Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer PhotoReading doesn't work?

You cannot call for volunteers for the testing that invalidates it.

Testing was similar to the one described. As you say they need to be independant and of a suitable quantity.

And as I pointed out similar tests are carried out in schools throughout the world. Not on learning to Photoread but on learning science, math, reading, writing, economics and a whole lot of other topic. The results are not only relevant to whether they learned it but also whether they can apply it correctly to their careers. When more than half the class can fail in learning a subject how can you test whether the individual is ready to apply the skill? Because that is what the test is about. Teach them to PhotoRead and then test if they are able to apply the skill.

To accurately test then you would need to make sure that each has the same level of interest and knowledge in the material that is presented both pre-testing and post testing. Because you cannot use the same material for both pre-test and post test. To abitarily deduct a prior knowledge score from a post test is also inaccurate. Just because you have knowledge of the material or could figure out some logical answers presented in a pretest does not mean that you have further knowledge of the subject. If you can correctly do that then explain how come kids can be doing well and have a high passing grade on the subject at the beginning of the year and then fail miserably at the end of the year? I'm sure they are grateful that their first score isn't deducted from their second score.

Then there are other factors that need to be taken into consideration when you so the test. Are the subjects of a similar educational backgroung, how do you score for the differences in education.

The logistics of preparing a test that won't be trashed because of the human subjects is one of the reasons no independant body has undertaken it.

If you can find someone who will test using one PET scans for fMRIs or anything that can compare what the brain does differently with traditional reading and PhotoReading then you have something worth reporting.

LSC is open to anyone who will do propert testing. Paul has asked us instructors to let him know if we hear of anyone willing to do a test.

The person/s who carried out the test mentioned above have not yet contacted LSC about it, which gives cause to doubt whether this was a test. We certainly would like to discuss with the instructor about the test. Which is also odd no instructor ever mentioned being the subject of a test.

Alex

[This message has been edited by Alex K. Viefhaus (edited November 14, 2004).]

It is good to hear that LSC is open to testing.

I hope some reputable people take LSC up on the offer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by babayada:
"Doing a very accurate study on PhotoReading, be it its efficiency, effectiveness, affects on the brain ... is next to impossible."

With all due respect, this claim is absurd.

What you are claiming here is that the effects of Photoreading cannot be quantified. If so, then how can LSC or anyone else make ANY claims about it?

Take several people. Have them read a text the normal way. Test them. Have people photoread and activate the text using photoreading in a proper manner. Test them.

Compare the test results.

Of course there will be anomolies, individual differences, etc. Testing is not perfect. It gives you a rough estimate of where to aim your focus to find the truth. The more tests, the more variety among the tests, the more hard data. The more hard data, the better and better we know about that which is being tested.

From your point of view, Youngprer, NOTHING involving subjective experience in any way can be tested, because they all involve subconscious processes, etc. We know for a fact that this is not the case.

If PhotoReading cannot have a predicatable effect, why teach it? Why learn it? If it can, then this effect, because it is predictable, can be tested and measured.

---

It does not mean that nothing can be tested. You can test the laws of physics by running thousands and thousands of trials. Take, for instance, projectile motion. If you throw a ball, it will rise into the air with an initial velocity, and then, reacting to gravity while moving horizontally, it will fall to the ground after so many seconds, depending on the strength of the force that sent it into that air. It's a parabolic kind of figure when put through the air and seen over time.

That instance could be measured by filming a machine that throws a ball with the same force everytime. Apply the formula, see if it works. If it does on thousands and thousands of trials, then we can probably conclude that this law may be true for this particular case of a mechanical arm throwing a ball through the air.

Some variables you'd have to consider are the camera, the framerate in which it films at, the ball, whether it's moving along only a X, and Y axis, or if a Z axis is coming into play, and how much that would affect how you're looking at the motion of the ball, etc.

But when it comes to human thought, human learning, it's like trying to externally analyze an internal function. It simply doesn't make sense, and trying to "scientifically" measure something this way is irrational, and inaccurate.

Individual differences can be potentially MASSIVE inaccuracies. This particular study of PhotoReading, if you're wanting to orient the experiment to determine "roughly" whether or not the system works, did not do that. Case studies do not necessarily represent the entire population, and most of the time, they definitely do not.

The original questions have still not been answered. Who was the instructor, who were the people?

My personal theory is that this experiment, this report, this study was created for the purpose of discrediting the PhotoReading Whole Mind System, because they believed it was rubbish from the very start of the experiment. There was DEFINITELY not the double blind procedures that are supposed to be implemented to protect against biased results. A few test subjects, including the experimenter being one of them, is where thie study breaks down immediately, without question. End of story.

Learning Strategies can make "ANY claims" about it because it has worked in the REAL WORLD, not under a preset testing environment that could easily be biased, for over half a million people. It's that simple. It's hundreds of thousands can use this system to aid them in whatever their goals are, the system has accomplished its purpose, and it's easily very useful.

--------
And yes, I'm back, for the time being. I'm doing alright. Been sick a decent amount, can't sleep much, and I'm struggling in school, been having problems here and there with my girlfriend, but ehhh - I'm alright.

On the upside, I am getting over my anger problem, working on my website again, and getting a lot better as a musician.

-youngprer

The other day, for no seemingly apparent reason, I wondered what that young man youngprer was up to these days.I noted that he hadn't posted on the forum for a while.
I know that he posted a while back saying he would be be unavailable to contribute because of other commitments.

Lo and behold, I come to the forum today, and he has posted for the first time in ages.
How coincidental, or maybe just the result of messages we cannot consciously understand?

More and more as I learn, think, and study myself, I realise just how little I know.

I am ambivalent to the courses LSC provides.
Often I am maddened to a point of no return, while at the same time, knowing that I am a minute distance away from clarity.

LSC are in a difficult field.I admire them most because they're not into the "quick fix" arena.
Heck I could teach a speed reading course and make a few quid out of it myself.But I know that it's not the correct approach.

To me the PRWMS makes perfect sense, on an intuitive level.

I have always followed my intuition, and always will.To me, it's a necessity.I simply oculd never, and have never, amde a decision without consulting my intuition.

These tests are performed at the conscious level.So all your going to get in terms of results are conscious, narrow, declarations, or even conscious, narrow, assertions.

Good or bad, it's still narrow.

Not necessarily narrow. It depends on the tester.

quote:

---

Originally posted by babayada:
Not necessarily narrow. It depends on the tester.

---

Elaborate?

I couldn't help but notice this discussion and will give you my thoughts. I did a test once myself. I had gone to this pyschic person once or twice for health reasons and was amazed at what she could see going on in my body. So, I thought, next time I go, I'm going to PhotoRead a book and have her "watch" and see what happens. She agreed to do it, I picked up a paperback off her bookshelf and began. She said she did indeed see information going from one side of my brain to the other--the way she described it was as little symbols that looked vaguely like musical notes. I suppose then, that getting the most out of it involves all the steps that come later--to unlock those keys. Just thought you guys might like taking a break from the strictly scientific!

Testing is a tool with which one gathers certain, specific kinds of information.

How a person evaluates that information and decides what to go after next, and, ultimately, when the information means (summary and conclusions) depends very much on the thinking of the tester. Think of Galileo and Copernicus.

The results of tests can broaden thinking. We no longer believe that the earth is the center of the universe because of it. I'd say that testing/experimentation (all a scientific experiment is is a test) has done quite a lot to broaden our thinking.