This analogy is the main one in Controlled Remote Viewing
training done by Problems>Solutions>Innovations.
It explains the very nature of the CRV process as well as some of
the pitfalls of derivations of that process.
Let's say that you are the president of your company. You have worked long and hard to gain that position, and you deserve it.
Then, let's say that one day, the owner of the company comes in and tells you that he wants to train a young kid in the ways of being a company president, so he is going to put the kid in charge of the company for a week. Your reaction may be to smile and say, "Yes sir!". After all, he does own the company. But internally, your reaction is, "Like hell! No young kid is going to take over my job! Not even for a minute. I'll fix this young twerp!"
Then, the owner brings the kid into your office, and you see that the "young twerp" just happens to be your own son. Now, you have a totally different reaction. Now, you want to the kid to succeed.
And so, the week begins. You first teach your son how to do the basics, but then he comes up with an idea he would like to try. You immediately realize that it is a dumb idea, but you still want to encourage him, so you tell him why it won't work. He comes up with another idea, and it is a good one, so you help him through the process. Then, he comes up with yet another idea, and you realize that it is the one idea which could make the company a fortune. "Good idea," you say, "but I'll take care of that next week." In other words, you suddenly realize that the kid is so good that you might not have a job left to come back to next week, if the kid gets his way, so you block his progress.
This continues throughout the week, and at the end of the week, your son will say one of two things to you. He will either say to you,
"Well, Dad, I failed.... but only because you wouldn't let me
do the job."
Or he will say to you,
"Well, Dad, I succeeded....but only because you wouldn't let me do the job."
Either way, as a father, you lose.
Well, let's say that the owner of the company sees what has happened and asks the kid to stay for another week, under different circumstances. You, as both father and company president, are summarily sent on vacation while the kid runs the company for the week.
So, you sit on the beach in Cancun, cell phone always nearby, calling first one secretary or department head, checking up on how things are going. You tell them to keep you posted about the kid's decisions, and to not do anything without your sayso.
So, this didn't work either. The owner of the company learns about what you have been doing, so he takes another tack. He brings you back from vacation, and tries it for another week. But this time, he puts you to work on the loading docks, keeping you so busy all day that you don't have time to interfere, and this is the week that the kid finally gets to learn how to run a company.
The Meaning of the Analogy:
The president of the company is, of course, your conscious mind.
The kid, the president's son, is the subconscious.
The act of having the kid take over the company for a week stands for the act of turning a CRV session over to the subconscious mind's control for the duration of the session.
The father's desire to help the kid to succeed, but then to hold the kid back if he gets too good, is the way your conscious mind treats the subconscious mind during a session. It wants to help, help, help. But, if the session starts going either in a way that the conscious mind thinks is either too good, or just plain dumb, the conscious mind jumps in "to save the day". At the end, you have a session which is little more than conscious thought and/or the result of logical thinking. The kid, (the subconscious) doesn't get to play a part in such sessions. The end result is that the session either succeeds or fails, but only because the conscious mind kept tight reins over the session and did not let the subconscious mind do its job - and more importantly, it did not let the subconscious mind learn how to do the job
Seeing that this is taking place, many psychic methodologies try to send the conscious mind on vacation. That is, they try to put the conscious mind into a trance or "altered state". These are the people who insist that psychic work can only be done "once you have achieved theta", etc. In actual fact, the conscious mind sits in that altered state and keeps checking back every few seconds to see how the process is going. The person isn't usually aware of it, but a part of them is constantly monitoring the session and either giving its approval or stopping the subconscious from doing its job by giving disapproval. You have heard, of course, that a person who is hypnotized cannot be made to do something he/ she doesn't want to. This is the reason why. The conscious mind, although apparently in a trance, is ever vigilant. A well-trained CRV monitor can watch a psychic who is doing "trance-channeling" work, and can see, like a neon sign, each time the psychic's conscious mind "checks back in" to the process. It happens constantly in all trance-state work.
Seeing that this is the case, Controlled Remote Viewing takes another tack. It gives the conscious mind a ton of other work to do. The rules and protocols of CRV are very complex, actually, for two reasons: First, to get as deeply into the subconscious as possible, but second, to simply keep the conscious mind so busy that it can't get in the subconscious mind's way.
When someone claims to have improved on the Ingo Swann method, you will generally find that what they have done is to simplify it and make it easier and faster for the public to learn. They think that they are doing the public a service (and making money in the process), but in actual fact, the simplified methods give the conscious mind more free time to interfere, and the accuracy of the viewing process drops drastically. The sad part is that these "for the masses" types of methodologies not only fail accuracy-wise, but also actually train the student to NEVER let the subconscious mind do its work cleanly. As such, they are actually harmful to the student's progress - sometimes permanently wrecking their chances of ever achieving their highest personal potential.