Like many readers here, I still have not located an independent report on, and therefore continue to question the validity of, the claimed PR of the US Patent Law in the PR book. The assertion appears only in the book and some radio shows attended by the same claimant(s), yet with no corroborative evidence from other sources, such as witnesses from the university in which the purposed event took place. At this point I can only call that claim a myth to be debunked.
With regard to other success stories, it certainly appears that PR shouldwork well on those relatively easy to read or understand stuff (pop fictions, romance novels, etc.) Typically, most best sellers (especially nonfictions) are structured so that an average reader without PR training may get the most of the it by simply browsing through the chapter titles and subtitles. Therefore, these books are not good test cases for one’s progress.
A better test should involve materials one doesn't already have some pre-exposure to or the "potential" to comprehend. For example, I challenge anyone here with no legal training to PR a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court or a law textbook, or those with no quantum physics background to PR Dirac’s books on quantum mechanics. When one has to rely on prior knowledge about a subject, and browsing through the book a couple of times ,including note taking or mind-mapping (as suggested by PR trainers), the direct benefit from PR itself becomes questionable, as a cancer patient may be thought to have benefited from PR if he is receiving all radio-/chemo- therapies while at the same time doing PR.
We all know how our reading efficiency and comprehension can dramatically increase as our final exam date approahes. Focusing and concentration, coupled with a sense of purpose and goal, are the key. Therefore, a claimed increase by a factor of three is really nothing extraordinary. Anyone who has been adequately educated can easily accomplish that without attending any PR program. The real "benefit" of PR should not depend on and resort to those conventional approaches.
Note that I'm not against PR in any way. I am simply questioning the existence of some of its claims, and the the true benefit of PR besides its reliance of those well established techniques such as Qi Gong for mind relaxation and concentration, key word highlighting and Tony Busan's Mind Maping.
…
[This message has been edited by WestJohnson (edited April 09, 2005).]
