Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer I want to meet one PhotoReader before I buy

In advanced driving courses, they have you steer around cones using your peripheral vision. If there is a deer that leeps out at your car and your intension is to steer clear from hitting it, if you look at the deer directly, chances are you will hit it. The key is to look to where you WANt to go, keep the deer in your peripheral vision without directly looking at it and steer away.

Same with telephone poles, if you look directly at it, you will hit it.

HE HE HE HE Pete is going to stay on the side lines for this one

[This message has been edited by Elmo9 (edited March 21, 2001).]

Elmo,

First, I mean sight in middle of your vision area (or whatever one calls it) is clearest and it goes progressively down in detail when you go towards the edges. Cones and other things in peripheral vision(larger objects) can still be identified, but you won't see its details as well.

What I though was funny though is you said while driving:
<<<<Same with telephone poles, if you look directly at it, you will hit it. >>>>

We must get you another instructor:P When I drive and see someone on the side of the road that I know (and I look at them directly) I don't drive into them!

Where do you live Elmo, I just want to know if the sidewalks in my area are safe.

[This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited March 21, 2001).]

Wow, I'm gone for a day, and the posts explode...

Chaosadelt,

Although I thought the original posts were pretty funny, I like the direction the conversation is taking now. Thank you. It seems more productive to discuss things from the perspective of the brain. Unlike Marty, I don't believe that Paul and Pete have maliciously set out to defraud people. They want our money but that's good old fashioned capitalism.

Though I do believe in subconscious, this statement is not necessarily true. Our minds are attracted to the unexpected (sounds, visual, taste, etc). We also have a survival mechanism it seems. Dodging a ball in your peripheral vision might be a result of these two things.

You're quite right. It isn't necessarily true. But it might be. As far as the attraction and the survival mechanism, they are still processes carried out by our subconscious. There is a rapid ability to absorb, analyze, and respond to input that isn't necessarily at the center of our field of vision.

There is a few things wrong with this reasoning in regards to the article. Your eyes have more sensors going closer to the middle. That is why when we want to focus on something, we focus so that something goes to the middle of your vision so you can see it the clearest. If you seen something just on the edge of your vision (that ball you were dodging for instance). Did you see it's details or just a flash?

It's true that the detail slacks off as we move away from the center (although I recently read that there is actually a "doughnut" of focus where our vision is the most detailed and that you should consider looking at things with a slightly oblique angle). However, how much detail do you really need to effectively read text? Your brain is able to fill in missing gaps in letters, missing words, etc. I'm much better at deciphering a bad fax than my OCR software will ever be.

From the article "With George McConkie, now at the University of Illinois, Rayner measured the perceptual span of readers by replacing most of the words on a video screen with nonsense strings of letters. Wherever the eye was pointing, a small patch of screen would have the correct letters, but everywhere else they would be jumbled." And the participants did not notice!

Again, I'm sure this is true. It proves the limits of our direct focus. It does not invalidate the possibility that our brains are absorbing and processing more than we're getting. It comes down to focus and filtering. I believe that our subconscious does a great deal of filtering to protect us from information overload. That doesn't mean that the info isn't there and accessible. It just means that isn't where we put our attention. Isn't it possible that our brain processes a great deal of this stuff but only serves up what it thinks we need? Of course, this mechanism isn't always perfect. Sometimes it fails to serve up what we need but I think the reason for that is often more related to the WAY it was stored than to whether or not it WAS stored.

If you're willing to take the step that your brain absorbs more and processes more than you know, then the question becomes, "how do I recover some of that information?" This is what the activation step seeks to do. It certainly isn't perfect because you haven't made the rich connections to the material that you might if you were reading the information in the standard way. But it can be done. My experience with PhotoReading a novel showed me this.

This is where intuition comes in and I'm beginning to believe that this is a skill that can be developed. To my way of thinking, intuition isn't some sort of sixth sense in the "ESP" mode. I think it is a signal that our subconscious has processed information and determined it is useful, but it doesn't always have a clear mechanism for delivering it to us. Sometimes it gives it to us as an image. Sometimes as a sound. Sometimes as a feeling. It uses whatever mechanism it can at the time. The task for us is to notice these signals and most of us don't. As I've worked on this, I have noticed that these signals come and are useful during the PR process. The trick is noticing them.

Just some thoughts...

[This message has been edited by mgrego2 (edited March 21, 2001).]

<<I mean, just how many people out there HAVE experienced spontaneous activation? Other than Peter and Paul, who can REALLY photoread at 25000wpm and KNOW what they've seen right after? Pete, I think we're going to need a response on this one. How many out there can photoread at or near on your level?>>

I'd like to know this too. But then again, how many people have used Photoreading extensively as Pete and Paul? Didn't Pete say he went through entire shelves of library books at one time? If I can get the kind of benefits that Pete demonstrates, I'm willing to put the time and energy for the next 12 months and see if it pays off in spontaneous activation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mgrego2:
Again, I'm sure this is true. It proves the limits of our direct focus. It does not invalidate the possibility that our brains are absorbing and processing more than we're getting. It comes down to focus and filtering. I believe that our subconscious does a great deal of filtering to protect us from information overload. That doesn't mean that the info isn't there and accessible. It just means that isn't where we put our attention. Isn't it possible that our brain processes a great deal of this stuff but only serves up what it thinks we need? Of course, this mechanism isn't always perfect. Sometimes it fails to serve up what we need but I think the reason for that is often more related to the WAY it was stored than to whether or not it WAS stored.

---

This really makes a lot of sense...If the conscious mind can only process ~7 pieces of info/second, it would make sense that the subconscious mind would filter out everything outside of your direct concentration by making it appear blurry...this doesn't necessarily mean that your eye cannot clearly distinguish details outside of that focus, just that your subconscious is filtering what your conscious mind sees. It's kind of like putting a filter on a camera lens. The lens is the eye...it can CLEARLY see everything within its view. The filter is like the subconscious mind...it blurs everything outside of a certain radius of focus. Unfortunately there is no way I know of to test this theory, but for all we know, the subconscious mind might be able to clearly see everything within the view (peripheral or otherwise) of our eyes.

BTW, I too am glad that these threads have taken a more civil turn.

Once upon a time there was a world record for reading set at 75 pages per minute, which is a little over 30,000 words per minute, just over what the Photo Reading program starts you out at.

I hope the Guinness book of world records has enough credentials for you.

Chaos,

I had a look at the amazon review you posted.

"The entire PhotoReading step could probably be skipped with no effect whatsoever on the outcome - except that you would arrive there faster. "

This is not my experience.

"I believe the real purpose of the PhotoReading step is to make the reader feel he has permission to claim he has read what he in fact has not read. "

Maybe.
--
You know, I don’t know how a lot of things work. I’m a generalist. I don’t care to know how things are put together. I don’t want to understand the inner workings of my computer... I want to use it. When I look at a thing or an idea, I ask, ‘how can this serve me?’ There’s nothing more annoying to me than mathematical proofs. I just wanna USE the damn theorems, you know?...a functional mindset.

Pragmatism is my favorite word in the English language. I live and die by this word. As brief as I can get: A thing is good or bad depending on whether or not it brings you closer to your goals. My goal is to read faster. Photoreading moves me toward that goal at relatively little cost. Therefore it is a good thing.

Pragmatists generally don’t care about inductive proofs or studies. They are after results. Outcomes. Maybe the photoreading step does nothing more than give me the permission to skip over filler. Let’s say that’s the only thing that’s going on. Okay. So there’s no subconscious input, no preconscious processing, no nothing. I’m just staring at pages and phantomreading. Everything Paul has said about ‘whole-brain’ learning is a sham. Falsehoods. We’re all being lied to.

Let’s say that is the case. My question to you is, does it matter?

The result is still the same. I read twice as fast as I did 5 months ago when I first started. I attribute the speed increase to sleeping after the photoreading step and binaural beats.

It’s like prayer for a Christian. Is a man really praying to a personified God with ears who listens to his every word and sometimes grants his wishes? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows? What matters is the RESULT. As a result of praying to God to help me on my next exam and as a result of believing that he is there with me as I take the test, guiding my pen, I perform better. My grade is higher. I may have deluded myself, possibly. But who cares? The delusion has served me-—moved me toward my goal. Therefore, it is a good thing. Proofs and logic be damned.

Even if your contentions are true and photoreading is a six pack of lies (and it may be), I have effectively HALVED my reading time. There is no getting around this fact. I have HALVED my reading time while maintaining comprehension. That is the result. That is what I was after. Was it worth 250 bucks? Hell yes!

Pragmatically speaking, results are all that matter...Whole-brained reading, half-brained reading, quarter-brained reading, penis-brained reading, nose reading... it doesn’t matter. I would do a reading dance if it meant I could read twice as fast. I would sacrifice a squirrel to the Gods. I would hold rabbits foot in my left hand. I would wear a dunce cap. I would paint my forehead green. And yes... I would even stare through pages as I flipped them one every second.

Results, Chaos, results.

In sum,

Q:“What do I want?”
A:“To Read books faster.”
Q:“Has the photoreading program moved me toward that goal?”
A:“An unqualified yes. I read twice as fast with same comprehension.”
Q:“Was it worth the 250 dollars.”
A:“I judge..yes.”
Q:“Does it matter if the system is based on lies?”
A:“I’m after results, no.”

Ah, Brian:

Unless I'm mistaken (again), isn't this what scientists sometimes refer to as "empirical evidence?"

Anyway, well said and well done. Beware, however--some forum members only revel in the game. Your "success" may be deemed "unsupportable" or otherwise extraneous. Of course, if you don't mind inserting these electrodes in your brain and shoving this bamboo under your nails, you might graduate to "verifiable." It's not likely, though.

--George

What seems to me is that the person who wrote the review at amazon.com has made up his/her mind right from the start.

If you ask a person, whoes profession is buisiness, to say what they think Quantum mechanics, they'd probably tell you its a bunch of mumble jumble in sceience which has absolutely no means of application and value.

If you ask a baby boomer who has never used a computer before to tell you about computers, they'd probably tell you that computers are just a fancy typing machine which does nothing but drains your pocket book and takes up space on the desk.

If you ask a person who hasn't even given photoreading a chance, as in amazon.com, they'd most likely tell you its just a ploy to scam people of their money.

The main thing im trying to stress here is that you cant judge eveything using an analytical standpoint. Sometimes you need to have a leap of faith; look beyond the sums of the facts.