GeorgeA,
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).]
