Okay, I thought this would create a stir. . . but apparently not.
Why should it create a stir? Because IF what he says is true, then:
* how can we show ourselves we truly know the material without actual activation?
* why isn't spontaneous activation more likely to occur?
* if we have a different purpose for information we want, but we didn't state that purpose when photoreading, then we really do NOT have "everything in that book" right?
Well, I thought it would create more interest. . . to bad because there is a ton of questions that can and should come from this one quote if we assume it to be true.
So for now, I will call this a sleeper topic. . .
