While human variations (in mind and the ability to control it) in test takers may make the test results more complex, hence harder to interpret, than a typical standardized test, that does not suggest a convincing and meaningful test of PR technique does not exist. The difficulty in data sampling and interpretation is an inherent challenge to many scientific and technological fields. A new drug may work for some people but not for others. Yet there are meaningful statistic analyses out there to determine the efficacy and approvability of the drug. The inability to device a statistically meaningful test on the PR technique and the current absence of such a test simply cannot be explained away by saying it will take (or “waste”?) time to do so.
Neither can the differences between PR and speed reading be used to justify the lack of participation in an event in which independent organizers measure reading speed objectively. After all, reading speed is measured by the total number of words read or photo-read divided by the total number of minutes spent. Since Pete or some of his trainers have the ability to scan screenful of words without the normal preview/activation steps, a multi-session v. single session difference in the speed-reading v. PR does not even exist Note that I am not saying participation in such a contest is the only way to enhance PR technique’s credibility, but some tests conducted by independent organizers certainly would help.
Some of you imply that healthy skeptics either have not read a PR book because they are unwilling to spend $12, or are not open-minded. These suggestions are certainly ludicrous. For one thing, the mere fact that they are willing to spend a lot of time here exploring the controversial technique and sincerely interacting with experienced PR practioners certainly speaks to the contrary. However, they don’t treat PR as a religion, but an experimental technology. As such, a typical approach, such as “believe it first, faith will follow” or “millions of people are practicing it and have benefited from it,” does not appeal to those skeptics, because these are the methods relied upon by religions.
Since I have followed very closely neuroscience developments, I will be very interested if Alex could point out to me what specific scientific results conducted using PET and fMRI would lend DIRECT support to PR technique itself.