I just recently read (of a comment you made) that training in groups has its benefits in that the students seem to learn faster. Might you think that the "learning" may be telepathic overlay of the group rather than the individual student creating the connection between conscious and unconscious?
I think that's a large part of it, but with a very interesting twist:
The students are all working on different targets, not the same target.
If one considers the role of telepathic overlay in this situation, then what is getting shared between minds is not information about a target, but actual remote viewing skills. That is, as each person connects with his/her subconscious, the actual process of learning how to do so is shared. That's neat!
I know that skills can be passed from one person to another telepathically, just the same as information or ideas. I hadn't realized that the group dynamic might help the process along. If that is truly what is happening in the group training, then I think it's one of the greatest benefits to come out of it.
If the students were all working the same target, the information about that target would be passed back & forth. When everyone's session was over, that would be that. However, when it is the skills which are getting passed back & forth, the result is more permanent. Once those skills are experienced, whether through hard work or telepathic overlay, the student becomes aware of new pathways: of new ways of thinking. Then, even if only vaguely and partially remembered afterwards, the experience of that awareness allows the student to more easily work toward his/her final goal of establishing a clear, open and active communication between the conscious and subconscious minds.
What has been the results of the students learning in a group, as far as their difficulties when going back home to practice? Is the rate of those difficulties higher or lower in group training than in individual training, after the students leave the course to study at home?
Almost every student I've ever had has reported having a hard time right after returning home. That was always true. There is something about being on your own for the first time which is pretty daunting. This is one of the reasons why training has been so long and arduous in the past. People would leave the class and go home, try to remember all the rules & protocols, and spend so much time worrying about the session, itself, that the content and quality of the session suffered drastically.
From the reports I've been getting back from people who have left the group training, it is becoming evident that the students aren't having as hard a time upon returning home as those had who took individual training.
With individual training, most of the phone calls and email I would get, at least for the first month, centered around difficulties with protocols, ability to access the target, lack of confidence that they were achieving anything, etc. The types of phone calls and email I am now getting from newly trained students is more along the line of the meanings of new experiences they are having and how to deal with them. Before, that type of questioning didn't begin happening until the 3rd or 4th month after class.
In the past, after a student would go home, I knew that a great majority of my communication with them for the first several weeks, at least, would be little more than pep-talks to keep them going until they got to where they could feel comfortable about working alone. Now, when people leave the course, they have the same "drop-off" in session success, but it is much shorter, much less drastic, and much less self-defeating. Now, much of my initial post-class contact is more concerned with theory, new ideas about how to apply what they have learned, target selection criteria, monitor's duties, etc.
So, to answer your question, I do believe that much of the class success these days is due simply to the telepathic overlay of the group dynamic. However, because of the fact that they are all working different targets, what is being shared is learned skills, not information. It is resulting in a tremendous acceleration for the students, both in the class and at home.
But let me add that two things have not changed in the slightest:
- If a person leaves training and goes home only to try a few sessions and then not try any more, they never learn to remote view. If they go home and practice and work through the "learn by doing" phase of it, they do become good remote viewers. It is still as true with group training as it was with individual training, that the main criteria for becoming a good remote viewer is not native talent, not need, not any other thing than good old self-disciplined "stick-to-it'iveness". It is only practice which makes perfect.
- If a person depends on how a session "feels" to determine whether he/she did well, he/she will never do well - not dependably, at least. It is the proper evaluation of session data against judgeable, real-world feedback which determines whether any single session went well or not, and it is the recording, collection and analysis of that data over a long period of time which tells whether the viewer is good, and what that viewer's strengths and weaknesses are.