quote--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The book actually says that only 4-11% of the text actually carries any meaning. I averaged it out to 10% just to simplify. And yes Paul does say that PR teaches you to read for "core concepts" so if you put 2 and 2 together you're supposed to Photoread and then just read for core concepts and that's called 'reading.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope.
-
Top of page 61 in the PR book. I worded it poorly, should have said activate for core concepts. If the 4-11% isn't a Photoreading concept then it was passed off as implied knowledge via the reference. I personally prefere the "80% of the core concepts come from 20% of the material" but how can we tell.
As I said before, I already said that like everyone else I could burn thru a book using PR and get "what I know beforehand" (schema) and be done with the book real quick. Then when I go back and actually read the book I see tons of stuff I didn't know about in advance to even begin to ask the mind probes about or create the purposes about so I naturally my mind couldn't dip on them but when I went back and Rapid Read I finally saw this 'new' stuff I missed before.
If you're saying that really good books like Photoreading and Natural Brilliance should be rapid read and less "deep" are more for PR/Activating, then that's exactly what I want to hear, because it's kind of what I suspect.
I go to extremes with what I read and I don't think anyone here does this but I'm either done with a book after a preview or I want to read the whole thing.
One last question Dana, first of all thanks for the help and second of all how would someone make purposes and mind probes for information that is new? Mine like
"what's my ultimate application of this material?"
"What have I not thought of yet that is the key to solving this problem?"
and things similar to that are all I can come up with.
