The short answer
Associative Remote Viewing (ARV) is a protocol for predicting the outcome of a two-option future event. Each possible outcome is secretly paired with a different photograph. A viewer then describes the photo they will be shown after the event, without knowing which photo goes with which outcome. A judge matches the description to one of the photos, and that photo's paired outcome becomes the prediction.
ARV grew out of remote viewing research at SRI International in the 1970s and was first used for prediction in 1982, when researchers tried to forecast the silver futures market. Today people use it to explore questions about markets, sports, elections, and other events with two clear outcomes.
This guide covers how ARV works, the step-by-step protocol, its history, how to run it on your own, and what the research does and doesn't show.
How ARV works
ARV never asks the viewer about the event itself. Instead of "Will the stock go up?", the viewer is asked to describe a photograph they will see in the future. That indirection is the whole idea.
Practitioners give two reasons for it:
- It keeps the analytical mind out of the way. Ask someone whether the Red Sox will win, and their knowledge, hopes, and guesses flood in. Ask them to sketch an unknown image, and there is nothing to reason about.
- Pictures are easier to perceive than abstractions. Remote viewers report that concrete shapes, colors, and textures come through more reliably than ideas like "up," "down," or "win."
The photo the viewer will see is determined by reality. If Outcome A happens, they are shown Photo A as feedback. So by describing their future feedback photo, the viewer is, in effect, describing the outcome.
Here is a simple example. You want to know whether a stock closes higher or lower on Friday.
| Outcome | Hidden target photo |
|---|
| Closes higher | A waterfall in a forest |
| Closes lower | A red brick lighthouse |
On Tuesday you sketch flowing lines, wet textures, and dense green. The judge says your session matches the waterfall, so the prediction is "closes higher." On Friday after the close, you are shown whichever photo matches what actually happened.
The ARV protocol, step by step
A classic ARV trial uses three roles. The tasker sets up the question and targets, the viewer does the session, and the judge compares the session to the photos. In traditional ARV these are different people, so that no one who knows the targets can influence the viewer.
- Frame a two-outcome question. It needs a clear, verifiable result by a fixed time, such as "Will the S&P 500 close above Thursday's close on Friday?" Avoid questions that could end in a tie or an ambiguous result.
- Pick two target photos. They should be as different as possible in shape, color, texture, and feel (water versus metal, natural versus built). If both photos share features, the judge can't tell which one the session describes.
- Assign the photos randomly. One photo goes to each outcome by a random process, and the assignment is hidden from the viewer.
- Set the feedback time. This is the moment after the event resolves when the viewer will be shown the correct photo. The viewer "aims" at this moment.
- Do the viewing session. The viewer relaxes, focuses on the feedback photo they will see, and records first impressions as sketches and short notes: shapes, colors, textures, temperature, motion, feelings. No guessing names of objects.
- Judge the session. The judge, who must not know which photo goes with which outcome, compares the session against both photos and picks the stronger match. If neither matches well, the trial is a "pass" with no prediction.
- Make the prediction. Only now is the matching photo's outcome revealed. That is the prediction. If you act on it (a trade, a bet), this is when you do it.
- Give feedback. After the event resolves, the viewer is shown the photo for the actual outcome. Practitioners consider this step essential: without it, the viewer has no target to perceive.
To keep a record of your sessions on paper, use the free ARV session worksheet (PDF), which follows these steps.
In SoloARV, steps 2, 3, 4, and 6 are automated, so a single person can run the full protocol while staying blind. See how it works.
A short history of ARV
ARV was born in 1982, when researchers from the SRI remote viewing program tried to predict the silver futures market. Its roots go back a decade earlier.
| Year | Milestone |
|---|
| 1972 | Remote viewing research begins at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in Menlo Park, California (source). Physicists Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff coin the term "remote viewing." |
| 1970s–1980s | Stephan Schwartz develops an associational technique, which Puthoff and Targ independently adapt to predict two-outcome events. The method is named associative remote viewing. |
| 1982 | Puthoff runs the first published ARV study: 30 trials forecasting silver futures with novice viewers. |
| 1982 | Targ, psychologist Keith Harary, and businessman Anthony White found Delphi Associates. Harary and Targ forecast the direction of silver futures five days ahead for nine weeks; all nine forecasts are reported correct, earning more than $100,000 (source). A repeat attempt the next year misses its first two trials and stops. |
| 1995 | The U.S. government's Stargate remote viewing program is reviewed by the American Institutes for Research and terminated (source). Targ returns to the silver futures protocol and reports significant results. |
| 2000s–2010s | Independent practitioners and researchers take up ARV, including a 13-year, single-operator ARV experiment (source) and a 2014 stock market study with inexperienced viewers. |
Russell Targ explains the ARV protocol himself in the six-minute video below.
What people use ARV for
ARV works with any question that has two distinct outcomes, a fixed resolution time, and an objective answer. The most common uses are:
- Financial markets. Will a stock, index, or commodity close up or down by a given date? This is where ARV started, with silver futures in 1982, and it remains the most studied application.
- Sports. Which of two teams wins a game? Practitioners usually avoid events that can end in a draw, or treat a draw as a pass.
- Elections and votes. Which of two candidates wins, or does a ballot measure pass?
- Lottery numbers. A lottery draw has far too many outcomes for one ARV trial, so practitioners break it into many small questions. The most documented method runs one two-outcome trial for each possible number, asking whether that number will be drawn or not: 10 trials for Pick 3, and about 95 for a jackpot game. See our guide to ARV and the lottery.
- Personal decisions and practice. Some people use ARV for low-stakes personal questions, or simply run trials on known future events to track their own accuracy over time.
A word of caution: however you use ARV, never risk money you can't afford to lose. No published ARV result shows a level of accuracy that removes the risk of losing.
How to do ARV on your own
The hardest part of solo ARV is staying blind. In traditional ARV, separate people choose the photos, hide the assignment, and judge the session. When you do all three yourself, you already know the photos before you view, and your session will tend to describe what you've seen rather than your future feedback.
Solo practitioners have found several ways around this:
- Have photos chosen for you. Draw targets at random from a large pool you have never looked through, so you can't recognize them.
- Hide the assignment. Let a random process pair photos with outcomes, and don't look at the pairing until after judging.
- Separate judging from viewing. Use an outside judge, or a judging method that doesn't require you to see the outcome pairing.
- Never reuse a photo. Once you've seen a target as feedback, retire it. A familiar image contaminates future sessions.
It can be done carefully by hand. One researcher ran a 13-year solo ARV experiment of 5,677 trials across 285 questions, mostly forecasting futures markets (source). But manual blinding takes discipline and time for every trial.
SoloARV automates the blinding for you. It draws two real photos at random from a pool of 800, encrypts which outcome each one belongs to, and has AI judge your sketch against both photos, so you never see a target until feedback. Each revealed photo is retired from your pool. Try 10 free trials.
Tips for better ARV sessions
Most failed ARV trials trace back to a handful of avoidable mistakes. These are the ones experienced practitioners warn about most.
| Mistake | Why it hurts | What to do instead |
|---|
| Naming objects ("it's a lighthouse") | Your analytical mind guesses and overrides the raw impression | Record shapes, colors, textures, and feelings; let the judge do the matching |
| Using similar target photos | Both photos match the session, so judging becomes a coin flip | Pair photos that differ in every way: natural vs. built, wet vs. dry, curved vs. angular |
| Thinking about the question during the session | The outcome you hope for leaks into what you "see" | Focus only on the photo you'll see at feedback time |
| Skipping feedback | Practitioners consider feedback the target itself; without it, there is nothing to perceive | Always look at the correct photo after the event resolves |
| Forcing a prediction from a weak session | A vague session gives a weak match and an unreliable call | Treat low-confidence matches as a pass |
| Acting on a single trial | One result says little about your accuracy | Track every trial and judge your hit rate over many sessions |
A few habits also help. Keep sessions short, around 10 to 20 minutes, and stop when impressions dry up. Record your very first impressions before they fade, even if they seem trivial. And keep a log of every trial, hits and misses alike, so you see your real accuracy rather than the memorable wins.
What the research says
ARV research has produced some striking reported results, but the mainstream scientific community does not accept that remote viewing works. Anyone exploring ARV should know both sides.
Results supporters point to:
- The 1982 Delphi Associates trials reported nine correct silver futures forecasts in a row (source).
- In the 13-year single-operator experiment, 181 questions led to real futures trades, and 60% of those trades were profitable, totaling about $146,587 (source).
- In the 1995 government review of the Stargate program, statistician Jessica Utts concluded there was a statistically significant positive effect, with some subjects scoring 5 to 15% above chance (source).
Criticisms and limits:
- In that same review, psychologist Ray Hyman agreed the data showed significant effects but argued Utts's conclusion was premature, citing possible methodological problems and a lack of independent replication (source).
- Results have been hard to repeat. The Delphi team's follow-up attempt the next year missed its first two trials and stopped (source).
- Several scientific reviews of SRI and later remote viewing experiments found no credible evidence that it works, and the topic is widely regarded as pseudoscience (source).
The fairest summary: ARV is an open question with a passionate community of practitioners and a skeptical scientific mainstream. The best way to form your own view is to run careful, properly blinded trials and keep an honest record of every result.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between remote viewing and associative remote viewing? Remote viewing tries to describe a hidden target directly, such as a location or object. ARV uses remote viewing indirectly: the viewer describes a photo linked to a future outcome, and the match between session and photo produces a prediction.
Who invented associative remote viewing? The associational technique is credited to Stephan Schwartz. Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ, physicists in the SRI remote viewing program, adapted it to predict two-outcome events, and Puthoff published the first ARV study in 1982.
Do I need psychic ability to do ARV? No special background is required to try it. Early ARV studies used novice viewers, and Russell Targ has described remote viewing as an ability most people have to some degree. Whether it works for you is something only your own trial record can show.
Can ARV predict lottery numbers? Not in a single trial, because a lottery draw has too many possible outcomes. A common approach runs one two-outcome trial for every possible number, asking whether it will be drawn or not. Practitioners have reported small wins this way, mostly on Pick 3, but none has been independently verified. More on ARV and the lottery.
How long does an ARV session take? The viewing itself usually takes 10 to 20 minutes. Setup takes a few minutes more, and judging in SoloARV typically finishes in under 30 seconds.
Can you do ARV alone? Yes, but you must stay blind to the target photos and their outcome pairing until feedback. You can do this by hand with careful procedures, or use a tool like SoloARV that automates target selection, encryption of the pairing, and judging.
Is ARV scientifically proven? No. Some studies report results above chance, but the scientific mainstream regards remote viewing as unproven, citing methodological concerns and a lack of independent replication.
Sources and further reading
- Kolodziejzyk, G. (2012). Greg Kolodziejzyk's 13-year associative remote viewing experiment results. Journal of Parapsychology, 76(2), 349. (abstract)
- Smith, C. C., Laham, D., & Moddel, G. (2014). Stock market prediction using associative remote viewing by inexperienced remote viewers. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 28(1).
- Targ, R., & Harary, K. (1984). The Mind Race: Understanding and Using Psychic Abilities.
- American Institutes for Research (1995). An evaluation of the remote viewing program: research and operational applications (CIA reading room).
- Remote viewing, Wikipedia, for an overview of the scientific criticism.
