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

Hi, i'm really interested in this whole photoreading concept that's why i was shocked when i stumbled upon this report.

Report starts here:

Photoreading involves first entering a relaxed state of mind, referred to as the Alpha State (relaxation generally precedes each PhotoReading phase). At this point the reader consciously decides what knowledge is to be gained from the text. This process is called "stating a purpose" for reading. The reader then previews the text by reading important parts of the book or text such as the table of contents, the index, key words, key phrases, and often entire sections of the text (using normal reading strategies). The reader then completes the PhotoFocus stage of the PhotoReading process. First the reader achieves a Theta State, a state of profound relaxation that purportedly opens up the right brain and gives the reader access to unconscious memory. The PhotoReader then looks at, but does not focus on or read, each page of a text for a brief moment (about 1 to 2 seconds) with a "soft" or diverged gaze. (The type of focus used is similar to that use for Magic Eye pictures for which the eyes must focus beyond the actual picture.) This PhotoFocus phase is followed by an "incubation" period. The PhotoReader simply waits, while continuing with daily activities, for between 20 minutes and 24 hours. After this incubation period, the information that was presented in the text can be "activated" and consciously used by the reader. Finally, the reader may "rapid read" the text. Much like speed reading, the PhotoReader scans and reads the text at a rapid rate - skipping familiar sections and slowing down for less familiar, desired information.

The reading rates proclaimed by PhotoReading experts (up to 25,000 words per minute) are indeed amazing. Although speed reading estimates range up to 81,000 words per minute, examinations of speed reading above rates of 600 words per minute have indicated that comprehension is low, or non-existent (e.g., Carver, 1985). Thus, any comprehension of a text at a rate of 25,000 words a minute would be astounding. However, while this technique has received attention in the popular press, there have been no known systematic or scientific examinations of the technique's validity. Indeed, the entire process and purported outcomes contradict most accepted theories of reading comprehension (e.g., Kintsch, 1998). Accordingly, skilled reading involves active, conscious, and strategic processing of the information in a text (e.g., McNamara & Scott; 1999; McNamara & Kintsch, 1996). Learning from a text requires the reader to consciously process the information, the relationships between separate ideas in the text, and to draw inferences that go beyond the information presented in the text. All of these cognitive processes are assumed to be relatively conscious and effortful, and to take time. Thus, according to theories of reading comprehension (e.g., Kintsch, 1998), successful comprehension using the PhotoReading technique should not be possible.

Examination of PhotoReading

The objective of this study was to provide a relatively objective examination of the effectiveness of PhotoReading. To this end, the principal investigator participated in a PhotoReading workshop to learn how to PhotoRead. Parallel versions of two standardized and three experimenter-created reading comprehension tests were administered to herself and to an expert user of the PhotoReading technique. These tests were used to compare the effects of normal reading strategies and the PhotoReading technique on both readers' text comprehension.

PhotoReading

The complete process of PhotoReading involves five phases: preparation, previewing, using the PhotoFocus gaze, activating, and rapid reading. This section describes these five phases. Preparation involves entering a focussed, though relaxed state of mind and determining the purpose of reading the material (e.g., application, importance, level of detail needed, time commitment, etc.). Preparation generally requires only a few minutes.

The following phase, previewing, involves (a) surveying the reading material, (b) pulling out important words, and (c) reviewing the purpose of reading the material. Surveying the material includes reading information such as the title, subtitles, headings, table of contents, copyright date, index, first and last pages or paragraphs of sections, bolded or highlighted text, information in boxes, figures, or charts, summaries, previews, or review questions. Pulling out trigger words is a continuation of the survey process, but specifically centers on identifying important words in the text. Surveying the material and pulling out trigger words are considered important components of the PhotoReading technique. Indeed, Paul Scheele (1996) states "You may be amazed at how much you can gain through this strategy. In some cases, you will find everything you want to know-just through surveying" (p. 32). Previewing requires a variable amount of time that depends on the amount and difficulty of the written material. For example, a short article should require only half a minute whereas a book should require between 5 and 8 minutes to complete. The final step of previewing is to review reading goals - for example, the reader may decide that all of the needed information has been accessed at this point, and proceed no further. At the same time, the reader may also decide that more information is needed, but redefine the specific information desired.

The third phase, using the PhotoFocus gaze, is considered the heart of the PhotoReading process and is also the only phase unique to Scheele's PhotoReading process. Paul Sheele (1996) claims, "It is the most right-brained and provocative step of this system." (p. 37). Using the PhotoFocus gaze involves six steps. The first step is to prepare by reestablishing the purpose for reading the material. The second step is to enter "the accelerative learning state" by reaching a profound relaxed state of mind called the Theta state (with reference to increased Theta brain waves which are at 4-8 Hz). The third step is to affirm "concentration, impact, and purpose." This phase is much like self-hypnosis. The PhotoReader silently makes self-statements such as "As I PhotoRead, my concentration is absolute." and "All that I PhotoRead makes a lasting impression on my inner mind and is available to me." (Scheel, 1996; p. 40). The PhotoReader then enters the PhotoFocus State which involves looking at (but not focusing on or reading) each page of a text for a brief moment (about 1 to 2 seconds) with a "soft" or diverged gaze. The type of focus used is similar to that use for Magic Eye pictures for which the eyes must focus beyond the actual picture. The goal is to widen peripheral vision and to "mentally photograph" each page. The information is then assumed to be processed at a preconscious level and available directly to "the deeper memory of the inner mind." (Scheele, 1996; p. 42). The fifth step of the PhotoFocus phase is to maintain a steady state while flipping the pages of the text. The reader attempts to maintain the accelerative learning state while remaining relaxed and turning the pages of the text (using the PhotoFocus gaze) at a steady rhythm. Finally, the reader "closes the process with a sense of mastery." The closing process in once again mindful of self-hypnosis. The PhotoReader closes by making self-affirmations such as "I acknowledge the feelings I have received from this book", and "I release this information for my body and inner mind to process."

The PhotoFocus phase generally requires only a few minutes and is followed by an "incubation" period. The PhotoReader simply waits, while continuing with daily activities, for between 20 minutes and 24 hours. After this incubation period, the information that was presented in the text can be "activated" and consciously used by the reader. Activation can include a variety of techniques such as questioning, summarizing, making lists, and making mind maps (associative outlines). Activation also includes "super reading and dipping". This process involves scanning the text (in any order) and stopping to quickly read sections that grab the reader's attention. If the PhotoReader has not yet achieved the information desired from the text, the final step of the PhotoReading process is to rapid read. Rapid reading is essentially speed reading, except that the reader prepares by entering a relaxed state beforehand. Specifically, the PhotoReader scans and reads the text at a rapid rate - skipping familiar sections and slowing down for less familiar, desired information.


Method

Training

To examine the effectiveness of PhotoReading, the principle investigator (i.e., henceforth referred to as the trainee) participated in a two-day workshop provided by an authorized instructor of the PhotoReading technique. The instructor had received training from the originator of the technique, Paul Scheele, had practiced the technique for over 3 years, and had trained approximately 150 individuals to use PhotoReading. The workshop involved practicing each step of the PhotoReading process with a group of nine other students. The trainee studied the technique for a week prior to the two-day PhotoReading training workshop, and followed up the workshop with an individual training session with the PhotoReading instructor after approximately one month. The trainee then practiced the technique over a period of approximately two months.

Design of study

Two subjects participated in this study: (a) the PhotoReading trainee who participated in a two-day PhotoReading workshop, and (b) the PhotoReading expert who provided the PhotoReading workshop. The two participants were first given five reading tests before the workshop for which they used normal reading strategies (i.e., pretests). The participants were subsequently given parallel versions of the five reading tests for which they used the PhotoReading technique (i.e., posttests). The readers' performance on the pretests was compared to performance on the posttests. The measures of effectiveness included both accuracy on the tests and the time to read the texts. If PhotoReading is effective, then posttest performance should exceed or equal pretest performance. If PhotoReading is not effective, then pretest performance should exceed posttest performance.

Testing Materials

The reading comprehension tests included parallel versions of two standardized tests and three experimenter-created tests. The standardized tests included the Nelson Denny Reading Comprehension Test (forms G and H) and the Verbal Reasoning section from the MCAT. The Nelson Denny involves answering 38 questions distributed across seven short passages. The standard time limit to complete the Nelson Denny is 20 minutes. The Verbal Reasoning test involves answering 65 questions across nine passages. The standard time limit for this test is 85 minutes. (These time limits were not imposed here). For both tests, the reader can look back at the questions to answer the questions. Thus, reading times include both reading and answering the questions.

The experimenter-created tests were designed to assess the effectiveness of PhotoReading for more difficult, expository texts. These types of tests were of particular interest because PhotoReading has been claimed to be particularly effective for this type of text and because learning from text is an important goal of reading. The original texts were obtained from advanced textbooks (i.e., Kolb & Whishaw, 1996; Levine & Shefner, 1981; Pough, Janis, & Heiser, 1999) and then slightly modified to created parallel versions (for each topic) in terms of difficulty and the number of words. The texts included three general topics: physiology, perception, and biology. For each topic, two texts were used that were comparable in terms of the number of words, reading ease, and estimated grade level appropriateness. These characteristics for each of the six texts are presented in Table 1. Of the two versions created for each topic, one text was chosen randomly to be read normally, the other to be read using the PhotoReading strategy.


Table 1. Characteristics of the six expository texts that were used to compare the effectiveness of normal reading to that of PhotoReading.

Topic
Physiology
Perception
Biology

Reading Method
Normal
PhotoRead
Normal
PhotoRead
Normal
PhotoRead

Words
1498
1517
1538
1506
1510
1511

Flesch Reading Ease
26.1
31
42.6
37.8
51.8
52.7

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
10.0
10.5



For each of the six texts, 24 open-ended questions were created, including 8 prior knowledge questions, 8 text-based questions, and 8 conceptual questions . The prior knowledge questions were included because it has been well established that prior knowledge plays an important role in text comprehension. Prior knowledge allows the reader to better understand the text by generating knowledge-based inferences to fill in conceptual gaps in the text. In addition, questions may be answered on the basis of prior knowledge of the topic, and not on the exposure to the text. The prior knowledge questions afford an estimation of when this might be the case.

Text-based questions are based on a single idea or sentence from the text. The information in the text that is targeted by the question generally requires little prior knowledge and little active processing of the text to understand. However, they are more difficult than multiple choice questions because they require recalling, rather than only recognizing the answers to the questions. Conceptual questions are considered to be more difficult than text-based questions because correctly answering them requires integrating separate ideas from the text and understanding relations between concepts presented in the text.

The expert also read three additional chapters from the Physiology textbook (Kolb & Whishaw, 1996). The expert read the material necessary to take the first exam in a graduate-level Physiology course at Old Dominion University. This text was employed because it has been claimed that this method is appropriate to read material and take exams in college courses. The text material necessary for the test included three chapters (approximately 26,350 words). The test was adapted from the exam used by the course instructor and consisted of 6 true/false, 30 multiple-choice, 6 fill-in-the-blank, and 12 short-answer questions. Among these questions were 15 prior knowledge questions.

Procedure

The pretests were read normally by the participants, whereas the posttests were read using the PhotoReading strategy. For both the pretests and posttests, the subtests were administered in a fixed order: Nelson Denny, Verbal Reasoning, Physiology, Perception, Biology. The Nelson Denny and the Verbal Reasoning subtests were administered in a single session, and the expository texts were administered in a separate session. Reading times for each text were measured with a stop watch.

Normal reading. The Nelson Denny and Verbal Reasoning tests were administered with the instructions to read them normally and that the reader could refer back to the text to answer the questions. The expository texts were administered one at a time. First, the text was read by the subject. When the subject was ready to take the test, the text was removed and the questions to assess comprehension of that text were presented to the subject.

PhotoReading. For both standardized tests, the entire Photoreading process was completed in one session -- that is there was not a break to allow for incubation. Thus, the reading times include all processes involved in the PhotoReading process, as well as answering the questions. For the three expository texts, the Preview and PhotoReading processes were completed the day before the testing day to allow for at least 12 hours of incubation. The following day, the texts were presented which were rapidly read. The texts were then removed during the testing phase.




Results

Standardized Tests

Table 2 shows the results for the two standardized subtests, the Nelson Denny and the Verbal Reasoning subtest from the MCAT. For each text, the number of correctly answered questions, the percent correct, and the reading time (including reading and answering the questions) are listed as a function of reader and reading method. The results indicate that there was no benefit for using the PhotoReading method, neither in terms of the number of correctly answered questions, nor the time to complete the test. For both readers, the number correct for the Nelson Denny test was equivalent regardless of whether it was read normally or with the PhotoReading reading strategy. The time to complete the test remained approximately the same for the expert and increased as a function of PhotoReading for the trainee. Thus, there was no benefit of PhotoReading for the Nelson Denny test. The number of correctly answered questions for the Verbal Reasoning test by the expert dropped 6 percent -- accompanied by an increase of 28 minutes in reading time. Although the reading time did decrease for the trainee by 16 minutes, there was a 20 percent decrease in comprehension. Thus, there was clearly no benefit of PhotoReading for the two standardized reading tests.


Table 2. Reading comprehension and reading rate results for the two standardized tests as a function of reader and reading method.



Expert

Trainee




Normal
PhotoRead
Normal
PhotoRead

Nelson Denny







Number correct
37
38
35
35


Percent correct
0.97
1.00
0.92
0.92


Reading time (min.)
19.43
18.13
15.80
21.30

Verbal Reasoning (MCAT)







Number correct
54
50
53
40


Percent correct
0.83
0.77
0.82
0.62


Reading time (min.)
69.35
98.03
62.00
46.00




To further examine the relationship between comprehension accuracy and reading time, Figure 1 (on the following page) displays the standardized test results in terms of efficiency. Efficiency is the time spent reading per correctly answered question (i.e., reading time/number correct). This figure shows that there was no increase in efficiency as a function of using the PhotoReading method. Moreover, there was a loss in efficiency for the expert PhotoReader's performance on the verbal reasoning tests - she spent more time completing the test per correctly answered question.

Expository Texts

Figure 1 also shows average performance on the expository texts (i.e., Physiology, Perception, and Biology) in terms of efficiency. For the trainee, there was no change in efficiency. Efficiency remained the same comparing the pretest (using normal reading strategies) and the posttest (using PhotoReading). However, for the expert PhotoReader, there was a substantial loss in efficiency - for all three texts, more time was spent reading per correctly answered question when using the PhotoReading method as compared to reading the texts normally. This loss in efficiency for the expert is displayed in Figure 1 in terms of an average increase of 2.5 minutes reading time per correctly answered question when PhotoReading as compared to reading normally.
Figure 1. Reading efficiency (i.e., total time divided by the number of correctly answered questions) for each of the two standardized tests and the expository texts.





Figure 2 displays average comprehension accuracy for the expository texts as a function of reader (i.e., trainee and expert) and test (i.e., comparing the pretest using normal reading strategies to the posttest using PhotoReading technique). It should be noted that while the overall comprehension performance may seem low for the expository texts, it is normal given the difficulty of the texts and questions. Figure 2 shows that for both readers there was a 20 percent decrease in comprehension accuracy when using the PhotoReading strategy (i.e., the posttest) as compared to when reading normally (i.e., the pretest).


Figure 2. Reading comprehension of the expository texts as a function of reader and reading method.


Table 3 shows the test results for the three sets of expository texts in greater detail. For each of the three text domains (i.e., physiology, perception, and biology), the number of correctly answered text-based questions (n=8), conceptual questions (n=8), and prior knowledge questions (n=8) are shown, as well as the total reading time and the time spent PhotoReading (which was included in the total reading time).


Table 3. Performance on the three expository texts as a function of reader and reading method.




Expert
Trainee




Normal
PhotoRead
Normal
PhotoRead

Physiology Text








Text-based

4.5
2.5
3.5
1.5


Conceptual

6
3.8
7
3.5


Prior Knowledge

1
1.5
2.5
4


Total Reading time (min)

10.38
29.25
16.9
12.08



PhotoReading time

0.68

5.1



Words per minute
144.32
51.86
88.64
125.58

Perception Text








Text-based

3
1
3.5
3.5


Conceptual

2
1
3.5
3.5


Prior Knowledge

0
1
1
3


Total Reading time (min)

8.82
8.12
19.53
12.92



PhotoReading time

0.87

4.2



Words per minute
174.38
185.47
78.75
116.56

Biology Text








Text-based

4.5
5.5
6
5.5


Conceptual

4.8
2
5.5
2


Prior Knowledge

4
1
2
3


Total Reading time (min)

10.78
15.55
25.63
15.43



PhotoReading time

0.95

5.8



Words per minute
140.07
97.17
58.92
97.93



Reading technique. The primary question addressed in this study regarded the effect of reading technique on comprehension performance. This average effect of reading technique on efficiency and accuracy are displayed in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. As discussed earlier, there was a general loss in both efficiency and accuracy as a function of using the PhotoReading technique. Table 3 shows this data in greater detail. Specifically, there was a decrease in comprehension accuracy as a function of reading technique for every text except the trainee's comprehension of the perception text - for which comprehension remained constant. However, the trainee possessed greater prior knowledge of the text that was PhotoRead than of its parallel (normally read) version. Thus, comprehension of the text that was PhotoRead can at least partially be attributed to the reader's prior knowledge of the text's contents.

In terms of the amount of time spent reading, the expert PhotoReader increased reading time when PhotoReading for the physiology and biology texts, and showed no change for the perception text. Thus, in terms of both accuracy and reading time, the expert PhotoReader showed a disadvantage for using the PhotoReading technique. In contrast, the trainee showed a decrease in reading time of between 5 and 10 minutes across all three texts when using the PhotoReading technique. This reading time decreased for the trainee when PhotoReading despite the fact that the trainee spent considerably more time in the PhotoFocus phase than did the expert. This time differential was due to the extra time necessary for the trainee to achieve a relaxed state. Of that total time, approximately 1 to 1.5 minutes per text was spent previewing and PhotoReading the text.

In terms of words per minute (wpm) spent reading, there was no difference between normal reading (M=114 wpm) and PhotoReading (M=112 wpm). Indeed, the overall reading times in terms of words per minute may seem quite slow. However the reading times include more than one reading of the text. The readers generally read each text twice, and only stopped reading the text when they felt comfortable enough with the material to take the test. Nevertheless, none of the reading rates approach speed reading rates, and they are far from the estimates of 25,000 words per minute provided in the PhotoReading advertisements. However, it is notable that during the workshop, the PhotoReading instructor admitted that the advertised reading times for PhotoReading are calculated on the basis of the time to complete solely the PhotoFocus phase, and do not include the time to complete the other four phases of the complete PhotoReading process. To provide a comparison, the expert's reading times were calculated using only the PhotoFocus phase, resulting in an estimate of 1873 words per minute. This reading time remains far from the advertised reading rates and is hardly a valid estimate.

Question type. There were two types of comprehension questions: text-based and conceptual. Text-based questions assess memory and understanding of the details and individual concepts, whereas the conceptual questions measure understanding of the relationships between concepts in the texts. Previous research has generally shown better performance on text-based than conceptual questions, whereas in this case there was equivalent performance (i.e., 46 percent) on both types of questions. However, Figure 3 shows that this result depended on reading technique. Performance on the conceptual questions was better than performance on text-based questions when the readers used normal reading strategies, but showed a 30 percent drop in accuracy when the PhotoReading technique was used. In contrast, text-based questions only showed a 10 percent decrease as a result of using PhotoReading. This trend was observed for both readers and indicates that the PhotoReading technique allowed memory and understanding of some details and isolated concepts but little integration of these ideas. Indeed, a substantial decrease in performance on conceptual questions after PhotoReading was observed in every case but one . Thus, the readers' global understanding of the relationships between concepts in the texts suffered more as a consequence of PhotoReading than did memory for isolated details.

Figure 3. Reading comprehension of the expository texts as a function of reading method and question type.


Readers. The average comprehension accuracy for the expert PhotoReader was 42 percent compared to 50 percent for the trainee. The average reading time for the expert PhotoReader was 11 minutes compared to 20 minutes for the trainee. Thus, the trainee tended to answer more questions correctly, but also tended to spent more time reading.

Texts. The average comprehension of the physiology, perception, and biology texts was 50, 33, and 56 percent, respectively. Thus, the perception texts were less well understood than the other two sets of texts. This decrease in comprehension can be partially attributed to the readers' relative lack of prior knowledge for these texts. The average percent correct for the prior knowledge questions for the physiology, perception, and biology texts was 28, 16, and 31 percent, respectively. Hence, comprehension performance was directly related to performance on the prior knowledge questions.

Physiology text book

The final task given to the PhotoReading expert was to read the three chapters from the textbook on Physiology in order to take the "course Exam". The question was simply: Would she pass the exam? The expert took 73 minutes to PhotoRead and read the three chapters of the textbook required for the test (i.e., 361 words per minute). She PhotoRead for 9 minutes the night before taking the test. The following morning, she read the text using various rapid reading and activation techniques. She then answered the questions. She completed the 6 true/false and 30 multiple choice questions, but did not attempt to answer the fill-in-the-blank or short-answer questions. Hence, comprehension performance on the conceptual questions was 0 percent. She answered 2 of 7 multiple-choice prior knowledge questions correctly (29%). Of the text relevant questions, she answered 4 of 6 true/false questions correctly (67%), and 8 of 23 multiple-choice question correctly (35%). This performance is extremely low and only slightly above chance level performance for these types of questions (i.e., 50% and 25%, respectively). In sum, she did not pass the exam.

It is important to note that after PhotoReading the text (but before taking the test), she rated her understanding of the material as 4.5 on a 5-point scale (5 representing a good understanding). Moreover, she estimated that she would remember approximately 68 percent of the material for the test, with a grade of C+. This high level of confidence in terms of her text comprehension would have remained unshattered had she not then taken the test - after which she rated her comprehension much lower (i.e., 2).

Conclusions

These results clearly indicate that there is no benefit to 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 showed an increase in reading time when using the PhotoReading technique in comparison to normal reading. This increase in reading time was accompanied by a general decrease in text comprehension. These results were found for two standardized tests of text comprehension and for three matched sets of expository texts.

The decrease in reading comprehension as result of using the PhotoReading technique also seemed to depend on question type. Comprehension accuracy decreased 30 percent on the conceptual questions as a result of using the PhotoReading technique, compared to a decrease of 10 percent on the text-based questions. This result makes sense in light of current theories of reading comprehension (i.e., Kintsch, 1998). Accordingly, comprehension on the text-based level requires less effort than does a deeper understanding reflected by performance on the conceptual questions (e.g., McNamara, Kintsch, Songer, & Kintsch, 1996; McNamara & Kintsch, 1996). A deeper, conceptual understanding of the texts requires actively processing the relationships between ideas in the texts by generating inferences while reading - this type of textual processing is not possible when using the PhotoReading technique.
The assumption that there is a lack of active processing during PhotoReading is supported by a recent advertisement produced by Paul Scheele. Included in the PhotoReading advertisements presented in Appendix A, is a "letter" from Paul Scheele presenting a copy of an Electroencephalograph (EEG) of PhotoReading as compared to Regular Reading. This EEG indicates a general lack of brain activity during the PhotoReading process compared to a dramatic increase in activity during normal reading. This increased activity during Regular Reading is interpreted by Paul Scheele as "Mental Chatter", and the absence of activity during PhotoReading as similar to "running through an open field" and processing "information in a way that is more compatible with the tremendous powers of your brain." Contrary to Scheele's interpretation, it is widely accepted that increased brain activity indicates that thought processes are occurring, whereas the lack of brain activity generally indicates an absence of thought processes. According to theories of reading comprehension, reading comprehension should suffer when readers less actively process the text. The results found in this study support this assumption.

Why do so many who practice it claim that PhotoReading is effective? One aspect of the PhotoReading technique is that it leaves the reader with a false sense of confidence. This was particularly evident with regards to the expert PhotoReader's comprehension rating for her comprehension of the physiology textbook. After PhotoReading, she estimated her comprehension as very high, which it was not. She was unable to answer any of the open ended questions, and answered the remaining questions with poor accuracy. As the trainee, I experienced this false feeling of confidence myself, particularly for the topic texts. After reading each of the texts, I estimated that my comprehension was as good as that for the texts read normally. For each text, after having PhotoRead the text, I read the text quickly using the rapid reading technique that I learned in the PhotoReading course. I then rapid read the text again - at that point believing that I was ready to take the comprehension test. This over-confidence clearly led me astray given the evidence from my low comprehension scores for these texts.

What is the source of this over-confidence? While only conjecture, I propose that there are two principle factors that produce this false sense of comprehension: previewing and self-hypnosis. During previewing, the reader may read a wide variety of material in the text such as the table of contents, the index, first paragraphs of sections, tables, graphs, keywords, and so on. This process results in a relatively superficial understanding of the text. However, many details and isolated concepts may be understood and remembered from the text. Thus, previewing can result in a text-based level of comprehension (though not necessarily accurate). In addition, the concepts that are read during the preview phase are primed. That is, the exposure to the key words and phrases readies those concepts in the reader's mind for future use. When the reader returns after the incubation period to "rapid read" and "activate" the text, there may be a sense of deja-vue. This feeling of deja-vue may be interpreted by PhotoReaders as literally remembering - which can imply to the reader that the material had been learned during the PhotoReading phase. This priming may have an even larger impact if the reader has greater prior knowledge of the text. Priming will result in a spread of activation to related concepts in memory. If many related concepts are available to the reader in prior knowledge, then the previewing process will result in a greater feeling of understanding the text.

A second factor contributing to the feeling of understanding the text may emerge from the relaxation and self-hypnosis techniques which accompany the PhotoReading technique. That is, before each phase of PhotoReading, the reader relaxes. During this relaxation state, the reader says to himself or herself such phrases as "All that I PhotoRead makes a lasting impression on my inner mind and is available to me" (Sheele, p. 40). This inner speech reinforces the assumption that PhotoReading works. Moreover, the reader has made a commitment to the success of the technique (to himself or herself) and may be less willing or able to recognize its failure. Its failure would then be in conflict with the reader's self-acclaimed beliefs.

The claims of its effectiveness range across all types of reading material, including texts such as those examined here. The focus here was on rather difficult texts, and not leisurely reading of fictional novels. One might claim that the technique may be more appropriate for reading fictional material. However, the expert who participated in this study claimed that she would not use this technique to read a novel because it is less enjoyable, primarily because the reader tends to miss the verbal interplay between characters within the novel (i.e., the guts and detail of the book). It is not clear what type of reading material would be appropriate for PhotoReading, aside from material that solely contains information with which the reader is already familiar.

Hence, this technique may be detrimental to readers because it instills the belief that their reading goals have been accomplished, whereas their goals are probably far from achieved. The reader may believe that the text has been absorbed, and the reader may indeed remember some of the text's details. However, the source of this memory most likely arises from previewing and rapid reading the text, and not from the PhotoFocus phase of PhotoReading (as claimed by PhotoReading experts). Moreover, it is also doubtful that the memories for the text are highly stable or accurate. In conclusion, the evidence shown here indicates that PhotoReading does not lead to successful and/or rapid comprehension of written text.


References
Carver, R.P. (1985). How good are some of the world's best readers? Reading Research Quartely, 20, 389-419.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension. U.S.: Cambridge University Press.
Kolb, B. & Whishaw, I. Q. (1996). Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology 4th Edition. United States: W. H. Freeman and Company
Levine, M. W. & Shefner, J. M. (1981). Fundamentals of Sensation and Perception. United States: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from Text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-287.
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1-43.
McNamara, D. S., & Scott, J. L. (1999). Training reading strategies. Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pough, F. H., Janis, C. M., & Heiser, J. B. (1999). Vertebrate Life 5th Edition. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Scheele, P. R. (1993). The PhotoReading whole mind system. United States: Learning Strategies Corporation.

Appendix A: Recent PhotoReading Advertisements




Appendix B: Physiology Texts and Questions


Normally Read Physiology Text


Emotional Processes: Historical Views
Interest in the biology of emotions dates back to Darwin's book, The Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals, published in 1872. Darwin believed that human emotional expression could only be understood in the context of the expressions of other animals because our emotional behavior is determined by our evolution. Although Darwin's book was a best-seller in its time, its influence was short-lived and it was temporarily forgotten. Psychologists began to speculate about emotions at the turn of the century, but they had little knowledge about the neural basis of emotional behavior. By the late 1920's, psychologists began to examine the relationship between autonomic, endocrine, and neurohumoral factors and inferred emotional states, with particular emphasis upon measuring indices such as heart rate, blood pressure, and skin temperature. Philip Bard made one of the first major discoveries while working in Walter Cannon's laboratory in the late 1920's.
It had been known from Franz Goltz's studies in the 1890s that decorticated dogs could show strong "rage" responses to seemingly trivial stimuli; the dogs acted as though a seriously threatening stimulus confronted them. Working with cats, Bard showed that this response depended upon the diencephalon, which includes the thalamus and hypothalamus. He found that if the diencephalon was intact, animals would show strong "emotional" responses, but if the animals were decerebrate, leaving the diencephalon disconnected from the midbrain, they would not.
Later studies by many authors (especially Eckhard Hess in the 1940s and John Flynn in the 1960s) showed that stimulation of different regions of the hypothalamus could elicit different types of "affective responses" such as behavior associated with attack of another cat (piloerection, hissing, baring of teeth) or attack of a prey animal (crouching, whiskers and ears forward, pouncing), including eating the animal. The lesion and stimulation studies on the diencephalon were important because they led to the idea that the thalamus and hypothalamus contain the neural circuits for the expression of emotional behaviors, including both the overt behaviors and the autonomic responses such as changes in blood pressure, heart rate, and respiration. The role of the cortex was seen as being largely one of inhibiting the thalamus and hypothalamus. Conversely, the thalamus was considered to play a role in activating the cortex during autonomic arousal, which presumably would help to direct the emotion to the appropriate stimulus.
A second major idea in the history of the neurology of emotions came in 1937 when Papez proposed that the structure of the "limbic lobe" forms the anatomical basis of emotions. Papez reasoned that the limbic structures acting on the hypothalamus produce emotional states. Although for Papez the neocortex played no part in producing emotional behavior, he did believe the cortex to be necessary for transforming events produced by limbic structures into what we experience as emotions. The Papez theory had the appeal of combining behavioral phenomena having no known neurological substrates with anatomical structures having no known function.
The idea of an emotional brain gained instant broad approval because of the predominance of Freudian thinking in the 1930s. That an ancient, deep part of the central nervous system controls emotions and instincts unconsciously, with the neocortex producing consciousness, was a concept with natural appeal for a Freudian-based psychology.
A third major finding came in 1939, when Kluver and Bucy announced the rediscovery of an extraordinary behavioral syndrome that had first been noted by Brown and Schaefer in 1888. The syndrome, resulting from bilateral anterior temporal lobectomy in monkeys, included (1) tameness and a loss of fear; (2) indiscriminate dietary behavior, the monkeys being willing to eat many types of previously rejected foods; (3) greatly increased autoerotic, homosexual, and heterosexual activity, with inappropriate object choice (for example, sexual mounting of chairs); (4) hypermetamorphosis, or a tendency to attend and react to every visual stimulus; (5) a tendency to examine all objects by mouth; and (6) visual agnosia. One aspect of this extraordinary behavior was that animals that normally showed strong aversion to stimuli such as snakes or to "threat" states from humans or other animals now showed no fear of stimuli whatsoever. Similar behavior has been seen in other species as well. For example, we once observed a cat with bilateral medial temporal lesions wander into a room housing monkeys. It showed not the slightest concern that the monkeys were screeching at it and throwing things in its general direction. Normal cats would never venture into such a room and would piloerect if they merely looked into a monkey colony.
The Kluver-Bucy syndrome has been observed subsequently in people with a variety of neurological diseases. For example, Marlowe and colleagues reported on a patient with Kluver-Bucy symptoms that resulted from meningoencephalitis (inflammation of the brain and the meninges):
As regards his visual functions, the patient seemed unable to recognize a wide variety of common objects. As a result, he exhibited difficulty in the spontaneous employment of tools and other mechanical devices, but could initiate utilization of such objects by imitating the gestures of others, and could care for at least some daily needs in this way. However, his ability to match simple pictures, geometric designs, letters of the alphabet and objects was demonstrably preserved when the tasks were taught non-verbally. Visual orientation was defective, the patient losing his way around the hospital when unattended, and visual distractibility was prominent; he seemed unable to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant objects and actions.

He exhibited a flat affect, and, although originally restless, ultimately became remarkably placid. He appeared indifferent to people or situations. On occasion he became facetious, smiling inappropriately and mimicking the gestures and actions of others. Once initiating an imitative series, he would perseverate copying all movements made by another for the extended periods of time.
He engaged in oral exploration of all objects within his grasp, appearing unable to gain information via tactile or visual means alone. All objects that he could lift were placed in his mouth and sucked or chewed. Hyperbulimia [excessive, insatiable appetite] was prominent; he ingested virtually everything within reach, including the plastic wrapper from bread, cleaning pastes, and feces. Although his tastes were clearly indiscriminate, he seemed to prefer liquids or soft solids.
Although vigorously heterosexual prior to his illness, he was observed in hospital to make advances toward other male patients by stroking their legs and inviting fellatio by gesture. Although on a sexually mixed floor during a portion of his recovery, he never made advances toward women.
The appearance of the Kluver-Bucy syndrome apparently requires that the amygdala and inferior temporal cortex be removed bilaterally. H. M., the amnesic patient described in Chapter 16, does not exhibit the syndrome despite bilateral removal of the medial temporal structures. Furthermore, monkeys with bilateral amygdalectomies do not show the Kluver-Bucy syndrome unless the temporal cortex is also removed.
At about the time of Kluver and Bucy's discovery, a less dramatic, but in many ways more important, discovery was made. Jacobson studied the behavior of chimpanzees in a variety of learning tasks following frontal lobe removals. In 1935, he reported his findings on the effects of the lesions at the Second International Neurology Congress in London. He casually noted that one particularly neurotic chimp appeared more relaxed following the surgery, leading a Portuguese neurologist, Egas Moniz, to propose that similar lesions in people might relieve various behavioral problems. Thus was born psychosurgery and the frontal lobotomy! Unbelievably, not until the late 1960s was any systematic research done on the effects of frontal lobe lesions on the affective behavior of nonhuman animals. Hence, frontal lobotomies in humans were performed without an empirical basis. Experiments by several laboratories have now clearly shown that frontal lobe lesions in rats, cats, and monkeys all have severe effects on social and affective behavior.
The Nature of Emotion
Emotion is not a thing but an inferred state that has many components, each of which, in principle, may be quantified. Historically, theories of emotion have recognized this, and most theorists agree that the concept of emotion includes at least three principal components. First, there are physiological components that include central and autonomic system activity and the resulting changes in visceral activity, as well as neurohormonal activity. Hence, there are changes in heart rate, blood pressure, distribution of blood flow, and perspiration, among others, as well as the release of various hormones that may affect the brain or the autonomic system. Second, there are distinctive overt behaviors that are associated with emotional states. Examples are facial expressions, tone of voice, and posture. These behaviors are especially important to others because they convey information that can be different from what we verbalize. Third, there are cognitive processes that are inferred from self-report. These processes include both subjective feelings such as, love or hate and other cognitions such as plans, memories, and ideas. The theoretical distinction between the three components of an emotional experience is significant because there appears to be little correlation among the three when they are all measured in the same subjects.




Questions for Normally Read Physiology Text

Text-based Questions

1. Why did Darwin believe that researchers need to study animals in order to discover more about human emotional expression?
4. Describe what decerebrate means.
5. What did the lesion and stimulation studies show about the relationship between the thalamus and hypothalamus and the expression of emotional behavior?
10. Why did Papez's theory have so much appeal?
16. What eating disorder was prominent in Marlowe's patient?
20. What two types of behavior do frontal lobe lesions have an effect on?
22. Why is there such a large theoretical distinction between the three components of emotions?
23. What changes in behavior did Jacobson notice in one of his chimps following frontal lobe removal and what type of surgery developed from this discovery?

Conceptual Questions

2. Damage to what area(s) of the brain leads to a strong "rage" response in animals to seemingly trivial stimuli?
7. Describe the two-way relationship between the cortex, thalamus, and hypothalamus.
8. What two areas, according to Papez, are responsible for producing emotional states and what we experience as emotions?
11. Name four symptoms of the Kluver-Bucy syndrome.
13. Symptoms of Kluver-Bucy syndrome are seen after damage to the brain.
Unilateral or Bilateral (circle one)
14. How did Marlowe's patient compensate for his visual agnosia?
17. Give a brief description of how researchers know that both the amygdala and inferior temporal cortex are related to Kluver-Bucy syndrome.
19. What are the three principal components of emotion?

Prior Knowledge Questions

3. What does a measure of galvanic skin response actually measure?
6. What does the term "sham rage" refer to?
9. What is a lesion?
12. What area of the brain does the neocortex refer to?
15. What are meninges?
18. What is an agnosia?
21. What is an orbitofrontal lobotomy?
24. What type of functions is the central nervous system responsible for?


PhotoRead Physiology Text


Candidate Structures in Emotional Behavior
One of the consistent principles of neural organization is that there are multiple systems controlling virtually every behavior. Sensory information enters the cortex through multiple channels that have distinctly different roles in sensory analysis. Once in the cortex, information travels through multiple parallel systems subserving different functions. Recall that visual information follows a ventral route through the temporal lobe and a dorsal route through the parietal lobe. It is likely that there are also multiple systems, both cortical and subcortical, that contribute to the experience of an emotion. For example, there must be systems that process significant social stimuli, which are presumably species-specific, including olfactory stimuli, tactile stimuli, visual stimuli, and auditory stimuli. Although it could be argued that these stimuli are processed by the same systems that analyze other sensory inputs, there is good reason to believe that there may be at least some separate systems. Olfaction provides a good example.
Many mammals have a receptor organ, known as Jacobson's organ, that is specialized to analyze species-typical odors. When animals such as cats encounter certain odors they close their nostrils and appear to stare off into space, a behavior that is known as flehmen. Actually, the cats are forcing the air through the mouth and into a special duct (which allows the air access to Jacobson's organ) that is connected to the accessory olfactory system. Virtually the only odors that produce this behavior in cats are certain ones from other cats, including urine and ear wax. This system is thus specialized for species-typical odors. One interesting property of this system is that it shows habituation, and cats appear able to remember the odors of familiar cats. Thus, they do not show flehmen to their own urine or to that of cats they live with. Although there is little evidence of such specialized systems for other senses, there is still evidence of special processing. There are cells in the temporal lobe of monkeys that are specially tuned for species-typical calls; these cells are relatively insensitive to other sounds. Recall too that there are temporal cortical cells that are specialized for faces.
In addition to the possible specialized processing of emotionally relevant sensory information, it is possible that there are higher-level systems that process other aspects of this information. Perhaps there is a unique system for cross-modal matching of prosody and facial expression. In addition to multiple systems that may encode specific species-typical information, there may be a general cortical system that is involved in identifying "affective" attributes of stimuli. An interesting experiment by Gazzaniga and Le Doux illustrates such a system. They presented split-brain subjects with visual information to one or the other visual field. The subjects' task was to describe the stimulus verbally and to give it a rating on a five-point scale from "dislike very much" to "like very much." The results were striking. As expected, only the items in the right visual field (and therefore sent to the left, speaking, hemisphere) were described accurately. In contrast, the rating was identical for stimuli in each visual field. Clearly, the pathways that process the affective significance of the stimuli are distinct from the pathways that process their objective properties. This distinction is reminiscent of the difference between knowing what a stimulus is and knowing where it is, as illustrated by blindsight. There may be a third system that processes "subjective feeling" about a stimulus independent of where or what it is. We have all had the experience of recognizing an odor or a sound, even though we cannot identify what the stimulus is. We may say that we have a "feeling" or "intuition" about the stimulus. This affective system may be important for memory and, since it probably involves the amygdala, it may account at least partly for the role of the amygdala in memory.
The analysis of multiple channels in the sensory systems has identified various properties of sensory experiences that appear to form separate processing modules. Color, orientation, motion, and depth all appear to be independent visual stimuli. Applying the concept of multiple neural systems to emotion has the distinct disadvantage that we have not identified modules that appear to be processed differently. Nonetheless, it seems likely that autonomic stimuli form a distinct module, and the neural circuitry of this module is well known. The dimensions of other components remain to be determined. It seems likely, however, that there are separate modules for different aspects of behavior (for example, facial expression, prosody) and perhaps for cognitive processes as well.
Studies of Nonhuman Primates
The study of nonhuman subjects has made it possible to identify various brain regions that undoubtedly have a significant role in emotional processes. During the past 20 years, studies have been conducted on several species of Old World and New World monkeys with lesions of the frontal cortex, paralimbic cortex, or amygdala--the structures that now appear to be the forebrain areas most important in emotional behavior. The results of such studies show six consistent changes in emotional behavior after frontal lesions.
First, there is an overwhelming consensus that there is a reduction in social interaction following frontal lesions, especially following orbital frontal lesions. Following such lesions, monkeys become socially withdrawn and fail even to reestablish close preoperative relationships with family members. Anterior temporal lesions produce a milder version of this syndrome, reducing social grooming and social interaction with conspecifics. Second, there is a loss of social dominance following orbital frontal lesions: monkeys that were previously dominant in a group do not maintain their dominance after their operations. The rate of fall from dominance probably depends upon the aggressiveness of other monkeys in the group.
Third, monkeys with orbital frontal lesions show inappropriate social interaction. For example, females with such lesions may challenge and threaten unfamiliar male monkeys, whereas normal females typically exhibit gestures of submission in response to dominance gestures displayed by unfamiliar males. Fourth, monkeys with large frontal lesions show a change in social preference. When a normal monkey is released into a large enclosure that has conspecifics behind a glass barrier, it will generally sit against the glass next to an animal sitting on the opposite side. Although normal animals prefer to sit beside intact monkeys of the opposite sex, monkeys with frontal lesions prefer to sit with other frontal monkeys of the same sex, presumably because they are less threatening.
Fifth, monkeys with frontal lesions and those with anterior temporal lesions largely lose the use of their facial expressions, posturings, and gesturings in social situations--the effects being larger after frontal than after temporal lesions. Thus, monkeys with frontal lesions show a drastic drop in the frequency and variability of facial expressions and are described as "poker-faced." Finally, lesions of the frontal or anterior limbic cortex reduce spontaneous social vocalizations. Indeed, following anterior cingulate lesions, rhesus monkeys effectively make no normal vocalizations at all. Curiously, the nonvocal social behavior of these animals is normal.
The changes in emotional processes in monkeys with frontal lesions are especially intriguing because they suggest that similar changes might be found in humans with frontal lobe injuries. In particular, since monkeys fail to make appropriate vocal and gestural behaviors and fail to respond normally to those made by conspecifics, one might predict that humans with frontal lobe injuries would show similar abnormalities.
In the 1930's, clinicians were reporting detailed observations of patients with large unilateral lesions, noting an apparent asymmetry in the effects of left and right hemisphere lesions. The best-known descriptions are those of Goldstein, who suggested that left hemisphere lesions produce "catastrophic" reactions characterized by fearfulness and depression, whereas right hemisphere lesions produce "indifference." The first systematic study of these contrasting behavioral effects was done by Gainotti in 1969, who showed that catastrophic reactions, occurred in 62% of his left hemisphere sample, compared with only 10% of his right hemisphere cases. In contrast, indifference was commoner in the right hemisphere patients, occurring in 38%, as compared with only 11% of the left hemisphere cases. Significantly, however, Gainotti reported that catastrophic reactions were associated with aphasia and indifference reactions with neglect.
In general, right hemisphere excisions appear to increase talking, left hemisphere lesions reduce it. These effects are especially obvious following frontal lobe lesions. The content of the speech released by right hemisphere is significantly affected by the lesion site. Patients with right frontal lesions characteristically make poor jokes and tell pointless stories, often liberally embellished with profanity. Further, the right frontal lobe patient is usually intensely amused by the stories he or she is telling and will persist even if other are unmoved by them. On the other hand, lesions of the right temporal and/or posterior parietal lobe produce a totally different type of speech that is characterized by excessive concern for the individual's personal life. Many of these patients also exhibit symptoms of paranoia, often being convinced that friends or family either are not supportive or are against them. However, a left-right distinction is far too simple; both the site and the side of the lesion are important in understanding the changes in emotional behavior.


Questions for PhotoRead Physiology Text

Text-based Questions

1. What is one of the consistent principles of neural organization?
6. Researchers have found that there are temporal cortical cells that are specialized for processing __________________________?
8. Items presented in which visual field are more likely to be described accurately?
11. What disadvantage is there to applying the concept of multiple neural systems to emotion?
13. What three structures of the forebrain appear to be the most important areas in emotional behavior?
15. What type of gestures does a normal female primate show in response to dominance gestures displayed by unfamiliar males?
18. Left hemisphere lesions produce ____________________ reactions whereas right hemisphere lesions produce ___________________ reactions.
22. What are the two factors that researchers have found are important in understanding the changes in emotional behavior?

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).]

I would like to see this test done in collaboration with LSC, with a good number of various people, both expert and non-expert photoreaders and see what the results yield.

For the misconceptions about PhotoReading, I think we can blame LSC for giving the process such a provocative title and using the number 25,000 so much. What do they think people are going to think when they say "PhotoRead at 25,000 words per minute!"

I mean, really. They know what people are going to think. They do it catch eyes and ears and sell their product. As much as I like LSC and the PhotoReading Home Study course, they deserve criticism for their intentional provocation of potential customers which can be, at times, misleading.

Paul Scheele has stated in the Photoreading book that photoreading is not regular reading.

Paul Scheele has stated in the Photoreading book that after photoreading a book you will have little if any conscious comphrendsion of it.

Basically Photoreading is about enpowering people to make the most effective use of using their mind the human brain. Photoreading is about employing effective techniques & strategies for much more effective learning.

I applaud & salute the people at Learning Strategies for their positive contributions to helping people succeed.

Photoread4me

Doing a very accurate study on PhotoReading, be it its efficiency, effectiveness, affects on the brain, or its simple mechanics to determine if it really is 3 times faster immediately, or whatever - is next to impossible.

To attempt to measure the activity and the specific thought processes involved in the subconscious mind during the PhotoReading step, which mind you, are possibly entirely and totally different, for each and every person. An EEG(electroencephalogram) shows activity taking place, but not even an EEG or an MRI(magnetic resonance imaging) can determine what, specifically, is taking place.

What is occuring in the brain during PhotoReading is important - without knowing what the neurons are up to, you're not knowing the full story.

Also, Alex is correct in that they are attempting to measure a system that isn't PhotoReading.

PhotoReading is not entirely about speed, and in fact, speed is not the driving force of the system. Instead, it's the way that you're processing information entirely differently than you would normally.

Not only this, but the scientific method can only measure in terms of language, but language cannot begin to describe all of what takes place during something like a session of Direct Learning, or PhotoReading and then Image Streaming. The amount of activity, the extent to which that activity takes place beyond conscious awareness...just how in the world do you measure something like that? Just how in the world can you isolate variables to that, or create a control with that? These are other questions to consider.

-youngprer

Youngprer; you are back! What's happening dude! We haven't heard from you in the longest time. Great to hear from you. Hope all is well with you.

Photoread4me

How can one conduct a test with any accuracy when there are humans involved.

Take 25 to 30 people of near identail age, same general demographical backgound. Teach them all exactly the same stuff. With the same teacher, same climaticly adjusted room access to the same textbook with the same number of hours teaching and then test them.

That absurd test is being conducted every day in every country with a westernised type school system and what does it prove?

One or two excel, there are a few that scored high, then some that averaged in score and then some that are below average and then some that fail miserably. In some cases more than half the class fails. Does that mean school doesn't work? Does that mean school is even teaching the basics of reading?

All around the world we are proving that humans do not conform very well to proving something works or it doesn't. With so many factors in common why do not all students score more or less the same grade. If the teacher were graded on the results then teachers don't work.

Like it or not that is a fact. Teachers can only guide the learning process. The student decides what they want to learn and if they don't have a purpose the learning becomes a struggle.

2 days ago here on Australian news it came to light that kids are not being taught to read properly. They don't know how to read or get inquisitive, or to think about what they are reading. Why? Department of Education says "More than half the teachers don't know it themselves so they can't teach it."

PhotoReading does offer a way to fill that gap.

PhotoRead for me is correct that it is stated on page 21 of the 3rd edition of the PhotoReading book, that we may have little or no conscious awareness of any of the material hence the next step Activation.

Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the book the author is using.

Alex

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

"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.

Testing is imperfect, of course, but it is still useful.

Of course some people are going to learn more than others. Of course there are generalizations that occur through the process of testing that delete important data. Tests can be adapted, more tests can be made, and we can learn more and more about that which we test.

Testers have to take into account the people who did poorly before photoreading and then do very well after learning and practicing it.

A danger of allowing your material to be tested rigorously is that you might have to end up changing your beliefs and descriptions about the technique. Testing may prove your theories wrong and point to new areas where the magic is really happening and help to explain how that magic happens. It can help improve techniques.

The method sometimes works and sometimes doesn't in school (depending on HOW it is done), but if you take a look at the monitor in front of you, the keyboard at your hands, and all the other technology surrounding you ... you can find abundant proof of how the scientific method of rigorous experimentation and *testing* works.

I like PhotoReading. I support it. I like LSC and am grateful for the products they produce. At the same time I support testing and the scientific method. I do not think support of a company means agreeing with everything they say and do.

I am for testing not because I think PhotoReading will be totally debunked, but because I think photoreading, in the end, will be proven effective. Testing provides feedback. And, supposedly, feedback is important in self-development of all kinds.

[This message has been edited by babayada (edited November 14, 2004).]

Babayada,

The test of before and after has been done. LSC has hundreds of results that show it works.

Paul quit testing because if the testee is a voluntee it is not a subjective test and testing on people who want to learn is a waste of their time and not fair to them.

We still have before and after results when the have live classes. We take them for the benefit of the individual not further proof that PhotoReading works.

As you point out the results are still subjective and individual experiences based on numbers which to many don't mean as much as the human experience. That's why people want to hear tesimonies. Because how fast we read something is nothing compared to how successfully differently PhotoReading has been applied with success.

Alex

Was the testing done by an independent facility?

How rigorous was the testing?

I think, perhaps, we may mean different things when we say testing, Alex.

The structure of the tests described by MelaOS are more on the mark where I am concerned. I'd like to see it occur in a more scientific manner.

That is, testing that could be presented and respected in a scientific journal, following a given set of established testing methods.

Certainly, the testing would involve willing, expert photoreaders, among others.

As for anecdotes: I like them. However, there is room for fuzziness and inaccuracy with anecdotal evidence. There is often a lack of precision. Testing can provide very specific, sound information.

LSC should encourage dialogue with people who do these tests.

If the people who did this test did not open a dialogue with LSC, then shame on them. It shows that the people doing these tests were not so interested in moving forward with information and probably were interested in trying to debunk photoreading.

This is why I'd like to see some really high quality testing done with Photoreading. I think it would help provide some very helpful information and move things forward.

[This message has been edited by babayada (edited November 14, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by babayada (edited November 14, 2004).]