|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 83
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 83 |
Brian649 wrote: <<<<<<<<<Granted. Makes you wonder why in 20 or so years, not ONE study has ever been done. But again, what matters is whether or not the system makes its users read faster with better comprehension/retention. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Brian649, there have been studies done - like that the one in the NASA report I linked to, granted I would like to see more studies done too. But many people are ignoring d5wstat's request for studies/proof and their answers are besides the point. What you are ignoring with your comment is that you assuming that the system makes its users read faster.....rentention, etc. This is not proven in scientific studies. If so many PRers believe this, why not the settle the question by volunteering for a scientific study that measures the claims in some fashion. On the side, toilet seats and most everyday objects don't make extraordinary claims of what it can do, that is what draws skeptism. Besides mundane everyday objects are tested for their claims or effectiveness, there is even a magazine devoted to that, Consumer Reports - so there has to be some people interested in this type of thing. Whatever your view, I don't think the "all it comes down to is that it works" argument cuts it. How do I know it works, you are just giving more testimonials. Many people still believe that Psychics are for real (that their powers just work) though amazingly not one has ever came forth and passed the JFEF million dollor challenge or even tried it. What is the excuse there ? That psychics don't want the million dollars, they seem eager enough to collect money from everybody else though. So why isn't photoreading scientifically tested? Ranaan wrote:
<<<<<<<<<<<<
4 conclusion think about this -where will i stand in 2 years from now & where will u? im 16 now by the time ill b 25 or so ill be really nasty with this. do as u wish im just trying 2 help u.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry I cannot respond to your entire post because your writing style just makes my eyes hurt. Thank you for your concern though, I think I can take care of myself. If any PRers become or are world famous, nobel prize winners, or anything remotely like that I'd be interested in hearing about it though.
[This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited April 09, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited April 09, 2001).]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 111
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 111 |
lol  . whats important 2 me is that u understand what i wanted 2 convey & not the action of replying 2 it since u didnt have the words 2 do so. (just 4 ur knowledge, my average on english writing assignments is A+ this year  .) np GL as they say. - my last question is : y didnt any1 go2 newton & told him: (ill go with the simplest question i can find) "so, u guessed that the gravitational formula should b like this. still u guessed it. then Y should it b like this...YYY Y??" or "y gravitational mass is the same as mass that resembles the amount of matter in space? u didnt prove this, so y is that so? y is it true then? u never proved it therefore i have no reason 2 find any validation in it.."
well nobody ever proved it, yet we use it & believe it fanatically..
or just ask einstein this simple question: "if there r 2 photons moving 1 toward another. each moves in the speed of light, y isnt their relative speed = 2x speed of light?" well according 2 him it isnt. it equals only 1x the speed of light. but y?? the answer is really simple, just BECAUSE. -notice that i dont ATTACK sciences here, i just use them 2 show u that photoreading is a theory just like other "mere" theories like the theory of relativity by einstein,dopler etc. nomore math&physics. anyway, i truely believe that a live test can b arranged if u want, u need 2 ask LSC 2 illustrate it using web cams or something this way it will b presented 2 any1 with full publicity. still i didnt understand what method u suggested if u have any suggestions feel free 2 share. Raanan Hadar
[This message has been edited by Raanan Hadar (edited April 09, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Raanan Hadar (edited April 09, 2001).] [This message has been edited by Raanan Hadar (edited April 09, 2001).]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 339
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 339 |
Phrased differently, some people don't need studies to be assured of something's effectiveness. Pete actually writes in the PhotoReading articles on the webpage that the system is not for everyone. One example he gives is people who like to stay in control--like police officers--because the system breaks the rules. And in the Natural Brilliance course, Paul says that to skip ahead to listen to the last tape first only if you are comfortable with uncertainty or something like that. We're dealing with a more intuitive than rational mind here. As Einstein would say, more imagination than knowledge. There have been studies done - like that the one in the NASA report I linked to Oh. Okay.  Shows you how much that matters to me. This is like proving that a toilet seat is comfortable, because I already know that it is from trial and error exploratory experience. Whatever your view, I don't think the "all it comes down to is that it works" argument cuts it. 'All that it comes down to is that it works' cuts it...for me, because the results are before my eyes every day. And if you can reduce that to a testomonial (which you can) then so be it. But it is more than that. It presupposes, as I said, an exploratory mindset as well as the assuredness that I don't need to know everything about something in order to use it. How do I know it works, I think you've heard this one before: By trying it. This advice only works for divergent minds, though. Because it is not proven, you must risk failure--you must dare to step outside of the box. Natural Brilliance, the Zen Beginner's Mind and all that...empty your cup of preconceptions and prejudices and give it a fair go, play with it, etc etc. Case in point: Diet. If I followed the FDA food pyramid, which is based on a ton of studies, I'd be unhealthy and die of cancer or heart disease by my mid-seventies. I played with many diets before settling on an Alkaline one. Why? Sure, it had a great theory behind it. What it came down to was the results of me feeling perpetually energized and perpetually healthy. I still have yet to get sick in almost two years. Now, the 'experts' most all disagree with alkanization like Gregory on this board. "Rubbish!...where's the proof!? This goes against everything we 'know'" But my results stand for themselves--at least for me. Why? Because I took the time to explore on my own... like... like doing MY OWN study, if you will. I'm not aware of any studies proving the diet's effectiveness. And any study either way wouldn't change my results. So why isn't photoreading scientifically tested? Don't know that one. Perhaps Pete should explain? A study 'proving' that PhotoReading increases speed and comprehension would be great for those who need it. BalkanBoy, you, possibly d5wstat. It would probably open up PhotoReading to more rationally minded, convergent thinkers. Which would mean more cash for LS!!! So, I'd be interested in Pete's response.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 111
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 111 |
neat & clean.
just like nike say.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 83
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 83 |
Brian649, you and many others constantly give /reply with "pragmatic arguments" (aka I don't care, I know it works), they are testimonials. I am not out to change your mind Brian649 (you are a true believer in science/skeptic lingo), as I said before, but to give the other side of the argument. Also, I was hoping for evidence/reports available on this board but that hope has died in the mean time. For me a scientific based study/observations of the system would be ideal. I cannot rely on testimonials (like your personal experience) being accurate. Besides, how do I measure your testimonials, they all pretty much say the same thing - it works. I don't have any numbers, or statistics on what worked! Did your comprehension increase, speed increase, what? How was it measured? A scientific study could measure these things, and at least compare it to reading and speed reading. Also, photoreading I am told often enough is a theory. As far as I know all theories are testable somehow(otherwise it would be speculation only)- so why not a scientific test to PRing? Anyway, if people would like to contribute to validating/proving PRing theory why not (instead of testimonials) volunteer for participation in independent scientific studies where they can measure your results! I don't need to know everything about something before I use it either. But I know enough scams are out there, so I won't be blinded by promises. And I also tried the system like I said often enough. As a final note, I am not interested in your digestive system so discussing your intake (diet) and output (evacuations) analogies are pretty much lost on me [This message has been edited by chaosadelt (edited April 09, 2001).]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 339
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 339 |
For me a scientific based study/observations of the system would be ideal.For me, testing it for myself, witnessing the results for myself IS ideal. Witnessed Results : Brian :: Studies : Chaos That's fine. Then nothing can change your mind until you see some hardcore scientific data. Great. So sit back, kick you legs up, and wait until whomever gets around to it. ...however many years that will be. In the meantime, I'll enjoy my qualitative benefits.  Cheers. [This message has been edited by Brian649 (edited April 09, 2001).]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 111
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 111 |
chaos, y dont u conduct the test? . there r enough photoreaders, speed readers & whatmore in this world that u can contact. im sure almost any1 will b happy 2 donate from his experience 2 ur research. (forums,usenet & icq ofcourse. heck build a site & use some cgi script its ez) just do ur stuff & gather information if thats what u wanted. its more than adequate 4 showing true statistics . still i dont think any1 in here really cares about it . as u c, when some1 does something with less time & more efficiency comparable 2 b4, he just knows that hes gaining something, so he wont do what he done b4 learning it. therefore, most veteran photoreaders dont want any other proof. lets take the worst scenario: photoreading is a scam, LSC are total cons   ..still ill use it in the same way or alter the system because i gain much more from the metarial this way. Raanan Hadar
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,504 Likes: 6
Learning Strategies Member
|
|
Learning Strategies Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,504 Likes: 6 |
That NASA report was not a study. It was one person who reported on his own experiences, which does not a study make. Thankfully the army, navy, airforce, and other members of NASA didn't read it. === We do not encourage representatives of any company or organization to send one person to evaluate PhotoReading. Too often they are in the class thinking about how they will evaluate the course instead of actually learning PhotoReading. Same with reporters. They are often the worst PhotoReaders, because they are looking for ways that PhotoReading doesn't work, instead of learning how to make PhotoReading work. Of course, there are always the exceptions. === We will enthusiastically work with any reputable organization that wants to scientifically study PhotoReading.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 83
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 83 |
Mr. Bissonette, The NASA report was a study, albeit a small one (it tested several people on reading versus several people on photoreading, one a self-proclaimed expert at PRing). I think you confused that report I linked to one of the two others I linked. Either the psycologist's opinion based on what facts about eyes, etc. or skepdic.com's conclusion/opinion on NLP. The one I am referring to was in a NASA quarterly and the way I read the summary it suggested it tested people and was not anybody's opinion alone on the subject. Pete wrote:
<<<<<We will enthusiastically work with any reputable organization that wants to scientifically study PhotoReading.>>>>>>>> May I know which organizations did studies in the past where I could find documentation -- I have trouble finding a substantial number of scientific reports on PRing. Thank you, Rolf
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,504 Likes: 6
Learning Strategies Member
|
|
Learning Strategies Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,504 Likes: 6 |
It was one person who tested him/herself against someone else on a test created by the original person. It did not involve several people. It could not be called a study. There are no scientific studies on PhotoReading that have been published. One, which studied the brain's blood flow and eeg response to PhotoReading was not released because the sample was too small, and no funding was (is?) available to increase the sample size (the results were what we had expected). Another was done at one of our long term corporate clients to study the efficacy of the PhotoReading system--that one is private, and they are still a good client.
|
|
|
|
|
