Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer I'd like to meet one photoreader PART2

Available at http://www.libraries.wright.edu/staff/dunbar/arch/ms1.htm:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
In their spare time, they read technical articles and books, and their interest in aeronautics gradually increased. The glider
flights of Octo Lilienthal attracted their interest as well as works by Octave Chanute and Samuel P. Langley. Their first glider experiments were conducted at Kitty Hawk, N.C., in 1900, and they tested their second glider there in 1901. Some of the
Wright Brothers' work was observed and constructively criticized by Octave Chanute, and at his invitation, Wilbur reported upon
their experiments before the Western Society of Engineers. This public review of their work led the brothers to verify their
ideas by the use of a wind tunnel which they built themselves. By the end of 19O1 they had tested more than 200 wing types and had
compiled tables of data upon which they felt they could rely. Their glider of 1902 had almost double the efficiency of their
previous ones, and when they returned to Kitty Hawk that year, they made more than 1,OOO flights. By the end of 1902 they were
ready to begin building a powered machine. With the aid of their mechanic, Charles Taylor, they designed and built and an engine
with the required lightness and power--12 hp at 1200 rpm, weighing 170 pounds. They also designed propellers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Let me see, they didn't have scientific knowledge because they didn't finish highschool? Why would that be, they could learn science elsewhere. They probaly had Faith in their work (as well as determination and persistence). But also shown by the article is that they read articles about aeronautics (scientific knowledge), did experiments (like scientists), showed their work to others interested (like many in the scientific community do still today), had many different wing types and COMPILED DATA among them, had objectives and MEASURABLE RESULTS (double the efficiency) among others. It looks like they worked in a more or less scientific way to make an airplane, it wasn't some (excuse the pun) fly-by-night operation nor was it successful because of FAITH alone. But if you think FAITH is all that is needed, by all means find a nice tall cliff and take off!

<<<<<<<<<<"After two years of experiment, we cast it all aside, and decided to rely entirely upon our own investigations."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Experimentation is what science is about, scientist need new ideas to progress (progressing does not mean throwing out all previous work). If the new ideas explain some thing better, work better and have satisfactorily evidence the existing theories get modified or thrown out, or the new ideas simply get incorporated in the existing structure. I read elsewhere that Wright brothers had to use Trigonometry (math, a science) to design the airplane as well. Did they start from scratch or modify Trig as we
know it today.

Elmo wrote:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
mgrego2, you've got a point there the brothers definitely did NOT finnish HS, therefore very VERY VERY cursory knowledge of science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Elmo I never had or finished kindergarden, elementary school, middle school, or high school so I must be totally lacking in all skills, not just in science. Can you teach me how to spell? If you can, I might just be able to "finnish" my College English class this semester

brian649 wrote:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
..........and a hush filled the room...........
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sorry brian649, that hushed silence must be the usual sound you perceive in your head

[This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited April 09, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited April 09, 2001).]

Hey Rolf,

Rather than continuing to dance around an argument in which we'll clearly never reach an accord, I was wondering:

1. Did you get anything out of the PR system? Did you perhaps notice that your regular reading speed increased?
2. Have you found any other techniques or systems that improved your ability to acquire information? (Mind Mapping? Baroque Music? FreeNoting? ????)

Just curious,

I detect a slight pinch of animosity here.....just smile.....everything is gonna be alright

Animosity? Nope. I've enjoyed the discussion. It just appears that we're going in circles without ever getting any closer. I'm just sincerely curious to know what does get results for Rolf, if he's willing to share.

mgrego2,
This is going to be a long post because you asked me about 2 things I've been involved in since I was a kid. You are right of course, these arguments are becoming too repetitious - so I'm generously here waiting for your concession But I stand by my position (on Science and PRing). Also I encourage anyone who absolutely wants to prove me (or us skeptics in general) wrong, want to validate PRing for all the world, or for any other reason to participate in an independent scientific study of the method if the opportunity arises.

The reason I bought the book was that I found the idea of spending even less time on my studies than I do now attractive. What I found helpful in Scheele's book wasn't anything that original but I was really trying to make it work so I followed the steps rigorously for a few weeks and doing so probaly applied this basic idea which I heard elsewhere for the first time - preview the book first and then decide if it worth going further.

Before, when I started reading I felt obsessively compelled to finish what I started no matter what - so while I was doing the PR thing I got off of that habit. Because of that I also don't have to read newspaper or magazine stories word for word either anymore to get the same content - I mean who has to remember these mostly frivolous articles by details to come to think of it.

This does not go against what I said though, I do not think that the PRing step works. I was asked earlier what can you lose and I answered time and 16.95 - I believe that is true if you already have good study habits and the PR step is the one twist in the system. I also still think you won't get as good comprehension on the non-frivolous material. Anyway that is why a scientific test is in order - proving one right and one wrong.

I never mentioned before what I used as memory techniques because it hasn't any part in my argument - and I am only saying this since mgrego2 asked and I am giving a complete account so I don't have to explain anything later on Caution! Testimonial Ahead )----> As far as memory systems/accelerated learning systems are concerned, only two things worked for me: number one was a book given to me when I was 7 (in 1987).

I was homeschooled my entire life but at and before 7 years of age I had a terrible memory. At the end of every (school)year I had to pass a series of tests (various subjects) that the state (whichever I was in that year) gave to me in order to prove I was learning and up to par with my peers. My parents thought it would have been best to do some preventive medicine before I failed one year, as I had some bad test scores previously.

Preventive medicine was called The Memory Book and it was by Harry Lorayne (another Magician like Randi:P and Jerry Lucas. It was basically based on mnemonics (making up links and associations with funny/exaggerated pictures and some such stuff). Anyway in the book, they had modified the system to for remembering pretty much everything - lists, faces/names, long digit numbers, whatever, and they gave you enough examples so you could modify to fit your own needs.

The catch of the system is that to remember you need to be what the author called originally aware to remember something (somehow directly opposed to PRing ironically, I observe). Some things I know I don't have to do compared to observing others is that I don't need an address book, gadgets like a Palm (Put your brain on Auto)Pilot, to take notes in class, write down almost anything or that kind of crap. I also remember stuff I only went over once in reading - though I have to review it in my head to feel more confidant. This is not so bad since it is in my brain and I don't have to run around like a headless chicken to find the information.

I also felt better off since I don't forget math equations or foreign words, stuff that people always have trouble with (I was the TA in math and that is one of the most common problems as well as not understanding it in the first place). I have tried teaching the system to others but they all have the same problem I did in the beginning. They get results up front (remembering a long list of 50 items in sequence or some such) but it is an absolute *****, I mean ****ing kicking and ****ing screaming, to apply it - To this day I still have to consciously apply it to remember something, it is not like a photographic memory in that regard, it is not automatic for me.

But it does get faster as time goes along. I have a slower reading speed compared to others because of it when I apply the system. I thought PRing would take care of that one aspect, but my comprehension went way down. Overall I think I am ahead in life as a computer programmer and in general because of the system. I don't know if mnemonics is scientifically validated (remember this is only a testimonial!) but I have volunteered for memory and cognitive studies and will do so again after this summer.

The other thing isn't a memory system but I find it interesting none the less - mental math as an accelerated learning technique. I don't know how to do simple mathematics the same way most people learn how - I have never formally learned the multiplications tables for instance.

I learned the Trachtenberg Speed System (ancient book, 1960 I believe). Up to twelve digits multiplying, dividing, 16 addition, subtraction I can do in my head as well as square root. Or I can it put on paper (just need to write down multiplicand, multiplier, and final product) with no intermediate steps. Now I don't do this 12 digits in a split second, it does take me around 95 seconds (average time) more or less, much less for shorter digits but it is useful when I forget my calculator

It takes practice to get fast but people get up and running in a few hours. The book did not have subtraction though, as far as I remember, I had to jerryrig a system for that. Trachtenberg did mathematically prove his system with algebra so I know it is validated (you won't get the wrong anwer in addition, multiplication, division, but square root has small error possibility at the end). Whether or not you can do it in your head is a question of persistence and practice.

I have read in libraries more than at least 25 books and bought 10 others not available otherwise on memory, accelerated learning techniques but either they were a rehash of the first one (even Harry Loraynes other books), did not work for me, or what not - I was always seeking shortcuts in technique though. The other books are OK but not if youk now the techniques already. Well anyway, I'll be gone till the weekend.

[This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited April 09, 2001).]

Rolf,

Thanks. Interesting story. I'll have to look into the Trachtenberg stuff. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there will be no concession. I respect your need for hard evidence and your reluctance to put much stock in testimonials. However, I have enough personal evidence to convince me that there is value to the system. Since it is difficult to hallucinate results, I am confident that the results I've had have been real. I don't expect you to accept this but it's been convincing to me.

hey whatta long post!
I'm fairly analytical and critical at times. so I think I can understand what you're getting at.
one thought did pop up in the midst of all the reading...

Apes... they barely do anything and just do things when they think, feel or have the urge to do. Now we have some apes, such as a gorilla or orang-utan who have communicated with humans through means of sign language which goes on to show that they have intelligence. what puzzles me about them is that how do they spend about 98% of their day doing nothing but eat, drink or sleep if they have this much intelligence?
well, i think - this's gotta have to do with the subconscious! the early humans, like the stone age humans up to maybe Egyptian era, they used their subconscious, and as their attitudes, personalities develope, they start using their Conscious mind? It's just a thought. I mean it would explain all that genuity of the past and how it's altered up to now. this would be because we're using our conscious minds more and more than we use our subconscious.

This would say that our subconscious is our source of information and our consciousness is our personality for our interactions with different people.

Hope this makes sense at all

chaosadelt:
Great post! Thanks for taking the time. I will definitely track down the Lorrayne book. You say the most worthwhile is his first one?

What are your favorite accelerated learning books? It is very exciting to speak to someone who is home-schooled & has actually used these books w/ success.

Thanks!

Margaret,

I guess The Memory Book by Harry Lorayne and Jerry Lucas was one of the better books. His other books rehash much of the information he has given before, but I probably base my opinion on the order I read them, The Memory Book being the first. The Memory Book also does cover pretty much everything in the other books, while the others may be more specific. He also has some tapes, but I didn't find these worth as much as a book, plus they are more expensive. Dr. Kenneth Higbee's book Your Memory: How it Works & How to Improve It also has the same information in techniques but it is more scientific. Think of Harry Lorayne as a How to guide while Higbee is more of a scientific/explanatory guide.

Be warned though, in a way these techniques are somewhat the opposite of PRing - the stress is on being 'originally aware' of information, no unconscious preprocessing here. Though (if PRing works) I could see how the systems could complement each other.

Anyway, I found the memory book, and the trachtenberg system to be the only substantially useful techniques for me. I don't know if the trachtenberg would be useful to anyone else who already knows arithmetic though, it's hard for most people to get out of their habits and into new ones.

Oh, I just thought of something, your memory maps as I know them are similar to the memory system in the books I mentioned - with links and associations. Just a thought.

Also with what I said with the trachtenberg system, like any skill I believe it follows the chart Paul Scheele has in his book on page 124, 3rd. edition - I don't have the book on me right now so please tell me if I made a mistake.

[This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited April 13, 2001).]