There may be some here who would take your test. What method would you use to independently verify the claims of people who took your test?
I think it's great that you want to prove or disprove what you've read, but it would be nice if you had a way of settling things once and for all. Any test you devise, with results that can't be verified, isn't going to help others. It will just add to the list of the many other experiences that skeptics find difficult to believe.
Soapbox time:
I guess what I don't understand is the need that some people seem to have to disprove Photoreading. When I wanted to learn to read faster I read the testimonials of some who had tried Tony Buzan's methods of speed reading. I tried it myself, it didn't work for me. I did the same the thing with Evelyn Wood's methods. Again, it didn't work for me. Next, I tried Photoreading. It did work for me.
I never felt the need to go to Tony Buzan's or Evelyn Wood's websites and tell them their methods were flawed or try to devise tests to make sure they could do what they said they could. That would have been a waste of my time. Even if they had passed all my tests I still doubt I, personally, would see good results with their methods. Their stuff just didn't work for me.
This stuff isn't directed at you personally WestJohnson, but it just seems that every so often there's a new group of people who are intent on disproving the method rather than just trying it and seeing if it would work for them. I just don't understand that mentality.
