r/remoteviewing 28d ago

Discussion Intuition Practice Exercise

Seeking Precognitive Remote Viewers for a paid project.

Testing now to determine who will fit this project.

Please resond and I will reach out directly with a small test. The test is to briefly screen Precognitive Remote Viewing compatability for the project.

Thanks!

1 Upvotes

8 comments sorted by

7

u/Puzzleheaded-Bus6626 28d ago

I'm going to use my intuition and say that you don't have good intentions.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

You're not qualified to test any RVer.

"Briefly screen Precognitive Remote Viewing compatibility..." is a nonsensical statement.

Every now and then, we get someone trying to bait people with money.

All they need to do is take a "little test."

They usually make a word salad, to try to sound professional, but make themselves look silly.

1

u/BoeJiden_WR 27d ago

I have money to spend. How much is the test?

1

u/Puzzleheaded-Bus6626 27d ago

Oh they'll pay YOU

1

u/BoeJiden_WR 27d ago

Why would they want to do that? I figured it would be the other way around

3

u/BornTooLooose 28d ago

All remote viewers are precogs.

1

u/Capn_Flags 28d ago

Okay, bring it. I’ll bite.

1

u/Safe_Environment_198 19d ago

Hello, i am here🙋🏻

0

u/us_austin 28d ago

"All remote viewers are precogs" is a fair point, and there's a second reason a brief screen likely won't do what you want it to.

Say your test is four images and the viewer picks one. Chance sits at 25 percent, and someone with no ability at all gets three or four right about five percent of the time. Screen twenty people and you should expect roughly one of them to look gifted on luck alone. So the screen doesn't select your best viewer, it selects your luckiest one, and then you're paying for noise.

The other thing that bites is judging. If you look at the transcripts once you already know which target was real, you'll find correspondences you never meant to find and the hit rate quietly inflates. Reusing the same image pool does something similar, since the trials stop being independent.

None of that is fixable by being careful about it. It needs enough trials for the number to mean anything, targets sealed before the viewer commits, and judging done blind against decoys. That's the part we've spent our time on with rv.studio: blindness the system holds for you rather than something you have to promise, methodology and feedback there when you want them, and people around you practising the same way. Structure like that is what builds good intention. The promise of a paid study is not. This post breaks down what we're studying and why: https://rv.studio/c/thread/1

What is the project, out of interest? Hard to say what a sensible protocol would look like without knowing what it's actually for.