[LawrenceKerr]

I'm sorry, but comments like this have no place on HN.

If you read what I wrote, you would've seen the reference to one example published in Brain & Behavior, so yes, there is peer-reviewed research.

There are more examples, more datapoints, but I don't think it's very useful to share those in a discussion where you know the other person already made up their mind and isn't willing to engage very productively.

[stonogo]

Part of the point of making claims -- and defending them -- in a public forum is that many more people than "the other person" get to read them. You claimed "decades" of research, and when asked where it is, mentioned one review of second hand information from a discontinued program, couched in a torrent of handwaving. I stand by my assessment of your post, and am not interested in armchair moderation. I remain of the opinion that if you could have made a compelling argument backed by research you would have. I, like a lot of people, am uncertain about this topic and would have liked to have some good research to consider, but I still don't, and you're blaming someone else for that outcome. It's not a good argument.

[keepamovin]

I'm glad to hear you are uncertain and sound as if you are willing to learn more. This is a good position! This topic needs smart people who are strong enough to overcome the significant barriers to entry. So I'll try to help you do that. By you here I address it not just to you, specifically, but to all the others who will see this. While most other answers of mine on this thread will be tiny and short, this one I made particular effort to construct, as it's necessary you hear every word. So if you can read all of it, and not skim, it is written for you! :)

But you will need the stomach for it. Reading this comment will likely require a process of pairing away, and like any cutting back it may be painful, but if you can bear with it, treasures await! :)

So let's begin: unfortunately the pre-requisite section here will be somewhat lengthy, and you will most likely and understandably complain, or find yourself wanting to reactively discredit simply due to the number of paragraphs, or you find the introductory apparatus excessive and obnoxiously handwavey. You will most likely experience an urge to yell "Shut up!" or to fight with every point and wording. If you can endure beyond these perceptions, and if you can retain sufficient patience, and keep in mind that as your goal sincerely is learning, then these words are the necessary sanding down, because if you jump straight to the facts without this minimal introduction, you will be in no position to comprehend them.

So, there's a sort of selection process already in operation. Only those who can resist attacks on multiple fronts (both from within and without their own minds) can get through and retain their rational faculty. This perhaps unique-to-this-topic challenge is oft under appreciated but once perceived will be readily apprehended, and its importance and necessity, including the necessity of overcoming such limiting beliefs to learning, realized.

You have hinted at what's there for you in your comment, so let's directly address that: the objection raised in the above comment is a fairly standard academic dismissal, not specific to psi/RV and to be expected anywhere, tho the tone of multiple commenters here was a tad too spicy to encourage the standard academic responses.

Which again is not that surprising given the understandable yet irrational resistance to something like this, especially for those minds embedded in a Western materialist framework, a contrast about which more can be said in another place.

Given all that, it's understandable (is it not?), and hopefully forgivable, that a bit of couching (counter couching?) is required, when those with different ideas, either from having opposite views, or from lacking the priors required to view this correctly, come heavily encumbered in their own couching, and display it so overtly -- hahah! :)

So hopefully that can dispense with some of the spiciness, so now down to practical matters.

Papers? Sure, we've got a few, but first a question on methodology of approach to the topic, and pre-requisites. The following two paragraphs could easily be taken personally, but shouldn't be. If you find yourself doing that, look around to the prevailing biased or dismissive commentary on this (here or wherever you like), and reassure yourself it applies to them, not to you! Yet these paragraphs are a necessary introduction to help you unlearn obstacles, and be aware of impediments to your curiosity and learning about this. So, the key insight is that: papers are not the best way for most of you to approach this given the significant obstacles you will face from pre-existing biases. But equally important, unless you are an actual psi researcher, who do you want to read stuffy academic papers? Especially when you can just experience it for yourself, right now!

In that context it's likely that papers will be simply a mill for you to dismiss each study with methodological, design, or analysis quibbles, as that confirming of your existing biases is what you want to do anyway. And even if you don't want to, it will be easy for you to pseudo-confidently do as such questions can be levied at any papers in any discipline, and even if you levy them, either unfairly on this topic; or to a stricter standard than you apply to other topics; you will sincerely believe you are in fact objective, because you want to achieve your aim. And even if you don't take the lead, you will easily be lead by others who do. The talk of being 'taken in by shysters' is funny, because it can be so often applied to those who inconsistently dismiss studies by enslavement to legacy bias! Ha :) There is no cure to this beside first hand experience, which is, sensibly where we will go first, and now!

So, again papers are not the best way for many of you to initially approach this. The best way is by having a conversion experience (without drugs!) -- and free, and only taking a few minutes of your time. So, take the responsibility, don't outsource it, and try :)

What other topic can offer you such a compelling and transformative re-vivisection/reorientation of your worldview at such low cost, and entirely within your capacity to effect? I challenge you to name one, haha! :)

So, I will give you papers, but only on the condition that you do not read them until you have given an honest try to it yourself. And I will not listen to your whinnying about papers until you have attained the proper training and experience, albeit brief but sufficient, via such first hand experience, a fairly standard academic bar to raise.

So, finally we come to what you probably hope we had just said at first, but hopefully by now you have some understanding of why that was unwise to do before the introduction above. SO: first and most importantly, head to https://www.reddit.com/r/remoteviewing/ and head to the pinned "[START HERE] INTRODUCTION | FAQ | RESOURCES" post, just as you would when learning any new technology (and believe me, this is a technology, although the public versions are not as advanced as the current state of the art). Read all of that, and then go to the "beginners guide" (linked in the same), and do all of that. That will take you through your first psi/RV session. All of this is a small investment of time, and the largest obstacle you will find to doing it is your own fear, because the implications of this are so huge. Briefly: there are other paths, and intros (just like to any tech there are a glut of resources), but this one is clear, simple, checked through experience, and comes with a community -- all very important for a supportive first time.

I trust you have sufficient discipline to do the above prior to possibly getting mistracked reading any papers, so I will provide you a decades long bibliography, which you can find here: https://www.irva.org/library/bibliography

Much more can be said, but the necessary initiation for you to understand is to perform the self exercise first. The papers are not important (for reasons given, you can always simply abuse them to confirm biases), but if approached with the right mind, only obtainable through first hand experience in our materialist Western purview, they may help you.

So to conclude, hopefully this painful, and difficult comment, likely also made harder to read by its difficult long-sentence style, could nevertheless assist those true learners to step forward beyond the difficulties and into the light of this topic. The point of that? Their own enrichment. And expanding the community of understanding, acknowledgement and acceptance around this. Greater treasures await if we can do that. Finally, in the gestalt this process of approaching this topic is analogous to (and likely essential to) the very process of psi/RV itself where conventional senses must be moved beyond to access information from what lies beyond them. Hopefully this effort by me today helped you in some way on your path to that :)