The Ideas That Spawned ARV
Scientific study of 'psychic ability' has changed over time. One of the most profound changes in psi science happened when it was discovered that "free response" psychic work -- when the viewer simply "describes the target" which could be almost anything in the world -- statistically was a lot more accurate than most "forced-choice" data (such as card guessing, for example).
Still, there are some questions that are not easily answered with free-response psi. For example, if you want to know if the stock price of orange juice is going to go "up" vs. "down" next Tuesday, this is not an easy thing to answer with free-response psi. Viewers often get gestalt, descriptive and concept info that is of great value or accuracy, but in these cases, the potential targets actually SHARE nearly all their major BE-ing-ness except one point: up or down, etc.
Like computer programming, a tasker may wish to say, "IF the outcome is X, THEN describe A; ELSEIF the outcome is Y, THEN describe B; ELSE describe C." Of course, one could use another psi-based art, such as pendulum dowsing, which would allow one to simply ask for a "yes," "no" or "other" response. But then we are back to a "forced-choice" situation again!
If the "outcome question" you are targeting is a person's activities, or whether or not a building has blown up, that is pretty straightforward. The viewer can simply describe the person or location at any given place or time. A good viewer is certainly going to tell you whether or not a building has recently blown up. :-) Regular Remote Viewing is fine for that.
But if you are tasking whether the red or blue team wins, or whether the price of orange juice rises or falls, these targets may not produce the kind of session data that makes the answer very clear to the judge. This is a problem, since the judge must use the psychic's data to figure out the answer BEFORE the event occurs, so it can be 'predicted'. (Or, orange juice stock can be bought!)
Scientists Dr. Edwin C. May and Russell Targ wondered how the improved accuracy of "free response" psi could be applied to a "forced choice" question, and how it could be done in such a way that the resulting data provided by the psychic would give a good idea of what the real outcome was going to be.
Remote Viewing had already demonstrated that you could ask a viewer to describe something based on a number, letters, words, or even just a wave or a green light. (How did the psychic know "what" the target was that they were supposed to be describing? They were psychic!) So they already knew that you could "relate" something to a target, such as a "task number."
They came up with a set of ideas, and through experiment, eventually developed a workable, clean protocol, for using free-response "remote viewing" to address "forced choice" outcome-type questions.
What is "ARV" aka Associative Remote Viewing?
ARV is a type of Remote Viewing protocol, designed to allow the free-response psi of RV to be applied toward the prediction of forced-choice outcomes.
This was designed to be used with future prediction, but it can be used toward existing/current situations, as long as there is feedback at some point in the future to show the viewers.
Outside of science and into layman's RV and theory, ARV has other potential 'reasons' for being used.
- You may have a realtime or future target where the "question" about it is so subtle or abstract, that using ARV's "association" of distinctly different 'potential' targets, may help better "delineate" the answer one is looking for. (Even with really great viewers.)
- You may have viewers that are not as skilled as lab-level viewers, so that using ARV's "association" of distinctly different 'potential' targets, may help better "delineate" the answer one is looking for. (For example, if a novice viewer is not yet good with 'person or animal' data, ARV can set up 'optional targets' where a decent gestalt and a few good descriptives would suffice.)
- You may have a viewer(s) (even a fairly good one) known to do poorly on a certain type of target (perhaps for psychological reasons) and that's what you need an answer about. Or, you may wish to target something which may be disturbing to the viewer, or is confidential. In that case, using ARV's "association" of distinctly different 'potential' targets may allow the viewer to be tasked with something else.
Remember this old joke?
A fellow is on the streetcorner at night, under a streetlight, searching for something. A man approaching him asks,
"What are you looking for?"
"My keys," the man responds.
"Where did you lose them?" the newcomer asks.
"A few blocks over," the man says.
"Well then, why on earth are you looking for them here?!" asks the second man. To which the first replies,
"Because the light is better here!"
So, in a nutshell, ARV is a way of tasking ONE thing for psychic info, in order to get an answer about ANOTHER thing.
Because Remote Viewing (free-response psi) is "a better light" than forced-choice psi, we use that. Although you could use dowsing or other arts for an answer, remote viewers may choose to use the tool they're best with.
How Does ARV Work?
The traditional Remote Viewing protocol is always in place first, of course. This includes the three primary fundamentals of RV protocol:
- Intended. The data acquisition is done deliberately, with planned intent.
- Double-blind (or 'solo' blind, when working alone).The viewer and anybody present with them or in communication with them during a session must be blind to (unaware of) the nature or detail of the task-focus (target).
- Feedback. Someone must get feedback on the target which can be compared with the viewer's session data.
"Associative" RV specifies a certain setup for the tasking and feedback part of the overall protocol. It works like this:
- A target (such as an event) "outcome" is chosen. In the original research examples, it was the stock market price-change of silver on a given day (so the options would be "up/higher/increase" or "down/lower/decrease" or "other").
- Three photographs of the sort normally used for Remote Viewing purposes are chosen. They are chosen to be as deliberately different from one another as possible. Each of these photos are "assigned to" one of the "outcome options."
- The viewer is tasked with something like, Describe the feedback which you will be shown this coming Tuesday at 9:00 pm Central time.
- The viewer does their session. The session is secured. Someone who is not the viewer "evaluates" the session data against the three "option" photographs, and chooses which of the three the data seems to best-match. A prediction is recorded in some way based on this.
- The event occurs, and the outcome is known. The photograph 'assigned to' that outcome-option is then shown to the viewer(s) as feedback.
A few notes on the process:
- It does not matter if the viewer perfectly described the photo for option B. If the outcome is assigned to photo-option C, the viewer is shown C.
- The viewer should not see anything but the actual target. The target is the photograph assigned to the actual outcome. They should not see the other photographs. In traditional ARV, they should not be the 'judge' evaluating against the options. This is sometimes done as a variant in the layman's RV field but not in science. In science, accuracy has been shown to be higher when the viewer does not see any option but the actual target (and as a general rule in RV across the board, when their feedback is accurate and specific to the task).
- The occasional phenomenon of viewers seeming to clearly describe "the target associated with the wrong option" is often called displacement. There is much controversy and theory about this. The term 'displacement' is used in other ways in remote viewing. If the viewer seems to describe the next-target in line (or tomorrow's target), their friend's target, the target at a pointedly different time, etc. that may also be termed displacement.
Common Issues in ARV
A combination of FAQ-type answers follow, things I've seen online viewers confused about over the years:
ARV vs. RV: If you tasked a viewer on the-thing-itself, it would be regular RV. When you assign a target "to represent" something else, and then task on the target, that is using the theories on which ARV was based.
ARV is a binary-with-'other' setup, such as yes/no/other or higher/lower/other-etc. Yes, I know that's three, not two! But similar to dowsing, which is considered "binary" when looking for a yes/no answer, there is a third option 'just in case' neither of the first two are true. It is a 'failsafe', and is assigned to be the option for every-other-possibility-that-isn't-yes-or-no.
Variants. You can use the theories ARV is based upon to expand that however you like, of course. You could assign 30 different options/outcomes to 30 different options, sure. But try doing this and you'll soon see that the universe seems to have a limited set of basic forms and dynamics, and finding several targets dissimilar enough from each other to be what you need for this process is not easy. It's not easy with three. It's pretty hard with ten. It's nearly impossible with 30. The viewer's skill is a consideration here, since the reason for dissimilar targets is to make it so the viewer's data will make clear which option they are describing in the first place. But even in lab work with 5 options and some of the best viewers in the world, the commonality of shapes and dynamics in differing targets often make viewer data 'accurate, yet difficult to tell which photo it relates to' since it matches more than one. This problem is exponential with more 'options'.
ARV is a Remote Viewing Protocol, with certain specifics in the tasking and feedback areas. Note that ARV is a given "thing" on its own, as it was developed within the science lab and so the term has a certain definition or set of assumptions. If you are NOT using the rest of RV protocol, or if you are NOT using the 2+'other' option set, for example, it isn't traditional ARV. If the evaluation of the session against the possibilities is done by the viewer, it isn't traditional ARV.
If you are using a variant of this protocol, please do the whole RV field a favor, and make the effort when discussing it to say you are using a variant, or make up a term for the unique thing you may be doing. For example, "I'm using ARV with a 5-option variant" or "I'm using ARV with a viewer-as-judge variant". That makes it clear to everybody what you are really doing. The psi field already suffers terribly from language and terminology issues. The more clarity viewers can bring to their discussions and articles, the better we are able to have an intelligent discussion about the subject without leading to confusion or frustration.
ARV is not a methodology, like CRV, so the "acronym" for it gets a little confusing to some. You can use any method to do a psi session to get data for ARV.
As always, a reminder on RV protocol: In the layman's RV field, some call any 'set of rules' like RV "protocols". Some call psi methodologies (like CRV) "protocols". In science (where RV and ARV originated), the terms 'protocol' and 'method' are a bit different. Protocol is the overall plan and situational context with various basic criteria, process and controls in place. Methods are a detail process(es) performed within those parameters. There could be methods for ten different things within 1 protocol, for example. There's a method for viewing, a method for judging, etc. A protocol can define what "method" is used within it... it doesn't have to.
Direct Tasking. Some suggest you can just target the target straight out and see what you get, and that there will usually be info in the sessions which lends to the needed concepts (e.g., if the real question is up/down, you might get symbolic data of something high or flying, as opposed to grounded or underground). If this is what the tasker intends, this may work. I suspect it demands a lot more of an analyst's own psi abilities to be effective though. Since one of the biggest complications in any RV, including ARV, is analysis, anything that affects this part must be carefully considered.
There are other common ideas for directly tasking some outcome-based targets. For example in sports, some people task the team logo, or how the coach feels about the game afterward, etc. There are no limits to what you can do; the limits are usually seen when you try to evaluate what you get in return.
Where can I find people to ARV with?
TKR has an ARV-specific message board here.
TKR @the Dojo Psi has hands-on viewer tools for RV; if you're creative, you can jury-rig the Taskerbot website (inside TKR's space at the Dojo) to help you and a partner do ARV in a decent protocol.
You can find cool info about ARV at Greg K's ARV website.
Marty R also has an ARV website.
More questions? Try TKR or, Here's the Link to the Contact Form