quote:
I think it is really up to PR to come up with some experiment procedures that its practioners have used to measured PR’s success. When it says it “worked” for many people, what exactly does it mean? How is that being quantitated?
They already have designed experimental procedures that can be used to measure success. There is the 5-day test outlined in the book. The only hard and fast statements/guarantees that I've seen are that you can read 3 times faster than your normal reading speed. Pete's experiences are extraordinary, like Alex I didn't try Photoreading because I wanted to be like Pete.
quote:
Earlier, a reader wondered why PR practioners never participated in any speed-reading test and was told PR is not speed-reading. But did that really answer the question about why PR has never participated in an event in which its effectiveness can be independently measured?
It answered it for me, but that's because I understand the system. A speed-reading contest is about how fast you can read at one sitting with a timer on. Photoreading isn't like that. It's based on a completely different principle. Photoreading is about the total time you spend reading and that total time can, and probably will, be spread out over a number of days or a number of hours in the same day. The total time it will take you to read will be about 1/3 the speed you were reading at without Photoreading.
Like I said, I tried speed reading and it didn't work for me. Photoreading is different and for me it was a lot easier to get the hang of. If you think speed reading techniques will work better for you than Photoreading then that is where you should concentrate your energies. If you want to try PR, you should spend $12 on the book and learn what it's all about. Even better, borrow the book from your local library. If you're familiar with speed reading techniques I think you'll see rather quickly how PR is different than speed reading and why Photoreaders don't enter speed reading competitions.
