing arts, acquiring otherwise-inaccessible information for investigative and other information acquisition agencies, and in providing actual, concrete help in areas where no other help exists. The "targets" used by P>S>I are concrete in nature, providing provable feedback to aid the student in the learning process. No etherial, mystic, or unprovable targets will be used. P>S>I does not train students to "achieve other planes of existance", contact extraterrestrials, "sub-space entities", spirit guides, or to "develop inner awareness of their own chakras, "spirit-energies", "inner wellsprings of eternal Oneness with the great and glorious Allness", etc., ad infinitum. The P>S>I definition of a "controlled remote viewer", then, is much more specific and down-to-earth than the much more generic and less meaningful term, "remote viewer".

While training to be a controlled remote viewer does expand a person's awareness and sensitivity and will change a person's life for the better, when used for these purposes alone, it has been likened to joining the Marines just to learn how to fold your underware. There are much quicker and easier ways to achieve a sense of Nirvana than to go through the rigors of CRV training.


Tasking the answer

It is USUALLY the case that the tasker has a "feeling" or an idea about the unknowns of the task. Extreme care must be taken to make certain that the Tasker's ideas are not expressed in the actual text of the question. EXAMPLE: "My patient, an anorexic 24 year old female Caucasian, has vague and periodic symptoms of sclerosis of the liver, but no other symptoms of this illness are found. I think her problem is totally psychosomatic. Am I right?" The tasking, itself, tells you what the doctor wants to find. It introduces so much additional information into the session that the viewer finds it impossible to keep a clear mind and be totally open to other possibilities. If such wording were to get to the viewer, there would be very little reason to conduct a session. Sadly, the customer, who rarely knows the mechanics of dealing with a viewer, will usually "task a CAT".

Manipulative tasking

It is sometimes the case that the tasker will, either overtly or covertly, tell the CRVer what findings are desired. This situation is usually easy to detect, since there will be a degree of forcefulness involved. Either the tasker has as a preconceived belief and wants it to be confirmed, or may have some hidden political agenda which would be best served by certain findings. In such a case, it becomes the project manager's job to deal with the situation.

The Test

It is rare to find a customer who will not slip in a "test" question, just so the viewer can do a "dog and pony show" without knowing it, and prove him/herself to them. This is not only rude, but it is also useless. The customer must be taught that that a good or bad performance on one question does not mean that an equivalent quality of result will be obtained on another question. "The test" only proves how well the viewer can do on THAT question.

Prep Sessions

This is very similar to the "Test" question, except it is done to the CRVer by his/her own people. It is done in one of two ways:

1. By running a CRVer through one "preparatory target" after another until he/she begins to show good results, then introducing "the real" target.

2. By running the Viewer on a single "test target" to see how good he/she is doing that day, then judging the results of the real session according to how well he/she did on the "prep target".

Prep Sessions do not work!!! They only tire the Viewer, waste psychic energy and degrade the overall performance. Besides, as already mentioned (see The Test, above), a good or bad performance on one question (target) does not mean that an equivalent quality of result will be obtained on another. A PREP session (PREP target) may sound like a good, logical idea, but in practice, it is bad for the viewer, and for the results. Don't do it!

The Lie

This may sound ridiculous, but it has happened so many times in practice, that it has earned a place in the Horror Hall of Fame. A tasker will often give an outright lie as tasking. I once worked five viewers for a full five sessions each, getting nothing but garbage and contradictions, only to learn that the tasker had tasked us to describe facts about a crime which had never occurred. When confronted, the tasker replied with a straight face, "If you were really psychic, you would have known I was lying."

MMT: Massive Multiple Tasking

For the great majority of viewers, a single tasking question should be given for each session. If information is found which answers any of the other tasked questions, the analyst can use it where needed. MMT is a tendency of almost every tasker. They try to ask for the answer to every possible question, every possible ramification of those questions, etc. EXAMPLE: "Will the (expected event) happen during the span of this year or next, and, if it does happen at all, when and where will the major indicators occur leading up to it, and who will be the people involved? Give any names and descriptions you can get. If it doesn't happen, what factors will contribute to it not happening, and what else will happen in its place?" When tasking like that is received from a customer, three steps are required:

1. Separate the tasking into single, intelligent questions and weed out the questions which are either superfluous or which should be answered by some other means than controlled remote viewing.

2. Call the customer and check your revisions with them. See how many of the questions you can get rid of. See if the tasker actually knew what question he wanted to ask, in the first place. Then, educate him to what tasking style is needed in the future. If he refuses to comply, do not take tasking from him again.

3. If you still wind up with multiple questions, rank them as to which are most important (check this with the customer) and make a logical session work schedule, in order to give each CRVer only one question per session. If, in the course of any one session, other questions than the one tasked for that session become answered, delete those questions from the viewer's work schedule.

Paradoxical tasking:

Paradoxical tasking is tasking for information about a future event, with the intent of preventing it. The result is to make the viewer's perceptions wrong. The best way to explain paradoxical tasking is to give an example:

You are asked by the police to describe the location of a criminal at 9PM. You describe Joes Bar and Grill. At 8PM, the police hide in the bushes to be prepared to catch the criminal when he arrives. At 8:30, the criminal arrives and is apprehended. At 9PM, the criminal is in jail. Everyone is satisfied that you have done your job. Thanks to you, the criminal was caught. However, your subconscious mind isn't happy over the turn of events. It was made to be wrong. The criminal was not at Joe's Bar and Grill at 9PM. He was in jail.

It is logical to assume that the subconscious mind would have foreseen this and given a description of the criminal's 9PM location as a jail cell. However, if the subconscious mind had given that as a location, the police would not have known to go to Joe's Bar and Grill, would not have apprehended the criminal, and the criminal's 9PM location would not be the jail cell, but would, instead, have been the bar. Either way the subconscious mind performed, it was destined to be wrong. The subconscious mind does not take these things lightly. Many taskings of this sort, and it will begin to refuse to work under such circumstances. After that, the viewer only produces garbage in any situation where paradoxical tasking might occur again. Paradoxical tasking can ruin your viewers.

The solution to paradoxical tasking is simple: change the tasking in such a way that it will not cause a paradox. For example, in the above case, the tasking could have been changed to:

"The target is the location where the police will be able to catch the criminal, if they act tonight."

The frontloading which would then be given to the viewer would be:

"The target is a location. Describe the location."


T.A.M.E. C.A.T.: Transfer of Accessed Mental Energy to Consciously Accessible Thought.

This is every CRVer's main purpose for working: the perception which is accessed from a truly psychic source. As you will see, it is usually only identified as such after feedback has been received.

Attractors and Distractors

Both attractors and distractors ruin a session, simply by drawing the Viewer's attention away from the target.

S.A.: Set Aside

"Setting aside" an attraction or distraction is not always an easy task. The viewer must honestly identify the problem, face the cause, and then make an agreement with him/herself that, for at least the next few minutes, the offending thoughts will be set aside in order to get a job done. It is important that after the job is done, the matter be taken up again. If not, the subconscious will not agree to set things aside during the next session, knowing that the conscious mind's promise will not be kept.

Front Loading

After a CRVer is well skilled at handling attractors and distractors, it is possible to "front load" a session by giving some information ahead of time. This information must be both general and neutral in nature. The purpose of this is to save the CRVer the hours of session time it takes to get "on target". There are rules, of course, and for the CRVer's sake, those rules MUST be strictly observed:

1. The front loading must consist of a very small, previously-determined vocabulary which has been worked out between the CRVer and the monitor. The most basic set of front-loading phrases is:

The target is a person. The target is a "man-made". The target is a location. The target is an event.

2. The front loading must consist of only neutral words. For example, it would be destructive to tell the CRVer, "Yesterday evening, a six-year old girl was sexually assaulted, thrown into the trunk of a car and kidnapped. Describe her present physical and emotional condition." It would be permissible "front-loading", however, to tell a CRVer, "The target is a person. Describe the present time physical and emotional condition of the target person."

3. The monitor must always remember that the purpose of the front loading is to save the CRVer time and work, not to tell the CRVer what he should find. For example, the above permissible cuing should never be phrased, "Describe whether or not the target person is dead."

P.O.C.A: Previews of Coming Attractors

A quiet and insidious form of attractor! Before the session starts, a fleeting thought occurs about what the target might be. If not set aside (see S.A., below), this becomes a S.C.W.E.R.L. (see below) and can turn an RV session into a nightmare. In Swann terminology, this is called "AV" for "Advanced Visuals". These impressions, however, are not always visual, and can come as other sensories or even as random, stray thoughts.

P.O.C.D: Previews of Coming Distractors

Neither quiet nor insidious! This is the knowledge or feeling that a distraction is about to happen (for example, a phone call is expected, and might come in during the session). If not Set Aside (see S.A., below), it becomes a distractor in its own right, and the Viewer becomes incapable of performing a session at all. In Swann terminology, this is called "PI" for "Physical Inclemencies". The things declared here, however, can (and should) be ANY knowledge of coming distractors, to include emotional distractors, expected interruptions, etc.

E.A.: Emotional Attractor

There are facets to most sites which will hold an emotional attraction for the viewer. They are pleasant, safe, or simply interesting. The task at hand becomes unimportant as the viewer turns aside for the wonderful experience the E.A. offers.

E.D.: Emotional Distractor

With much the same end effect as the E.A., the E.D. generally tends to be unpleasant and creates an Anxiety CAT (see below). If not Set Aside, the session will be trail off into confusion and contradictory impressions as the viewer tries to avoid the perception which holds the unwanted emotion.

N.A.G.: Namer and Guesser

This is that part of the mind which sits on the fence between the conscious and subconscious and plays "guardian". No sooner does half a perception appear in the subconscious than it simply has to identify it as friend or foe. It blurts, "I know what that is!" and gives the perception a conscious name. It is the NAG which has let us survive as a species. The trouble is, most often it guesses before getting the full facts. Also, percentage-wise, it tends to guess more on the side of safety than accuracy. This is the origin of almost all STRAY CATs.

S.T.R.A.Y. C.A.T.: Subconscious Transference of Recollections, Anxieties, and Yearnings to Consciously Accessible Thought

This is the most persistent problem the CRVer faces: an impression which comes from his/her own memories, fears, desires, or imagination, and is indistinguishable from a true psychic perception. The important thing to remember is that the fact that an impression is a STRAY CAT does not mean it is wrong. In Swann terminology, this is called AOL (short for "Analytic Overlay").


This is the short name for STRAY CAT. It is the generic name for any of several types of impressions which result from the output of the NAG, rather than from the "source". Examples are: anxiety CAT, memory CAT, yearning CAT, etc.

CAT chasing its tail

This is a "wrapped around the axle" situation where a viewer gets an impression and has a fleeting thought of, "No, that's probably a STRAY CAT", then a contradictory thought or feeling of, "No... it felt like a valid impression." A mental struggle ensues in which the viewer's attention is drawn away from the task at hand to the decision of whether or not a perception was real or created from his own desires, etc. (a STRAY CAT). Pretty soon, the decision, itself, becomes the distractor, oblivious to the task around it. There is only one way to break this hypnotic situation: the viewer must be verbally reminded, either by the monitor or by him/herself: "It is a STRAY CAT!" "The fact that it is doesn't mean that it's wrong." "Write it down and go on." Usually, when the viewer gets mentally locked into this situation, the responsibility for giving this reminder falls to the monitor. Therefore, the monitor must be ever watchful for this situation because the viewer is usually mentally locked up in the struggle and does not verbalize it. (It happens a lot). If this condition is not stopped, the "CAT chasing its tail" becomes a condition called a "SCWERL". (See below)

Castle Building:

A mason starts a castle wall by finding a very excellent and sturdy stone, and, once having put it into place, then looks for another stone to fit onto it. If the second stone doesn't fit, he tosses it to the side and looks for one which does. He tries to make a smooth, seamless surface which is strong and will resist attack. CRVers are prone to do the same with perceptions. It is one thing when a viewer accepts a perception as being valid. It is another thing altogether when a viewer starts making every following perception "fit" the first one by interpreting what they must mean (in light of the previous information). When a viewer begins "castle building", he/shw will even begin to filter out those impressions which do not fit. The tendency is to say, "Well, if X were true, then this impression must mean...", or to say, "If X is true, then this can't be right!" The result is a STRAY CAT which is long, organized, and very well constructed In addition to the fact that the results are almost always wrong, there will be a growing certainty in the viewer's mind that he/she "has really nailed" the target. This begins a spiral effect where growing certainty makes the viewer more prone to filter out any contradictory information and actively seek any perception which would reinforce the castle walls. The perceptions gained thereby then increase the certainy in the viewer's mind, continuing the spiral. The most destructive effect of this is when feedback is given and the viewer must face the truth.

S.C.W.E.R.L. (pronounced "squirrel"): STRAY CAT Wrecking Everything, Running Loose!

This acronym accurately describes the problem. An uncontrolled STRAY CAT first stops the session, then gets into and destroys everything by casting doubts about everything which has been perceived before. The more the viewer chases it, the more evasive it becomes. Pretty soon, all the viewer's time and energy is taken up trying to trap and control it, and in the process, the viewer does as much - if not more - damage to the session as the STRAY CAT would have done. After (or if) the viewer gets it under control, the moment of victory is shattered by returning to the tasking, only to find a session in shambles. In short, a SCWERL ruins a session, usually beyond repair. The best action to be taken if a SCWERL get loose is to end the session and try starting all over again later, if necessary. In Swann terminology, this is called AOL DRIVE.

Tasker's CAT

It is USUALLY the case that the tasker has a "feeling" or an idea about the unknowns of the task. Extreme care must be taken to make certain that the tasker's ideas are not expressed in the actual text of the question. EXAMPLE: "My daughter is missing. What does the man who kidnapped her look like?" In this example, the tasking, itself, introduces information into the session that the viewer will have to fight: "kidnapped", "the man". Possibly, neither of these are true. However, if this wording gets to the viewer, it becomes a STRAY CAT the viewer will rarely be able to overcome. Most often, the monitor, or some other trained person will need to reword the tasking before the viewer is allowed to see it. The wording of the tasking should be as neutral as possible.

Monitor's CAT

Whether the monitor has background knowledge of the site or not, there are almost as many times during a session when the monitor's NAG jumps to a conclusion and yells, "I know what it is!" If the monitor is not able to set aside these impressions, the session should be stopped. If it is not, the monitor will begin injecting cues, leading statements and/or physical mannerisms into the session which will lead the viewer to find what the monitor wants to hear.

Analyst's CAT

The analyst must go through the session transcript and make an analysis of the findings. Any preconceptions the analyst may have about the target site will influence the interpretation of the viewer's findings, and can often distort them so badly as to contradict them. The way to prevent this is to always have the analyst check his/her interpretations of the session results with the viewer and monitor.

Reporter's CAT

The report writer's preconceptions about the target site influences what gets stressed, and what gets minimized. There is another CAT which the report writer often has: that of a feeling of responsibility for the report. If the situation is established where the report writer's reputation is dependent on the contents of the report, an otherwise perfect (set of) session(s) can be totally ruined in this last step of the process as the report writer decides, "I'm not reporting THAT!".

Customer's CAT

As much as we would like to say that the customer came to us to find out the truth, the actual fact is that the truth is not always well received. If the customer only wanted confirmation of his strongly held preconceptions, all efforts have been wasted (unless, of course, the customer's preconceptions were correct - then you're the hero).

Neighbor's CAT

This type CAT was invented as a joke, and winds up being one of the viewers' favorites. Basically, a viewer says, "It wasn't that I was wrong - I was just picking up on what somebody else (the tasker, the monitor, another viewer, etc.) was thinking about the target. They were the ones who were wrong. Mental telepathy, you know." Research and data keeping have shown that such a CAT actually does exist. However, it is not as common as a viewer would like to have it be. (See "waffling", below)


Quite often, a viewer will get so attracted to one part of the site that he/she accepts that part as the entire target and completely misses the overall picture. This is a situation where the viewer, "Can't see the forest for this @*&# single tree!". The term originated one day after a session when the viewer and monitor went to the actual site for actual feedback. The viewer walked up to the door, pointed at the doorknob and said, "There it is! That's what I was seeing! It was a doorknob!" "And that's exactly what you spent an hour describing," the monitor said, "but the target was the house."

P.S.I.: Perfect Site Immersion

There are times in a session when the contact with the site is so strong that the Viewer experiences actual presence at the site. Full sound, sight, tactile, smell, and all other sensory impressions are as they would be if the Viewer were actually there. This is extremely rare, and most exciting. In Swann terminology, this is called "bilocation".


When the subconscious mind is trying to report a truly psychic impression, it is often interrupted by the fears, anxieties, memories, etc. from within other parts of the mind (the NAG). These other impressions get passed to the conscious mind and either color or are mistaken for the psychic impression which triggered them. However, the subconscious mind rarely gives up without a fight. Some "indicator" of its displeasure will be generated when such a thing happens. These indicators can be as subtle as pupil dilation or a change in handwriting or as open as a display of anger where the viewer gets up and walks around the room. Because these indicators form into habitual patterns, it is possible to study them to gain a better understanding of which associated impressions were from true psychic sources (TAME CATS), and which were generated within the viewer's own mind (STRAY CATS). It is also possible to train them into a viewer's in-session behavior patterns (see the Monitor's Manual).


Consensus Analysis and Reporting

In consensus analysis and reporting, things are only consider as reliable information if there is agreement between the findings of several viewers. If something is perceived by four out of five viewers, it is given more importance than something which is perceived by only two of the five. Anything perceived by a minority or by only one is usually not even reported.

Also, if one reported fact does not "jibe" with the other reported facts (in other words, if it does not make sense to the analyst or report writer), it is usually thrown out, no matter how many viewers reported it. An example here can be taken from one investigation done by an organization which uses consensus reporting: Several viewers reported a ship. The information that had been sent to the analyst plainly described a desert setting. Most of the other perceptions by the viewers (even the ones reporting the ship) gave desert-like descriptions. The "ship" perception was thrown out of the final report because it did not make sense to the analyst/report writer. In this particular case, the actual location turned out to be a quite well known desert mesa which was shaped like a ship and bore the name of "shiprock". If the "ship" description had been reported to the investigating police. in spite of not making sense to the analyst, it would have narrowed their search time by days.

While consensus reporting makes for a well-organized and well-written report, it has proven time and again to be extremely error prone. It is not unusual for ten viewers to perceive one thing, with an eleventh perceiving something which contradicts them, and to find out later that the one was correct and the ten were wrong. The "reason" (excuse) which is usually given is that the ten were "picking up on each other's thoughts (neighbor's CAT)" Consensus reporting is so error prone because the analyst or report writer, unlike the viewers, usually knows many of the facts of the case, and tends to pick through the viewers' information, pulling out and reporting only that which fits his predetermined beliefs (STRAY CATS) about the case. If something reinforces what the analyst has already decided, it gets reported. If it goes against what the analyst has already decided, it gets dropped out of the report. In effect, when consensus reporting is used, it negates the use of the viewers, completely. Whatever the reason or excuse, the fact remains that consensus reporting just does not work.

Statistical Analysis and Reporting ("Analytic Filtering")

In the analysis and reporting methodology called Analytic Filtering, a viewer's every impression is evaluated against feedback for correctness, and then associated with any indicators (micromovements) which might have happened at the point in the viewer's session which produced that impression. In time, an increasingly dependable profile of indicators and their meanings emerges for each viewer. Through painstaking analysis and a thorough knowledge of a viewer's individual set of indicators, those parts of a session transcript where the viewer is imagining, etc. can be separated from the portions where he/she is reporting valid information, and the information which shows the least probability of being correct can be expunged from final reporting. The result is a report which contains less information, but of highly increased accuracy.

As an understanding of a Viewer's individual work patterns emerges, new session transcripts and reports are "filtered" against those patterns, perception by perception, word by word, to test, retest, and refine the accuracy of the indicators database for that viewer. The longer a viewer works for P>S>I, and the more sessions performed, the more accurate the filter becomes, and the more correct the resulting information presented in the report.

Long-term analysis of these indicators has also proven valuable for training new viewers. Many of the more common indicators are actually trained into student viewers, helping them gain a higher dependability factor much faster and more easily.


Waffling is an attempt to redefine the viewer's findings in order to make them fit the feedback. In practice, it is often any reaction to the feedback which begins with the word, "Well, ...". The tendency for waffling is as common among CRVers and their supporting staff as it is for other psychic practitioners.

EXAMPLE: In session, a viewer reported, "The criminal is driving a yellow car." The feedback shows that the criminal was riding in the back of an unpainted hay-wagon. The viewer replies, "Well... yeah! When I said car, I meant a vehicle of some kind, and when I said it was yellow, I was no doubt seeing the hay. I got it right!"

The practice of waffling not only cheapens the results, but does so in such a shallow manner as to rob the viewer of the respect of his/her peers It is interesting to note that the people associated with the viewer are usually more guilty of waffling than the viewer is. The viewer will want to know when he/she got something wrong, and try to figure out why, and will therefore tend to be harder in the judging of his/her own results than other people will. The Viewer may not always voice his/her displeasure, but will almost certainly feel deeply offended by another person's attempt to cover up mistakes by waffling the findings. If you care about your viewer(s), do not make this social faux pas. A viewer never appreciates waffling as much as an honest appraisal.

If, however, the viewer has grown accustomed to waffling, and is content to believing his/her own excuses, you are better off not using that viewer again.

If you are a viewer and find yourself having to work with people (or even a single person) who is prone to waffling on the results, it is strongly in your best interest to take that person (those people) to task about it. If the people with whom a you work continue to waffle on the results, you are better off not working for or associating with them again.

Checking Back

One would think that common courtesy would make the analyst check back with the viewer to ask, "This is what I think you said. Am I right?" One would also think that the report writer would do the same before typing up the final copy and providing it to the customer. Sadly, this is not always the case.


Database management

The proper database management for training and analysis of the CRVer's work should include at least the following information:

Viewer This can be the CRVer's name, some identifying number, or whatever is necessary to show which viewer did the work in any one session. Example: VIEWER: Blow, Joe

Session This should, as a minimum, include fields for the date, time started, and time ended.

Target This can be the name of the target, a project number, a complete, exhaustively detailed description, or whatever is deemed necessary for record keeping purposes. The main point is that this field should identify the target site in some way. Example: TARGET: Project # 1234

Findings This should consist of a number of fields which separate the categories of work you will be performing, to include many basic information categories. Tracking information in categories will help you identify your strengths and weaknesses. For example, many people are good at getting information on colors, textures, etc., but very poor at getting information in other categories, such as smells, sounds, etc.

NOTE: for a discussion of how to translate raw information into data, see the Viewers' and Monitors' manuals.

There are proponents (and I am one of them) for the keeping of more information than these bare essentials. Some of the proposed other fields are: Length of session How the viewer felt that day Weather conditions Moon phase Biorhythm ratings Types & lengths of breaks (& where they came in the session) etc.

Database: A database is a computer program which allows you to record randomly gathered bits of informaton as they happen. Once entered, the individual bits of information are compared, contrasted, collectively organized, sorted and studied to gain overall information about the subject at hand. For example, if George's session scores are collected and entered each time a session is graded, the information may be as follows:

  Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
Week 1 87.93 84.55 93.76 65.65 82.73
Week 2 84.32 88.77 89.99 73.25 81.76
Week 3 85.00 83.98 91.23 70.02 83.84

What might seem like a jumble of numbers, when massaged by a database program gives accurate information about a viewer's work habits. While the viewer may feel bad on Monday mornings and feel that his worst work is done on Mondays, the database will show that his worst day is actually Thursday and his best day is Wednesday. Data collected into a database program can be utilized to analyze and better understand the confusion of information which occurs with normal work.

Field A field within a database is any single and separate category of information. For example, in the normal database, you would want to put a person's name, street address, city, state, and zip code into different fields. By so doing, you could look up someone by name, could find out who all lives in a certain city to which you will be going, who lives in a certain state or zip code to which you want to do a mass mailing, etc.

Record Think of a record as a filled-out questionaire. While each question on it is a separate field, the entire sheet is a record. The information in each record stays together no matter what you do with the record. For example, your name and address are separate fields, but since they are parts of the same record, they never get lost from one another.

For more information on databases and how to use them, check your local library, or see the operating manuals for any database software program.

Viewer Profile

This is the term used to describe the information in the database for each individual CRVer. A CRVer might say, "My viewer profile shows that I currently have an average accuracy of {xyz}% in the category of color."


This manual is a copyrighted publication of Problems>Solutions>Innovations 26944 Bosse Drive, Mechanicsville, MD 20659

While the physical manual becomes the property of the student of the Problems Solutions Innovations course for which it is intended, the format and content of the information therein remains the property of Problems>Solutions>Innovations for all time.

While the terms and information contained in this manual are being placed into the public record, the "manual as an entity" represents work done at Problems>Solutions>Innovations, and is therefore to be considered as a unit of work which can only be altered, deleted from, or added to by Problems>Solutions>Innovations, itself.

No portion of this manual is to be taken from it and added to other manuals, unless proper documentation is made and permission is granted by Problems>Solutions>Innovations. "Plagiarism" of this manual, either in part or in whole, is illegal and will not be allowed. "Plagiarism" is defined here as extracting and/or copying material from this manual, and with or without modification, claiming it as the property and/or creation of the person doing the extracting and/or copying.

No portion of this manual may be copied into another document for the purpose of selling that document. Copies of this document are not to be sold, bartered or traded. Distribution of this document is not to be made for the purpose of profit, and will be done only at the distributer's expense, including expenses incurred for materials, time and work spent, postage, and any and all other costs of distribution.

For permission requests, questions, comments, or any other communication with Problems>Solutions>Innovations, the Executive Director or his assigns may be reached at:

Mailing address:

Problems Solutions Innovations
26944 Bosse Drive
Mechanicsville, MD 20659


Internet web page:

This document is Copyright 1992-1997 Leonard Buchanan and Problems>Solutions>Innovations. All rights reserved.


firedocs entrance  —  firedocs "Misc. RV Stuff"