Couple of over-simplifications by Rosemary Ellen Guiley that may cause confusion.
Clairvoyance is NOT the exact same as Remote Viewing.
Clairvoyance can be spontaneous, trained, un-trained, intentional, volitional or something else. It merely describes the act of seeing (somewhat) clearly in a psychic manner, without detailing how/when/who exactly does it. It is the superset of psychic "seeing" functions. Psychic sensing (incl. clairsentience, clairhearing, etc) is an even larger superset that contains clairvoyance inside itself as one particular sub-set.
Now, Remote viewing (not just CRV, but RV in general) is a superset of specific type of RV methods (CRV, SRV, ERV, ARV, etc) and in itself a sub-set of clairvoyance.
Remote viewing (originally) attempts to derive a standard methodology or a looser set of methods around doing clairvoyance in a specific way. One could say that if the black surface scrying is taught and learnt in a specific manner, then that specific scrying method teaching/learning/doing is one specific form (or method) of doing remote viewing.
Then there is CRV or Coordinate (later Controlled) Remote Viewing, as developed by Swann, Targ, Puthoff et al in the original SRI efforts and the later DIA/CIA/other gov entity developed projects.
CRV is a specific sub-set of RV. Not all RV is CRV, but all CRV is (a subset of) RV is (a subset of) clairvoyance.
Some may think this distinction is academic and irrelevant. It is not.
If somebody trains in CRV, he is a CRV skilled person, whether originally apt in other forms of clairvoyance or not.
One does not become "good" or apt in CRV just by being naturally good at clairvoyance. This has been shown by several naturally clairvoyant people and even some naturally clairvoyant people (like McMoneagle) who have gone the length of learning CRV properly. The best of CRV viewers usually are originally clairvoyant to begin with, but only through rigorous training of CRV do they become good at CRV.
I have a few personal friends who are naturally quite apt in generic (their own form of) clairvoyance, but they suck at CRV. Yet they think the two are the one and the same. They are not and their performance clearly shows this.
Does this mean that CRV is better or more accurate than other forms of RV or more generally clairvoyance? No, of course not. It's just a specific method that aims in developing specific skill with a certain type of performance.
The whole point of developing CRV was primarily to take basic grunts off the military training, not naturally clairvoyant tarot card skilled women off the street, and train these grunts in a structure, trackable, measurable, verifiable, stage-by-stage progressing and replicable process, that would result in an increased, useful and applicable form of specific type of clairvoyance for operational target in military intelligence.
Of course the language was reinvented. Many reasons for that. First, psychic scene lingo is notoriously ambiguous, cross-referencing and hard to pin-point for accurate meanings. The language of intelligence and spying has to be accurate and understandable to the military/intelligence people. Therefore a need for a new language/wording. Also, as Rosemary well points out, it is a also a way to put distance to the general psychic scene and all the connotations that come with its lingo.
Don't get me wrong, I like Guiley, I have several of her books and I constantly learn from her and as such I appreciate her work a lot.
Yet, in this small snippet talking about RV, I think things were over-simplified to such extent (as often happens interviews) that the average listener might not understand the distinctions and why they are made.
TL;DR: CRV ⊂ RV ⊂ clairvoyance ⊂ ESP ⊂ psychic function (or PSI)
corollary: CRV ≠ RV ≠ clairvoyance ≠ ESP ≠ psychic function (or PSI)
corollary 2: being skilled in any of the supersets or subsets, does NOT automatically make one skilled in another subset
Example: even if you are good in javelin throw (subset of sports) does NOT make you good in ALL sports (superset) nor does it make you good in long jump (another subset), even if it enables you to call yourself good in sports in basic day to day speech (superset)
