Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer Any progress?

I'll keep up on your progress. BTW, Paul Scheele states somewhere in his book (could even be on the covers?) that his background is Neurolinguistic-Programming aka NLP. Just thought you wanted to know.

Oh, forgot to mention some things GeorgeA, you might want to check out the links on NLP definition page, some are just interesting. Some might not have anything to do with PR, but they are enlightening. I don't have anything against Photoreading (phantomreading) myself, but I'm skeptical unless someone can show me controlled scientific studies that it works, even just the randi.org million dollar challenge. Even though it's for paranormal stuff, I'm sure they would consider an expert PRer that claims to read 100,000 wpm. As for my making the mistake you only 3 times faster, not 25,000 wpm - I just got the impression from the book (covers) about that. (And yes I read the book)

Rolf

[This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited March 20, 2001).]

As I said, my interest in NLP is marginal--I'm working on PhotoReading right now. Perhaps I'll explore NLP later, although I doubt I'll share your preconceived disdain.

I feel I've wasted a lot of energy responding to you and Martin rather than exploring my own reactions to the program. Honestly, if you've already decided this is bunk, why do you stick around?

The two of you quote "science" that "disproves" the efficacy of Scheele's work. I've briefly reviewed your references and feel it's research by proclamation. You've already seen my responses, which I freely label as my opinions. Any real scientist knows that the history of science is one of revolution and change. Little remains carved in stone for long. A good scientist remains skeptical, but open-minded.

In my opinion, Scheele doesn't resort to the paranormal--whatever that is--in his system. He does say, however, that attitude and an emotional approach to the material are both crucial.

Belief--faith, if you will--is pure emotion. It is also one of the most powerful of human experiences. As an emotion, however, little is served by attempting to measure, quantify, or categorize faith. In other words, while we've all had some experience with this emotion in some way--not necessarily religious--it's quite hard to subject it to scientific scrutiny.

For my part, I freely choose to accept most of the statements by the long-time PhotoReaders on this board in the spirit they were offered. It's an experience I envy, but I'm not afraid to just follow the steps and give it a try. I don't expect mastery overnight. As I approach the not-so-tender age of 54, I know nothing worthwhile in life comes easily.

I started these threads with the hope of challenging some of the system's assertions, but fairly and with an open mind. Several people on this board have responded with encouragement and advice. Others--notably you and Martin--offer criticism, negativism, and baffoonery. In case it's eluded you, I'm spending my own time, energy, and hard-earned money on this system, not yours.

So have the last word, Rolf. In the future, I choose to ignore both of you and won't feed your egos by responding directly in public again.

--George

I'm not wasting anybodies time on this board, what I have to say is worth as much as anybody. I am a student in college (for BS in CS) and very interested in science. I am only posting to this board only because I think many people make up their minds whether to buy the system here or not - I think they have full right to both sides of the discussion, not just one-side praise.

As for your critisism earlier:

<<<<The first is from a fatuous academician who admits to never even trying the system. He just "knows" it won't work. How many times has that attitude interrupted human progress?>>>>

The first report is by a professor of psychology at the University of Nottingham. He never tried the system true, but he never said he just 'knows' it doesn't work. His report was on how the human eye works and photoreading, it makes a lot of sense actually. He never based his conclusions on how he just knows it doesn't work but on facts. For people who missed it is in this thread earlier.

<<<<The third is above my pay grade, as they say. I don't profess to know anything about NLP and don't want to head down that road right now, even if it does pertain to photoreading. I did note a few lines at the end of the article: "This is not to say that the techniques won't work. They may work and work quite well, but there is no way to know whether or not the claims behind their origin are valid. Perhaps it doesn't matter. NLP itself proclaims that it is pragmatic in its approach: what matters is whether or not it works." The only standard for me is whether or not photoreading works. Pragmatic? You betcha!>>>>

GeorgeA, since you like it so much you are quoting all the positive parts I give you a few counter parts fromt the same article:

"However, how do you measure the claim "NLP works"? I don't know and I don't think NLPers know, either. Anecdotes and testimonials seem to be the main measuring devices.Unfortunately, such a measurement may reveal only how well the trainers teach their clients to persuade others to enroll in more training sessions." Again for the full article there is a link on this thread.

You claim you don't care about NLP but some people do since it is the background training for the person who developed the PR program, I am writing this for others and not just for you. In Photoreading by PS, 3rd edition, Chapter 1, 3rd paragraph, it is stated the NLP and accelerated learning techniques are the background.

<<Now the NASA report: "PhotoReading is a technique developed by Paul Scheele that claims to increase reading rate to 25,000 words per minute." That's not my reading of the claims at all. I believe the statement was to "get through your reading in 1/3 the time." That's an easier claim to defend.>>>>

You didn't even read the rest of the article did you? And photoreading does claim that, or at least implies it strongly! On the back cover of the third edition of the Photoreading book itself it proclaims loudly "Discover the secrets of PhotoReading at 25,000 words per minute." If that is not a claim, then it is a strong implication at least. But what about the results of the test GeorgeA, doesn't that say anything to you?

<<A good scientist remains skeptical, but open-minded.>>

From the faq sheet at skepdic.com :
"Being open-minded does not mean that one has an obligation to examine every crackpot idea or claim made....An open-minded person who is inexperienced and uninformed will need to be willing to investigate issues that an experienced and informed person need not pursue. An open-minded thinker must find things out for herself, but once she has found them out she does not become closed-minded simply because her opinion is now informed! So, the next time you hear some defender of astral projection, past-life regression or alien abductions accuse a skeptic of being "closed-minded," give thought to the possibility that the skeptic isn't closed-minded. Perhaps she has
arrived at an informed belief."

I think they should have put NLP PRing in that list at the end. I have reached my informed opinion with more than enough sources to back it up...GeorgeA your right it is your time and money but my responses and posts aren't aimed at one person but at people who haven't made up their minds yet!

[This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited March 20, 2001).]

All i know is i have no interest in NLP. I read a few books & that was enuff for me. It just doesn't interest me much.

However, i still am amazed at my results w/ PhRing. I took a break from it for a long time & when i started up again, i was impressed w/ the progress. So, maybe a break from it is worthwhile at times.

I hope you connect w/ Dana b/c he really is helpful. I generally e-mail him.

I know Pete doesn't like to hear about ages, but sometimes it's worthwhile. I'm pretty advanced in age so my PhRing is only for my interests. I did work w/ a young man who was doing poorly in medical school. He PhRs all of his medical stuff now & is doing well in residency. I also tutored my brother's step son. He graduated as the "most improved student in his class" & went on to college. So, i've had a couple success stories i personally can vouch for.

Stick w/ it & do it in layers & you'll be happy w/ the results.

I don't know where you get this. All science is built on previous knowledge, sometimes modified by observations it's current set of rules cannot explain, and sometime totally changed. The last one is the exception not the rule, and when it happens there is real data backing up the change is neccessary.

Much of basic geometry (math is a science, depending on empirical knowledge) we had the basics since Ancient Egypt/Roman Times, how else could they build such great wonders without math. Most science is built upon, not thrown out. Many sciences stood the test of time - geometry, calculus, statistics, physics. Even Einstein Theory of Relativity (a revolution I suppose) did not throw out all previously known physics, other theories just undergo a paradigm shift (some modifications) in order to accomodate his theory. Einstein never would have his theory of relavity and other accomplishments if not for previous groundwork. He would have been busy developing everything that came before it. Sure some things need to be thrown out or modified but basically
"Little remains carved in stone for long" is not true.

<<<<In my opinion, Scheele doesn't resort to the paranormal--whatever that is--in his system.>>>>

Isn't this an oxymoron. Simplifying the sentence it sounds like this: In my opinion He doesn't do 'this', I don't know what 'this' is.
How do you know he does not resort to the paranormal if you don't know what paranormal is?

[This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited March 20, 2001).]

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

chaosadelt: what a deadbeat answer

I choose to avoid Rolf and the other naysayers from now on, but you may be interested in a wonderful little book entitled, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas S. Kuhn. In it he outlines a history of science fraught with revolution and reversals. He provides some interesting insights surrounding the work of Copernicus, Newton, Lavoisier, and Einstein, among others. In the section, "The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions," he states, "Let us, therefore, now take it for granted that the differences between successive paradigms are both necessary and irreconcilable." Kuhn doesn't seem to feel that the history of science represents anything like a linear march of "progress." He points out many scientific "rubrics" that have been set aside in favor of newer paradigms: Ptolemaic astronomy, Aristotelian dynamics, and corpuscular optics, for example.

BTW, Margaret, I do know what I mean when I use the term "paranormal," but it does sometimes seem to mean different things to different people and often carries a negative connotation. Do you feel Scheele relies on the paranormal as a basis for PhotoReading? I don't. In fact, I was quite amused that the term even came up in a previous posting. Maybe, though, we should discuss it seriously in another thread.

--George

If you say you ignore me, ignore me. This is a childs game that is being played with a response addressed to another person. I find it interesting that you mention Kuhn's book as if you are intimate with it when in fact that very book is mentioned on my skeptic link of NLP (which you know nothing about of course and could not care less). Did your photoreading of this book consist of going to amazon.com and reading the reviews or are was it resticted to the information that the NLP link provided?

I never said science did not have it's revolutions, I said in essence that it is rare to have all or most findings in that field thrown out for a new theory or findings . It is generally modified over time to fit and explain observations in the world.

For example, geologists did not throw out their all their theories when they finally adopted the tecktonik plate theory. They did not throw out their classifications of rocks (findings). They modified other theories also.

When Copernicus' theory was accepted, astronomers did not throw out all their finding on other planets, stars, etc, (positions, etc) but they had to throw out some theories and modify others.

I said your statement "Little is carved in stone for long" is not true, not the way you make it sound. Not many sciences are thrown out just for a new theory. Diet fads come and go but medical science seems to be skeptikal and not cave in to everything that comes about. And so should other sciences.

You talk as if PRing is a scientific theory. Where are the studies, data, empirical evidence to back it up. All I see are testimonials and that is not enough. I never seen a science textbook filled with any testimonials as proof alone.

I only used *deadbeat* b/c that's what he has in his profile.

Since noone has as yet come to agree on what normal is, then it's all pointless. Archetypal understanding is another matter. Do you know that it's not normal to say *please & thank you* in India? They have other gestures that indicate please & thank you. But, dealing w/ activated archetypes is different.

NLP seems to have some roots in Jungian archetypal philosophy.

No question about it: LS wants to produce a worthwhile product & at the same time a *catchy* product. They do want to make $$$. From Pete's post on Master Chunyi Lin's book, it seems clear that they are very interested in $$$. No harm in that; we are a capitalistic country.

If using NLP techniques & working w/ the right side of the brain is paranormal, then LS is using paranormal stuff. It just doesn't seem very supernatural to me; it just seems *normal* whole brain orientation.

If the PR program doesn't work, and anyone who buys it is entitled to a full money back guarantee, how does LS afford to pay, not only for this website, but all of the free one-on-one coaching to anyone who calls?

Chaos and Balkan must be the only smart people on this discussion forum to have not 'wasted' their money.