chaosadelt:
In case you missed it, I'm the one who opened the thread entitled "Still Skeptical." Martin posted these "references" previously. 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 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!
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.
PhotoReading is a skill that takes practice. Do you play piano? Do you think you could teach someone to play competently in a brief live seminar? Just the basics would be a reasonable goal, but what about practice? Skills take time. This study should have been structured over a reasonable time frame. That doesn't seem to be the case.
I don't intend to be an apologist for PhotoReading or Learning Strategies. My suggestion is to let me try this program for myself over a reasonable period of time (I've only been at it for 10 days or so) and I'll be happy to report back my results. It won't cost you a dime.
What's wrong with that? 
