Research
We’re figuring out what lets these things happen.
People have reported telepathy, precognition and knowing at a distance for as long as there have been people. We’re less interested in arguing about it than in learning when it shows up, for whom, and under what conditions. So we measure carefully, and we show our work.
The question
Practice and perception, studied together.
We study practice and perception side by side, because that’s how people actually live them. What were you doing before? How did you feel? Who was with you? Those are the details we’re curious about.
The protocols we run aren’t new. They come from nearly a century of careful work, and we’ve rebuilt them with modern tools so they’re harder to fool, including by us.
Methods
Three methods with long histories.
Forced choice · J.B. Rhine, Duke University, 1930s
Zener cards
Five symbols, twenty-five cards. The deck is shuffled and sealed on our server before your first call, and opened only after your last. We score against the right chance baseline, too: a sealed deck of twenty-five isn’t twenty-five independent guesses, so we don’t count it like one.
Open now in The Field
Sealed random pools · Helmut Schmidt, 1970s
Retrocausal influence
Random sequences are generated, encrypted and sealed before anyone claims them. You hold an intention, the pool is opened, and your numbers are checked against the sealed record. If they don’t match, the session doesn’t count.
Built, not yet open
Associative remote viewing · SRI and SAIC, 1970s onward
Remote viewing and precognition
You record your impressions first. Only then is a target drawn from the pool, and your impressions are scored against it with the figure of merit developed by Ed May and colleagues. We’re moving that scoring onto our server before we open it.
Not yet open
Honest limits
What we can’t say yet.
One session isn’t a finding.
Run enough sessions and a few will look remarkable by chance alone. Enjoy a great run. Don’t treat it as proof.
Practice before an experiment is a question, not a cause.
If you practice and then do well, that’s interesting. On its own it can’t show the practice did it. That’s exactly what we want to study.
Anonymous accounts are exploratory.
One person can hold more than one name-only account, so we treat that data as a first look, never as a formal study.
Proof of a complete record is still being built.
We’re building toward showing that a record is whole, with nothing left out, without revealing whose it is. That part isn’t finished.
Findings come with their workings.
When we have results worth sharing, they’ll live here with their methods, data versions and limits beside them.
Work with us
If you study this, we’d love to talk.
Protocols, replication, shared questions, a second pair of eyes on our methods. Write to us.
Atlas, our work for universities and labs, is in development.