Spontaneous activation is definately not the majority of photoreaders.
The advantage of photoreading over speedreading is STILL speed (it's still a LOT faster) and the comprehension is STILL a lot higher (hell, it's higher than regular reading).
"I would use it for tests and stuff or in school when there is a time limit and i have to read a big thing and write somethign about it. There would be no time to wait 20 minutes before activation and then more time during the activation process."
I don't know if this is the greatest application for photoreading. See, the big thing you would have to read wouldn't be big enough to use photoreading on (if you can read it under 20 minutes, then obviously photoreading isn't the best choice for it).
Photoreading isn't BETTER than regular reading, it's a completely different system. I'd say it's definately better than speedreading. Here's a rundown:
Photoreading has better comprehension than regular reading because you go through the material more than once. It's obviously faster, because you skip what you don't need. But if you were to say, regular read something three times instead of activate three times (time limit not being an issue) you would know it better if you regular read it three times. The catch is that unless you have that time, it's probably not worth it.
Speedreading isn't as good because it's a constant speed, and doesn't account for highly detailed work. There's a huge difference in readibility between a philosophical article on sense perception and a Harry Potter book. Speedreading tells you to read both at the same speed. That's a huge error.
I've taken speedreading courses, and rapid reading (you activate everything in a certain way) blows it away.
But again, photoreading is a completely different system, and there are things you have to adjust to. One is you have to be open to the fact that only 4-11% of a text is relevant to your purpose. And if for some reason all is you rapid read instead (which is still damn fast).
But again, there are some things regular reading is better for, like for things under 20 minutes. You wouldn't photoread this post, for example. It's just not worth it. See what I'm saying?
To be honest, however, I would see having to read a big bulk of text happening a lot more than reading a small passage for a test.
-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com
