In reply/reference to Dana:
My interpretation of reading and studying is, in essence, equivalent to one another.
This is basically due to the fact that I never read any piece of information more than twice, and can usually both understand and retain about 90% of it - when tested.
So, from what I gather of your post - if I can "regular read" a book and usually get around 90% of it, I'll likely have the same results PhotoReading?
Hm, doubt it - but, you should know.
One of my main concerns, regarding 1/3 of the time to process information is - If you have to go through the whole means of activation and layering, with *technical books,* 1/3 of the time seems quite impossible.
With technical books, I don't want to know particular content in the book - I'd like to know the *whole book* inside-out.
How do other "Accelerated Learning" (NLP/DHE) Courses compare to PhotoReading?
