In 1988 an analysis was made of all of the experiments conducted at SRI from 1973 until
that time (May et al, 1988). The analysis was based on all 154 experiments conducted during that era, consisting of
over 26,000 individual trials. Of those, almost 20,000 were of the forced choice type and just over a thousand were
laboratory remote viewings. There were a total of 227 subjects in all experiments.
The statistical results were so overwhelming that results that extreme or more so would occur only about once in
every 1020 such instances if chance alone is the explanation (i.e., the p-value was less than
10-20). Obviously some explanation other than chance must be found. Psychic functioning may not be the only
possibility, especially since some of the earlier work contained methodological problems. However, the fact that the
same level of functioning continued to hold in the later experiments, which did not contain those flaws, lends support
to the idea that the methodological problems cannot account for the results. In fact, there was a talented group of
subjects (labeled G1 in that report) for whom the effects were stronger than for the group at large. According to Dr.
May, the majority of experiments with that group were conducted later in the program, when the methodology had been
substantially improved.
In addition to the statistical results, a number of other questions and patterns were examined. A summary of the
results revealed the following:
- "Free response" remote viewing, in which subjects describe a target, was much more successful than "forced
choice" experiments, in which subjects were asked to choose from a small set of possibilities.
- There was a group of six selected individuals whose performance far exceeded that of unselected subjects. The fact
that these same selected individuals consistently performed better than others under a variety of protocols provides
a type of replicability that helps substantiate the validity of the results. If methodological problems were
responsible for the results, they should not have affected this group differently from others.
- Mass-screening efforts found that about one percent of those who volunteered to be tested were consistently
successful at remote viewing. This indicates that remote viewing is an ability that differs across individuals, much
like athletic ability or musical talent. (Results of mass screenings were not included in the formal analysis
because the conditions were not well-controlled, but the subsequent data from subjects found during mass-screening
were included.)
- Neither practice nor a variety of training techniques consistently worked to improve remote viewing ability. It
appears that it is easier to find than to train good remote viewers.
- It is not clear whether or not feedback (showing the subject the right answer) is necessary, but it does appear to
provide a psychological boost that may increase performance.
- Distance between the target and the subject does not seem to impact the quality of the remote viewing.
- Electromagnetic shielding does not appear to inhibit performance.
- There is compelling evidence that precognition, in which the target is selected after the subject has given the
description, is also successful.
- There is no evidence to support anomalous perturbation (psychokinesis), i.e. physical interaction with the
environment by psychic means.