The trainee and and the person carrying out the 'research' are the same person.
quote:
The reading rates proclaimed by PhotoReading experts (up to 25,000 words per minute) are indeed amazing/
This is a misrepresentation of PhotoReading.
There is no claim of "reading" rates up to 25,000 words a minute. You are taught to "PhotoRead at 25,000" aminute and take in information at 25,000.
Based on that alone the research is looking for something that PhotoReading is not. After PhotoReading at 25,000 words per minute we promise that you will have no conscious comprehension of what you have PhotoRead. The researcher was conducting a research of speed reading.
Also as a PhotoReader myself I need to point out that there is no way even if tested that my approach reading is traditional reading I am hardly surprised that the Instructor showed little difference in the "traditional reading" and PhotoReading.
The next question is if this is a valid report why wasn't it presented to Learning Strategies and who was the instructor?
Of course the consideration is that the test, was looking for something that PhotoReading is not and is the probable reason why a copy of the research wasn't presented to Learning Strategies.
Of course the questions I have for you.
Who is the Author (that will tell use who the trainee is), what is the date of the experiement and what is the date of the publication, Who was the instructor, who was the independant witness, who controlled the admistration of the tests, and who provided the testing material?
Certified Instructors teach the course over 2.5 days why was the trainee only taught over 2 days? Earlier the course was taught over 2 weekends, 4 days.
I have more but would welcome an answer to those questions to start with.
Alex
[This message has been edited by Alex K. Viefhaus (edited November 13, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Alex K. Viefhaus (edited November 13, 2004).]
