Resources on Escolà-Gascón et al.'s (2023) remote viewing research per the original CIA experiments

Escolà-Gascón, Álex, Vilarasau Serrab, Max, Houran, James, Dagnall, Neil ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0657-7604, Drinkwater, Kenneth ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4015-0578 and Denovan, Andrew ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9082-7225 (2023) Resources on Escolà-Gascón et al.'s (2023) remote viewing research per the original CIA experiments. Explore: the Journal of Science and Healing. ISSN 1550-8307

Accepted Version File will be available on: 26 July 2024. Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (529kB)

Abstract

This report describes and presents the raw data from Escolà-Gascón et al.’s1 remote viewing study, which extended similar experiments initiated by the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Remote viewing is a research technique that allows scientists to examine the degree to which individuals might access “distant (or nonlocal) information” without using known logical-perceptual channels. Many parapsychologists regard such effects as evidence of psychic (or psi) ability, whereas other researchers more cautiously designate beyond-chance results as “anomalous cognition.” The original research commissioned by the CIA provided favorable (though highly controversial) results, and several subsequent replications have shown positive and non-significant results. This has fostered heated scientific debate about the nature or meaning of these anomalous cognitions from theoretical, methodological, and statistical viewpoints. This report contextualizes the data obtained from our investigation that conceptually replicated the results of prior remote viewing experiments. Specifically, the authors found a positive association between emotional intelligence (EI) and positive performance (or “hits”) in remote viewing cognitive experiments, employing statistical controls based on structural equation modeling (SEM). We thus clarify certain methodological issues about our data to ensure transparency with their future use. We focus on three essential points: (1) more detailed explanation of our EI measures; (2) justification of our effect size calculation and why we obtained underestimated standard deviations per the population parameter; and (3) further consideration of the nuances with interpreting the statistical anomalies (or hits) in the remote viewing tests.