Hi,

This is my first post on this board and I'd like to ask a few questions, share some of the things I've found, and learn more about this system.

I've found 2 reports of scientific studies conducted on Photoreading.

One was published in a hard to find NASA report (I found a link to it via a Google search.) The study was given to a Photoreading instructor and came back very disappointing. The instructor, according to the study, peformed below average and actually took longer then the control group.

The other seemed to be conducted by an inexperienced student but did not have any positive findings either.

I think many people are saying they are learning more and faster with the Photoreading system -- but I have to seriously question if this is because they have changed from being a passive observer to an active reader instead of the actual photoreading step.

I think we must ask if it is theoretically possible to photoread? Who can do it? How can we test what one photoreads? How can we make it better?

I think Photoreading would require a photographic memory. It seems few adults can do this naturally but that under hypnosis a significant portion have this ability.

I'm not sure that it would require a photographic memory but it seems to make sense -- especially considering the lack of information carried in a high level pictorial representation of a page.

I'm interested in any other scientific studies on photoreading --- especially if anyone has found positive ones.

I'd, also, like to suggest a rough plan for a scientific study of photoreading -- especially the photoreading step itself and not the system as a whole.

Here is my basic idea for it:

A control group is established for people who have no experience with photoreading, speed reading, or any other reading improvement system.

A group which has had 1 month of speed reading practice within the previous 1-2 weeks of the test.

A group which has had 1 month of photoreading practice within the previous 1-2 weeks of the test.

The main test will consist of a fictional story following a logical plot line that no subject could be familiar with. A second test could be given within a few days to test retention and recall of a group of nonsensical words and their definitions.

All subjects will be given 15 minutes to relax before the test and prepare.

The test will be carefully monitored and all test groups will be given the estimated time that their group should have for their ability.

Example, the control group will be given number of words/250wpm time, speed reading will be given number of words/800wpm time, and the Photoreading group will be given number of words/25,000wpm.

The subjects will not be able to refer back to their reading during the test portion of the test but will know the procedure. All groups will be given basic hints on the type of questions that will be asked.

The subjects will state when they are ready to begin. Photoreaders will be allowed to focus using a stereogram before beginning. Ideally, the test will be adminstrated on a computer system (using stereogram) to ensure Photoreaders use the proper speed.

Test will be given to measure reading comphrension and recall 5 minutes after the reading portion, 30 minutes after the reading portion, and 24 hours after the reading portion of the test.

I think this would be a nice study and encourage anyone/someone to try it. Also, if certain photoreaders do better then others then I'd encourage more test of the subjects to determine any differences.

Well.. any researcher want to try something like this?

.. I briefly want to consider some ways to make photoreading better. In other words, going from it is possible to how one can do it. One will definetly want to study the results of photoreading under brainwave entrainment practice, hypnosis, etc.

Also, I'm interested if it is possible to use mnemonics or predefined ques to make it possible to recall photoread information in a predictable and scientific way.

It might, also, be possible to create a program to flash images of what one is reading while speed reading it at a very fast rate. This might prove to be a very vauable form of speed reading+memory recall.

Ok.. so if anyone has or is conducting studies of this nature, other methods to read at 10,000wpm+, or machines/systems to facilitate in accelerated learning please leave me a reply or email me.

Thanks,
Curtis

This scientific question gets brought up a lot, so here's the deal:

The system isn't pulled from thin air. It's taken from NLP studies, cognitive sciences, and previous forms of "photoreading" that aren't as good. To be honest, Photoreading isn't the only version out there of it's kind, it's just the best one. It's really not a question of it works anymore, and that's why it irks me that it still comes out. It's a question of did YOU get it to work?

For scientific research, do a search on the forum for "photoreading abstracts" because I think SDSub or someone like that found a whole BUNCH of 'em and compiled them into one post. There's a lot of proof.

-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com ("You can't HANDLE the truth.")

I should also point out that the infomercial is misleading (again) and that you're not looking at 25,000 wpm, it's more along the lines of 1,500 by the time you activate and stuff. Order a copy of the news clip available on this site, and you'll get a better idea of how the whole process works (plus it's unbiased).

-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com

Theoritically-YES! In fact, not just theoretically, but ABSOLUTELY possible. And let me explain something to you. IN the infomercial, that's Pete. Pete's good. Pete has been Pete, and the Pete that he has been has been doing it for years. He is definitely one of the best users of the system.

It's not that it's misleading, it's just that they almost cut out the part where he goes back does some activation techniques. Photoreading is not ALL just looking at the page, and saying, "I know it all." Even though there is an eventual point where it can get to be like that.

Just like normal reading, it takes practice. If I were you, CURTIS, I would go out and AT LEAST buy the book on it, try it, and then conclude whether or not it works.

See, I'd say it's misleading to the point that I think that the majority of the people who saw the infomercial finished watching it with the impression that with the system, you can read a book in 5 minutes.

I'd venture to guess that most people bought it under that impression too.

I mean, I LOVE the system, but I can't help but feel that the infomercial is pretty misleading, and makes people more skeptical if anything. The news clip available on this site, however, is much more accurate.

-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com

I'm one that's yet to see the infomercial on TV.

I have order and viewed the news video.

I did hear an infomercial on the radio and it inspired me to purchase the book. Like Razor said above, the radio infomercial is also very missleading.

With all that said though, I am still happy with the system. And no I'm not anywhere near the 25,000 wpm either.

It takes a long time to get good enough to do 25,000wpm. It's possible to get that good using the system, but it takes years. That's another thing that might make the back cover of even the book misleading.

Spontaneous activation, though difficult can be achieved after many years.

But I will tell you this: I highly doubt spontaneous activation is as comprehensive as normal photoreading or even regular reading.

Which is why I still don't think 25,000 wpm is a fair defination =(

-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com

* The NASA report was not a study. It was merely a report of one person's experience.

* You do not need to look at a stereogram before PhotoReading. Once you learn PhotoReading spend only a few seconds to get into state.

* None of the infomercial of me PhotoReading and/or activating was cut out. The new infomercial, which began airing last weekend may have edited out one or two seconds. This time all questions were multiple choice format, which is something most beginning PhotoReaders can do.

* Remember the claim of the informercial, which was stated 6 or 7 times: you can get through information three times faster. As you use the system your ability will steadily improve.

Thank you Pete for taking the time to reply. But I should make a few points that should be painfully obvious.

I do conceede that your ads state in several places that the consumer should expect to read at 3x the normal rate of reading speed, but it states many more times over that one can read at 25,000wpm.

A 3x improvement in reading speed is nothing spectacular. Most people can go beyond that with traditional speed reading. The difference between 3x normal reading speed and 25,000wpm is over 41x!!

The rate of difference is significant. A more honest advertising approach would be to leave off the 25,000wpm references since you can't gurantee anything close to that.

Throwing both figures out is like claiming you are selling a 20.5ghz computer but only guranteeing it for 500mhz.

Also, thanks for pointing out some useful information about the NASA report.

However, even if the negative photoreading studies I've found are not rigorously scientific -- they are significant (especially in the lack of any contradictory studies).

Also, Paul's explanation of his synthetic method is interesting, but is almost laughable as scientific evidence.

I'm curious, Pete, if you have a true eidetic memory? This is true of only about .01% of the population and might explain your success with the system.

I should, again, re-iterate that I'm not trying to tear the system down. I'm not nearly as much concerned with this system as I am about learning how certain people can achieve remarkable mental feats -- and then possibly obtaining those results.

Thanks to everyone who replied.
Curtis

This is my view on it:

He says 3x faster in some parts, but he is always very careful to say "photoread" at 25,000 wpm. Photoreading is completely different from regular reading, so it's not like he's advertizing a 20ghz computer and only guaranteeing it for 500 mhz. It's more like telling someone who's new with computers (ie - won't get the difference) that the computer he's about to buy is three times faster than what he has now, and is capable of 20 gigs (but referring to the hard drive). It's not lying, but to anyone who doesn't know the terminology, it's not very clear either.

The 3x increase is for beginners. After practice, you get faster than 3x. Right now, I'm experimenting with getting a book that would have taken me 10 hours, and using the system to get it under 45 minutes. I should be fine, and I broke down the process in another thread. I will update on how that one goes.

Light, you seem like an intelligent person, but I don't think you understand how the system works, so I'll give you a brief rundown. I say this because it seems that you feel the concept is much more "inconceivable" than it really is. It's actually pretty simple, has drawbacks, and anyone can learn it if they practice.

One problem with the name Photoreading is that "photoreading" is really just a step in the "Photoreading: Whole Mind System" process. So, from herein, the step will be referred to as PRing, while the system will be referred to as "the system".

1 - Preview the book - This step is a good step, but it's the reason some people claim that PRing is just a novelty step that doesn't work; they never actually TRIED that, and the people who have can tell you that the PR step is vital to the system. Previewing is basically looking at any chapter names, writing down anything in bold or anything that stands out to you (by the end, you only have a list of about 20 words, so this isn't extensive). This helps you generate a purpose, discussed later.

2 - PR the book (this is the 25,000 wpm thing) - This stores the book into your subconcious, and you won't consciously know anything you just read. This works on the same concept as subliminal ads and things like that.

3 - State a purpose - This is also key, because it's the connection between your concious and subconscious. You basically tell your subconscious that you want to ONLY find such and such. For example, in a book about hamsters, you might state "I'd like to know what a hamster's basic daily needs are."

4 - Activation - THIS is where everything comes together. You go through the book at a speed that looks like your skimming (you're not even really reading), and your subconscious, in the form of intuition, willgive you the "feeling" to stop skimming and read the paragraph you're on. This is the part that actually takes practice - developing the sense to interpret your subconscious correctly. This is where the scientific research from NLP, cognitive research, etc. was for. This connection exists, and in the system it's used as a filter. The point is that your subconscious processes more bits than the conscious, and can actually store all the info, but the conscious is the only place where it really means anything.

5 - State a different purpose, activate again with that purpose, and repeat until what you need from the book is complete.

Okay, now this is where questions come up:

1 - How do you know what purpose to state? - The previewing step helps with this, but really, you can always state the purpose, "I want to understand all the concepts in this book".
2 - Doesn't this mean you "skip" things? YES, and this is why the system isn't as impressive as you probably think it is. There's nothing wrong with skipping in most cases, because only 4 - 11% of a text is actually needed. When you read a book about anything, there are the things that are important you'll remember anyway (4-11%) and the things that aren't really important that you forget (most of the text). In a book about running (I regular read this one) I remembered all the points about improving my form, advice on equipment, even the section on pieces of a shoe, but if you ask me what marathons the author participated in, his wife's name, where he came up with some system of his, what equipment he personally owns (he said a lot) or any actual date in that book, you'll get a shoulder shrug from me.

The system takes advantage of that, and using a purpose and the subconscious as a storage and filter, you only consciously read what's important, and that's why you save time. Andy, a former poster on this board, pointed out that if you read the book "Alive" you'll know the plot of the book, and probably the names of everybody, but you won't know what they did with their sunglasses.

Some might argue, "hey, that could be important!" Of course it can be. But for MOST books out right now that isn't fiction, the activation method stated above works FINE, and with practice, you'll figure out creative purposes to state to using it correctly. For those less adventurous, or for books where you "have to know everything" there's a rapid reading activation instead, which by itself is better than speedreading (I've completed speedreading courses; this is much better).

I know this is long, but there should be some key points:
1) Pete never states you will read at 25,000 wpm. He uses the word photoread, which may be misleading, but it's VERY different. He does use the word 3x faster, but this will increase with practice.
2) The system is much less complex than it sounds. It doesn't take specially gifted individuals or a photographic memory, and you don't read everything in the book. It's a given, although it's not much to give up in most books. If you can't give it up, there's rapid reading.
3) Two "studies" against the system may be significant, but if you look at the forum you'll find the studies you said PRing lacks, if you do a search for "abstracts" and "photoreading" through the forum.

Thanks for taking the time to read the post. It should answer most of your questions.

-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com

Very great input, Ramon ! Thanks a lot !!

Hello,

Light said,
"A 3x improvement in reading speed is nothing spectacular. Most people can go beyond that with traditional speed reading."

I say,
Many people in this world would pay mega bucks if they could read "only" three times faster.

I took all types of speed reading course during high school and the early years of college. I can say that they all SUCK. Basically, they all taught you how to move your eyeballs faster. Or follow your finger.

Humphrey www.not5150.com

well put, Ramon.

THis system seems to me, with a degree in Psychology, that the processes without the actual photoreading stage are suffiecient enough to learn a books content and the addition of the photoreading stage is merely a way of copyrighting this scheme by the learning strategies corporation.!!!

I am so tired of seeing that.

Why do people keep saying that? The question, "Is the photoreading step necessary?" comes up every couple days, and then we'll debate on it again, and then it's at the top of the most recent threads discussions, and then everybody lets it die, and it comes back in another thread, and ad nauseaum.

What bothers me is that every single time it comes up, someone always mentions the obvious answer: TRY THE SYSTEM WITHOUT THE PRING STEP AND SEE IF IT WORKS. Doesn't? Wow, shocking.

It takes days to finish discussing the damned question, when it would've taken the person asking an hour to find out on his own.

I also love how everyone buys the system because of spontaneous activation, then forget that spontaneous activation can't happen without PRing.

That is, of course, unless you can read via osmosis.

As a side note, Les Pauls are cool, indeed

-Anonymousman from anonymousland

Edited because I gave a huge clue to my identity.

[This message has been edited by anonymousman (edited February 12, 2002).]

I wrote a longer reply earlier but I made a mistake and the server did not accept -- so I'll make this one short.

I've made a few small experiments to test the validity of learning, recalling, and accessing non consciense or barely consciense stimuli. I've no professional qualifications to do this.

The experiment involved scrolling random numbers across the screen at a rate of 655,000wpm, using a divergent focus, and then having the subject (myself) guess the number that scrolled across the screen.

I ran a 100 test trial and did not guess any of the random numbers correctly.

This suggest that all claims regarding non consciense, barely consciense, or altered perception learning strategies should be evaluated closely.

However, my results are not (at all) conclusive. Running the test software required a high level of beta activity, the rate may have been too fast for the brain to decode, or some other unknown quality of the testing environment could have produced the poor results.

I did manage 1 of 10 right on the first trial run (which is stastically unlikely) but when I ran a larger test -- the results were more in line with random guessing.

I also ran a short test of scrolling random numbers across the screen at 25,000wpm using a normal focused vision and managed to get 5 of 10 right. I suspect this rate would go up to a near 100% ratio with practice.

This seems to suggest (to me) that the brain can decode symbolic graphic information (letters/numbers) at a rate at or above 25,000wpm. I will run more experiments to see if one can actually "read" at this rate.

I'm undecided on if the photofocus state benefits reading. There are several possibilities of how it could increase ones reading/learning ability.

It may help to induce an alpha brainwave pattern, it may provide clues to the peripheral vision when a person later rereads a text normally, and (of course) what one hopes ( and the most questionable) that it actually allows one to 'download' information directly into the brain.

It sounds like an interesting idea, but this doesn't connect to photoreading.

At best, you could say that, "for you specifically", spontaneous activation ONLY doesn't work for you.

I'm still saying that if you want to find out in one hour if the photoreading step is necessary, then do all the steps without it. You don't need a computer, a brainwave reader, or anything like that. For some reason everyone is focusing on seeing if the photoreading step works by seeing if the same technique applies in other situations or doing experiments on divergent gaze.

Just do the system without the step to see if it works. That's all you have to do, and it'll only take an hour.

I ahev tried the photoreading system without the actual photoreading and it supplies the same results spotaneous activation - PLEASE! YOu are just remebering what you have read. Time and time again repeating the OTHER steps in the book with lead to this ALSO, so stop gettin tired you pompous fool and get wise.!

light! I am sure many of us realise you are quoting others or false works, you are using venacular just like the book/advertisements and system please dont try to fool us with your limited knowledge

Don't bash 'em yet, people. Look, CURTIS!!! You need to test the system for yourself. Doing a scientific test over precouncious processing, and ONLY that will not give you PR like results.

The only reason the information is put into the mind subconciously is because it does help with an accelerated form of learning, allowing your brain to comprehend the full thing at 100% comprehension, and retention. Doing the PR step alone will not get you hardly anywhere.

Bits and pieces will pop up into your parts of speech, thought, and daily life, but not the entire thing. Eventually, once using the system long enough, and progessing with it, what's called spontaneous activation(using your subcouncious to bring out information), becomes easier and easier.

Les,

What the hell are you talking about? How did you get SPONTANEOUS ACTIVATION without PHotoreading? If SPONTANEOUS ACTIVATION is activation without going through the book after photoreading (NO PREVIEWING EITHER) how the hell did you activate anything without PRING?

Review:

How to spontaneously activate:
1) Photoread
2) Spontaneously activate material

HOW DO YOU GET MATERIAL WITHOUT LOOKING AT A BOOK? Do you just look at a cover and go, "Hey, that book has a bike on it, without even looking at a page of it, I can ACTIVATE IT"

Either you used the wrong term (spontaneous activation), don't know what you're talking about, or are straight up lying.

In response to PRing not doing anything:

I don't preview. I just photoread, then activate. Plus I just got some spontaneous activation finally going, so I find it hard to believe that the PR step does nothing.

How much time are you guys spending on the preview step? If you're spending too much time, then yeah, the PR step wouldn't have made a difference because you'll have already spent too much time previewing it, in which case you just read it normally.

PRing lets you skip unimportant stuff. I don't know how you'd know what's important and what's not without the photoreading step. If you know where to go because you've spent that much time previewing, you've spent too much time previewing and are wasting time.

I've gotten through 200 page books in under an hour (not just the camping one now) and I don't think you can do that without the photoreading step, and just "guessing" where to dip.

Basically, if you can get the gist of the book without the PR step, you're probably taking longer, dipping in the wrong sections, or not getting as much comprehension as you should be getting.

Les, I like les pauls also. My dad has one at home with really nice sound and action to it.

-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com

I usually spend about 3 minutes previewing something like a 250 page book, and then I PR it. Razor has probably been doing this thing longer than I have, but I started getting spontaneous activation only a few days into the process. (Was practicing a lot.)

For some reason, after practicing A LOT, your brain feels, for a lack of a better word, tired. The more you do, the more you get used to it. So Razor is right, previewing is barely necessary. I used to spend about 10 minutes on it up until about a month ago. (That's 2 minutes past the recommended maximum of 8 minutes.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by razordu30:
This is my view on it:

3 - State a purpose - This is also key, because it's the connection between your concious and subconscious. You basically tell your subconscious that you want to ONLY find such and such. For example, in a book about hamsters, you might state "I'd like to know what a hamster's basic daily needs are."

-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com

---

Come on! If my purpose is "I'd like to know what a hamster's basic daily needs are." I will look it up on the content page or in the index...

The fact that I bought the book or picked it up for that matter means it has something of interest to me. It's vague!

[U]HOW[/U]
does one describe a purpose????

For my study I need to know the book, and these MBA books are stuffed with concepts and idea's. I know I can skip the describing cases, but the important stuff is on the other 500 pages! I did take the course, I've read the book, I've practised everything in it (I DID it, not just thought about it!) and PhRSys should triple the speed? When I subvocalize and read it normal (for me 200 wpm) I just need to read it ONCE and have a comprehension above 85%! But it's too slow, however, PhRSys claims to be quicker but then the comprehension drops to 40%

Aaargh! I'm getting quite frustrated! I'm extremely familiar with NLP, so I used each of these techniques as well and so far still no success! I'm getting to the point that I regret I took the class what cost me thousand bucks...

Somehow I keep doing the same things so I end up with the same results (none)!
So please help me (and probably others), tell me your strategy: HOW do you do what you do?

Erwin

When I was describing the hamster case, it was to summarize the system for light so he could get the gist of the system. It wasn't a how-to.

If you'd like a better example of stating a purpose, here is one: If I PR the book Pamela and I want to find cases of male empowerment over her, I state the purpose, "I'd like to dip wherever there's an instance where Mr. B dominates her," or something to that extent. It's not something you can find the in the table of contents or the index.

<< But it's too slow, however, PhRSys claims to be quicker but then the comprehension drops to 40% >>

Where did you get this number from? Is it your own estimate, and/or are you basing this off of two different test grades you got, one with and one without PRing? If so, that's not a very accurate way to estimate the blanket comprehension rate for the entire system.

<<HOW do you do what you do?>>

We're doing the same thing you do. I can tell already you're not relaxed during the steps, which is important. I don't really blame you, it sounds like you're under tremendous pressure with these tests, and the feeling that you overpaid for the system probably adds to this frustration. But you have to relax.

<<Somehow I keep doing the same things so I end up with the same results (none)!>>

Then try it differently. That's NOPS. Try photoreading a little differently, or using a different activation method. Try rapid reading instead of dipping, or skittering. Try photoreading upside down or photoflipping. If you're doing the same things over and over again, and they're not working, you should try something different.

If you need more help, reply in a new thread.

-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com

Erwin,

Here are some examples of general purposes:

"What information in this book is relevant to me?"
"What are the main ideas of this book?"
"What has this book to offer for me?"
"My purpose is to pass this exam and read this book for it. Which information/ideas/knowledge/.../ in this book are essential in passing the exam?"
"How can I benefit from this book?"

...etc. I hope you get the idea. Since you are familiar with NLP you can easily expand from this. Good luck!

Ok, I can't photoread. I just read fast and voraciously. But I'm gonna bite into this argument. It just screams Psudoscience to me and demands rebuttal. But with substitution(my personal litmus test.)

Say there is an infomercial. On it is this great martial artist. Say Bruce lee. He does a demo where he breaks 5 wooden boards with one strike. He says, "you can learn to break up to 5 boards just like me. Just buy my video tapes and books for $250." The infomerical also mentions that in addition to eventually learning to break up to 5 boards with one blow, you will notice an imediate improvement in your health and confidence. And they guarantee that you will see an improvement or your money back. Blah, blah.

Now lets apply your scientific test to the bruce lee board breaking tapes.
------------------substitution begins
A control group is established for people who have no experience with Fighting, Boxing, or any other Martial Art system.

A group which has had 1 month of Boxing within the previous 1-2 weeks of the test.

A group which has had 1 month of Tae Kwon Do practice within the previous 1-2 weeks of the test.

The main test will consist of a number of boards in parallel. The subjects will each make an attempt to break them with thier right or left hand.

All subjects will be given 15 minutes to relax before the test and prepare.

The test will be carefully monitored and all test groups will be given the estimated time that their group should have for their ability.

Example, the control group will be given 2 boards to break, Boxers will be given 3 boards to break, and the Tae Kwon DO group will be given 4 boards to break.

The subjects will not be able to refer back to their instruction books during the test portion of the test but will know the procedure. All groups will be given basic hints on the type of Moves that may be applied.

Test will be given to measure How many boards are broken. They may try again 5 minuts later, 30 minutes later, adn 24 hours later.

I think this would be a nice study and encourage anyone/someone to try it. Also, if certain photoreaders do better then others then I'd encourage more test of the subjects to determine any differences.

Well.. any researcher want to try something like this?
-------------------------------end mod
Just to make sure my point wasn't lost in the analogy I will speak it directly.
The infomercial like in any demonstration involves people with years of practice.

If you applied the subsituted version of your test, you would resoundingly PROVE to many people who do not understand the scientific method, that testing beginners in an advanced technique is fruitless.

You haven't proven anything with either test(except maybe hitting a board is painful and can break things other than the board). All you've proven is that until an advanced techinque is mastered you have two choices: Give up and do it the old way, or stick with it and practice. The advantages of doing it the old way:a) You already know how to do it. b)You already are familiar with all of its advantages and disadvantages and can compensate for some of them. When learning a new skill (especially a new way of doing an old thing, say martial arts instead of street fighting, ballet instead of squaredancing), there are some resounding disadvantages;especially if they involve UNLEARNING a previous skill. a)A period of incompetence. You skill level all around sufferes. For a good while you KNOW your ability using your old skill is more effective than your current level in your new skill. Getting your Tae Kwon Do better than your Streetfighting, or your Ballet better than your Squaredancing, will take considerable time and practice. But if you stick with it, you might have the skill to survive that fight, or the skill to join the dance troupe and get a contract. Expecting results from a book isn't unreasonable. Expecting to be as good as the 'Expert' in any demonstration after only a few weeks or months IS.

Just so my point wasn't lost again. The reason I call it psudoscience is it compares apples to oranges. An experienced reader vs gross beginners. If you realy wan't a scientific test Make it apples vs apples. say at least 10; 5 year experienced readers (8th grader possibly, but I really don't think it would hurt using a normal adult ) vs. 5 year experienced speed reader, vs. a 5 year photoreader. Give them all the same equipment. A book, and the time they require.
I'e. The photoreading isn't just glancing at pages, he needs to be allowed to perform all phases of the process, including mapping and dipping. Speed reading probably has it's own techniques. Even normal reading usually involves rereading passages, cross referencing and other techinques. Allow each person to take as much time as they feel comfortable with. Don't limit anyones time, but do time each person.

At the end administer the comprehension test. Then you can graph or average the results. Average the time of each group and average the comprehension level of each group. .
Another way to compare scores is only compare the times of people with similar comprehension scores. Give it a degree of error based on those who's score were out of line.
And That would give a result that has at least SOME scientific value. Not that I'm accusing you of deliberatly using psudoscience. But it is.

Thank you,
Rykk

Ishnar:

I agree with you about the timing point. Changing two variables like that is not a good idea. However, I don't like the term pseudoscience and your analogy is not very accurate.

My purpose for describing the experiment was to generate some enthusiasm for testing the system -- not to describe a comprehensive method to do so.

Also, I think 1 month is an adequate use time to judge the system (possibly even up to 6 months). If someone makes a claim then the average consumer is not going to expect to reap those benefits 5-10 years down the road -- that is silly.

Anyway, I think the burden to prove the system is on Learning Strategies because the evidence is stacked against them.

I do believe that people use a small percent of their capability (and that photoreading type speeds are possible). But I don't believe that these people have figured it out.

Below are some questions that I leave to the reader to decide..

* What does it say about the system when a Photoreading instructor performed worse then average readers?

* Why is Paul Scheele and Pete Bisonette not in the Guines Book of World Records when they can read as fast or faster then Howard Berg?

* Is it reasonable to believe that they can teach most people to read as fast as the fastest reader in the world?

* What can be originally credited to Paul Scheele in this system?

* Why do they only guarantee a 3x faster reading speed?

* Why have they not did a ton of scientific studies to counter these types of questions?

* How strong is the argument that the system works because they are a licensed private school?

* What achievements has Paul or Pete made outside of this system and have they demonstrated its effectiveness in some other field?

* How many people on this forum claim to have "really got" the system as described?

You know what? I give up.

If you guys don't wanna do it, then don't do it. Everybody who has the system down is just shaking their heads at this topic, because you're trying to disprove that the world is round to them.

* What does it say about the system when a Photoreading instructor performed worse then average readers?

Show me the case study on this. While I could say the instructor was incompetent, I'm curious about it (this better not be that NASA case we talked about already).

* Why is Paul Scheele and Pete Bisonette not in the Guines Book of World Records when they can read as fast or faster then Howard Berg?

Because IT'S NOT REALLY READING, HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS HAVE TO BE STRESSED? You SKIP sections! If you want to argue against the efficacy of photoreading, argue the fact that they SKIP sections. They'll argue how important that skipped section was to the text, and then it's something interesting. But the reason they're not in the record books is because it's NOT really reading.

* Is it reasonable to believe that they can teach most people to read as fast as the fastest reader in the world?

It's not really reading...

* What can be originally credited to Paul Scheele in this system?

Another point. Originally credible to Paul Scheele is the activation process. If you want to disprove someone, go over to subdyn where I think they try to teach spontaneous activation to beginners.

* Why do they only guarantee a 3x faster reading speed?

They guarantee a 3x reading speed for when you start out. After that you increase.

* Why have they not did a ton of scientific studies to counter these types of questions?

Because these type of questions have already been answered with previous studies on the original systems.

* How strong is the argument that the system works because they are a licensed private school?

I don't know who used that argument, but yeah, it's crap. That doesn't necessarily mean the system doesn't work, though.

* What achievements has Paul or Pete made outside of this system and have they demonstrated its effectiveness in some other field?

They've taken a professor who had a doctorate in reading and wrote a book on reading efficiently, and after he took the course, he now practices PRing instead and is working with LSC.

* How many people on this forum claim to have "really got" the system as described?

This question really irks me.

After people "really get" the system, not many stick around. I can't even count the number of people who've gotten it already and left. In fact, why am I still here dealing with this?

Some points:

*If you don't want to learn the system, then don't. It makes no difference to me. I don't know if you've read the replies to your posts, because your questions have already been answered several times now.
-Where is the scientific back up?
-Why only 3x?
-I think Dana answered your question on the two studies you mentioned already

These have already been answered here and in other posts. This is such a dead topic and the same exact points have been asked and answered in the archives repeatedly. This is probably seconded only by "Does the Photoreading step really work?"

They have no scientific reason for why planes fly. They use drag and lift to illustrate it, but it's not the reason. They just know it flies.

You're telling a bunch of people who've been in airplanes that you won't fly in one unless you see why it works, waving papers of examples where planes haven't taken off, asking for scientific research since there isn't any.

Why would you do a side-by-side comparison if you can already see that people can photoread and do well on a comprehension test? What's the point of having regular readers there? To take longer on the test and do well on a comprehension test? There's NO POINT.

Buy the course, try it, return it, if you're that curious about it. That usually appeases most skeptics.

This is my last post here, since I've answered this thread over and over again with different subject headings.

quote:

---

Originally posted by razordu30:
<< But it's too slow, however, PhRSys claims to be quicker but then the comprehension drops to 40% >>

Where did you get this number from? Is it your own estimate, and/or are you basing this off of two different test grades you got, one with and one without PRing? If so, that's not a very accurate way to estimate the blanket comprehension rate for the entire system.

---

I've several speed reading books with tests in them. I used these the assess my comprehension with PhR.

quote:

---

Originally posted by razordu30:
<<HOW do you do what you do?>>

We're doing the same thing you do. I can tell already you're not relaxed during the steps, which is important. I don't really blame you, it sounds like you're under tremendous pressure with these tests, and the feeling that you overpaid for the system probably adds to this frustration. But you have to relax.

---

No blame taken. I just had this idea of PhR being a big fraud, with naive people who have success with the PhRSys on Sesame Street books So if everyone suffers from "Cognitive Dissonance" then I might as well... (http://www.propaganda101.com/cognitiv.htm)

Razor and purjo, thanks for the help guys!
I'll give it another GO