Group-Optimized Psi

  • Description
  • Research Grant Proposal
  • Project Outline
  • Pilot Study
  • How YOU Can Help

Group-Optimized Psi: Longitudinal Small-Group Anomalous Cognition and Mind–Matter Interaction

Follow the OSF Project Here!

Summary

This project will conduct a multi‑year, preregistered experimental program to test and optimize the psi (anomalous cognition and mind–matter interaction) performance of small groups selected and trained for maximal effect sizes. Building on meta‑analytic evidence that altered states of consciousness, free‑response procedures, selected participants, and strong feedback enhance outcomes, the project will (1) form multiple small groups optimized on these factors, (2) follow them longitudinally under tightly controlled laboratory conditions, and (3) systematically vary key psychological and methodological moderators. Outcomes will include both immediate performance (hit rates, effect sizes) and mechanistic indicators such as how group cohesion, state of consciousness, belief, and task design interact over time. The study will use state‑of‑the‑art randomization, blinding, and open‑science practices (preregistration, data sharing, registered reports) to ensure credibility and replicability. Results will be relevant to parapsychology, cognitive and social psychology, and models of mind–brain interaction, and will produce openly available datasets and protocols that future teams can build on.[2][4][5][3][1]

Background and rationale

  • Meta‑analyses show small but consistent effects for anomalous cognition (e.g., Ganzfeld, remote viewing) and micro‑PK, especially under free‑response conditions with selected participants and altered or reduced sensory states.[3][1][2]
  • Methodological reviews recommend combining rigorous randomization/blinding with psi‑conducive conditions (e.g., Ganzfeld, structured remote viewing protocols) rather than sacrificing one for the other.[5][6][2]
  • Most past work focuses on individuals or short‑term protocols; long‑term small‑group optimization with systematic factor variation is rare, so potential non‑linear and developmental effects (e.g., training, group cohesion) remain poorly characterized.[1][3]

This project addresses these gaps by treating group psi as a trainable, context‑dependent skill and by explicitly mapping how factors strengthen or weaken it over time.

Aims and hypotheses

Aim 1 – Maximize measurable psi in small groups

  • Form and train multiple 4–8‑person groups optimized for psi‑conducive traits (prior experiences, openness, meditation, positive expectancy) and states (relaxation, mild Ganzfeld / remote‑viewing conditions).[2][3][1]
  • Hypothesis 1: Selected, trained groups will show significantly higher anomalous cognition and micro‑PK effect sizes than unselected control groups under identical protocols.[7][3][1]

Aim 2 – Identify moderators of group psi performance

  • Systematically vary factors such as state induction (e.g., standard vs enhanced Ganzfeld; scripted vs unscripted relaxation), group cohesion, feedback schedule, and belief/expectancy framing, using preregistered factorial designs.[5][1][2]
  • Hypothesis 2: Performance will be reliably moderated by (a) altered states, (b) free‑response tasks, © immediate feedback, and (d) group cohesion and positive expectancy; hostile or highly skeptical framings will reduce effects.[3][1][2]

Aim 3 – Explore mechanisms and models

  • Use mixed‑effects modeling to relate trial‑level performance to self‑reported state (absorption, imagery vividness, emotional arousal), group‑level variables (cohesion, perceived synchronicity), and task parameters.[1][3]
  • Hypothesis 3: Successful trials will cluster with specific state profiles (e.g., high absorption, vivid imagery), suggesting mechanistic pathways consistent with noise‑reduction and altered‑state models.[2][5][1]

Study design and methods

Overall design

  • 3–5‑year, multi‑phase, mixed‑methods program combining:
    • Free‑response anomalous cognition tasks (Ganzfeld ESP and remote viewing).
    • Micro‑PK tasks using high‑quality random number generators (RNGs).
    • Longitudinal repeated‑measures design with multiple small groups plus controls.[8][3][1][2]

Participants and group formation

  • Recruitment: 120–160 adults via public calls, psi‑interested communities, and university lists.
  • Screening: questionnaires on psi experiences, openness, meditation practice, and attitudes toward psi; short interviews.[9][7][1]
  • Group allocation:
    • High‑conducive small groups (selected) vs matched control groups (unselected / low‑conducive) to test selection effects.
    • Stable membership within each group across the project.

Experimental paradigms

  1. Anomalous cognition (group‑optimized)
    • Modified Ganzfeld: noise‑reduced environment (e.g., red light, halved ping‑pong balls, white/pink noise) with group or paired senders and one or more receivers, using standardized ESP recommendations.[5][2]
    • Remote viewing: standard protocol with randomized target pools, outbound experimenters, blind inbound experimenters, and rank‑order judging, drawing on established remote‑viewing guidelines.[10][6][11]
  2. Micro‑PK
    • High‑quality hardware or certified software RNGs (e.g., Psyleron‑type devices or open‑source hardware) with group intention periods toward predefined outcomes.[12][8]
    • Both individual and group‑intention sessions, counterbalanced across conditions.

Key methodological safeguards

  • Randomization and blinding of targets and conditions, with automated logging wherever possible.[13][14][2]
  • Preregistration and registered‑report submissions for main phases to increase credibility and attract serious funders.[4][3]
  • Independent, blinded judging for free‑response data using rank‑order or figure‑of‑merit scoring.[6][10][3]
  • Open‑science practices: data and analysis scripts deposited in OSF or similar repositories under appropriate privacy protections.[4][3]

Data analysis

  • Primary outcomes: hit rates vs chance (free‑response), standardized effect sizes (e.g., Hedges g, z‑scores) for RNG deviations.[8][3][1]
  • Statistical approach: frequentist and Bayesian analyses, mixed‑effects models including participant and group as random factors, and moderator analyses for state, belief, feedback, and design variables.[15][3][1]
  • Sequential monitoring and correction for multiple comparisons to reduce false positives.[4][3]

Significance and impact

  • Advances:
    • Systematic mapping of what really makes group psi appear stronger or weaker across time, rather than isolated one‑off demonstrations.[3][1][2]
    • High‑credibility, open datasets useful to both proponents and skeptics, potentially clarifying whether psi‑like effects persist under rigorous controls.[1][4][3]
  • Broader impacts:
    • Methodological toolkit for other controversial or low‑signal areas (robust blinding, open protocols).
    • Public engagement and volunteer participation in high‑quality research.

References:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15