Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer Does PR truly work?

Thank you, Alex. I'm starting to consider taking the leap into the darkness.

Could you please post a link to the NASA report anyway? Or could you send it to me at the address in my profile?

Thanks!

Thank you for your reply. Your experience certainly does indicate that the actual process of PRing is helpful, in and of itself. Just so you don't think I'm some kind of die-hard skeptic: Yes, I have practiced photo-reading. It seems to help but I really can't be sure. In reply to your rhetorical statement, yes, actually, electricity is a well-established scientific phenomena! Although I grant that it is very strange, it does fulfill all the criterion for being "scientific". We can measure, repeat, observe, and test the bejeezus out of electricity. Based upon our observations and our equations we can calculate, generate, and direct electrical currents. I hear a lot in these type of forums disparaging science, and as a student of science I must disagree. True science is not the sort of die-hard skepticism which is so heavily publicized and espoused, whose primary goal is to uphold dogma. True science wants to observe, test, and understand phenomena. My desire to see proper studies done on PR does not arise out of a desire to debunk it. I want to see studies done so everyone involved can understand how their minds work and how they can use this knowledge to better themselves. It seems that the person who I hope is reading this message is Paul Scheele. The Learning Strategies corporation--who apparently hold tons of seminars and such-- would be well-equiped to perform such studies as I would like to see. I plan to post this part of my message as its own topic on the board, so as to direct it to the attention of the Learning Strategies folks.
K.O

Excerpt from the NASA report:

quote:

---

After completing the training, I was relatively confident that the technique did not work. However, I also believed that the training workshop was relatively harmless and potentially helpful for a less-skilled reader. For example, the training spends a great deal of time on relaxation techniques - who can't benefit from relaxation? The training also covers successful reading techniques such as skimming before reading. However, after observing the results from the study, my opinion has changed considerably. This technique can potentially lead a reader to believe that information as been learned, whereas little to nothing has been in fact acquired by PhotoReading a text. Thus, learning this technique may mislead a reader considerably.

---

Comments?

I haven't read the report... you have to order it. However, you can get the abstract online. It's not favourable towards PRWMS.

From the abstract to the report, it appears that the report is based on a single person attending the seminar and testing themselves for speed an comprehension. It MAY be that the test was compared to methods equivalent to the PWMS, minus the PR step. It May be that the test compare the abilities of a PR proficient individual to traditional reader.
Note that these are MAY and not does.

Oooooh, here it is, but I'm not going to clean it up.
------------------------

TITLE: Preliminary Analysis of Photoreading

Document ID: 20000033842 File Series: NASA Technical Reports

Report Number: ODURF-193021

Sales Agency & Price: CASI Hardcopy A03 CASI Microfiche A01 - No Copyright

Authors:
McNamara, Danielle S. (Old Dominion Univ.)

Published: Jan 01, 2000

Corporate Source:
Old Dominion Univ. (Norfolk, VA United States)

Pages: 28

Contract Number: None

NASA Subject Category: Behavioral Sciences

Abstract:
The purpose of this project was to provide a preliminary analysis of a reading strategy called PhotoReading. PhotoReading is a technique developed
by Paul Scheele that claims to increase reading rate to 25,000 words per minute (Scheele, 1993). PhotoReading itself involves entering a "relaxed
state" and looking at, but not reading, each page of a text for a brief moment (about 1 to 2 seconds). While this technique has received attention in
the popular press, there had been no objective examinations of the technique's validity. To examine the effectiveness of PhotoReading, the principal
investigator (i.e., trainee) participated in a PhotoReading workshop to learn the technique. Parallel versions of two standardized and three
experimenter-created reading comprehension tests were administered to the trainee and an expert user of the PhotoReading technique to compare
the use of normal reading strategies and the PhotoReading technique by both readers. The results for all measures yielded no benefits of using the
PhotoReading technique. The extremely rapid reading rates claimed by PhotoReaders were not observed; indeed, the reading rates were generally
comparable to those for normal reading. Moreover, the PhotoReading expert generally showed an increase in reading time when using the
PhotoReading technique in comparison to when using normal reading strategies to process text. This increase in reading time when PhotoReading
was accompanied by a decrease in text comprehension.

Major Subject Terms:
READING CHARACTER RECOGNITION READERS STANDARDS

Minor Subject Terms:
TEXTS WORDS (LANGUAGE) WORD PROCESSING

Language Note: English

Tenshu - I see you managed to obtain a copy.

So it wasn't contracted by NASA - I am not suprised.

One major factor that bothered me. Comparing the trainers "regular" reading speed with the PhotoReading speed... As far as I am concerned a trainer who has been a photoreader for any lenght of time can no longer 'regular read'. Photoreading becomes a habit. I have noticed on myself I never read the way I used read since learning to photoread, even short articles get a mental snapshot before I attempt to read. Therefore the trainers 'reading speed should remain consistent throught the habit of photoreading.

I am impressed to see evidence of the probabilty that PhotoReading becomes an unconscious habit. Since throughout the report the trainers reading rate remained relativily consistant.

Another thing that bothered me is, "how can a test being conducted by the investigator using themself as the test subject be considered conclusive proof?" Most tests conducted by scientists and psychologist are considered inconclusive until they have been repeated a number of times by independant researchers and they rarely include the researcher as the test subject for the sake of objectivity.

If you want to base your opinion about photoreading on this one report then that is your decision.

There is another option - you can do what the author of that article did... test it out on yourself. My own were radically different to the author of that report.

Alex

Very interesting, but, as Alex said, highly inconclusive. If the abstract is correct in implying that their were only two test subjects, including one being the principle investigator, than this study is worthless. I have managed to track down Dr. McNamara and have e-mailed her requesting more info. If she replies I will keep you guys informed.
Auf Wiedersehen,
K.Olafsson