Could PhotoReading be considered a "form" of this method developed in the 1940s?
PRing isn't new at all.
Go back few thousands of years you'll see ancient chinese scribes using it.
As far as having scientific studies, IMO that is not important at the personal level. If I can do it, I don't really care why it works just as long as it does.
In my Social Psychology class (1996) I learned that in 1993 social psychologists discovered that when people are in rapport with one another their physiology matches and when they are not in rapport their physiology does not match. I could have sworn I learned that in 1990 when listening to the tape set "Unlimited Power" by Tony Robbins. Of course the book was written well before that and NLP used these skills before Robbins was even trained in it. Matching physiology to read someone's thoughts was even mentioned in Edgar Allen Poe's short story, "The Purloined Letter." However, this ability did not exist until 1993 according to social psychologists.
[This message has been edited by Dosetsu (edited April 24, 2003).]
It is a mental state, usually involving trust, familiarity, and liking the other person.
"What part of their physiology?"
It depends. Most often it is their posture. I think that is all the study covered. The textbook did not mention using the other person's words, matching their voice tone, or rate of speech, things I do more often. The next time you are on the phone, try matching the tone and rate of speech of the person you are talking to and see what happens.
"How accurately can we actually derive thoughts from a gross Physiological state?"
That depends on the skill of the person doing it. Actual thoughts are a stretch IMO, I just pointed out that the method of gaining rapport was very old, far older than 1993.
"What "sociological" studies reveal this?"
I no longer have my textbook. That was 7 years ago.
"The quote marks their reveal my contempt for sociology, not your assertion."
I debated my teachers all the time, using patterns similar to what you are using now. Are you trained in NLP or do you just do this naturally? 
"I understand the personal-level position on studies the problem is that we need to clarify what actually "is going on". The placebo effect, and subconscious suggestion may be what's happening. In other words, it might not matter the specific action of PRing. This doesn't make it less valuable necessarily. I like to think of it as the desire to understand how something works, rather than the workingness of something, because knowing how can become very useful."
This depends on your intention. If it is to use it for a psychological experiment what you are saying is a good idea. Some people in the study can skip certain steps while one group follows the whole system, for example. If it is simple to help you learn faster and more effectively, then a scientific study is not needed.
I do agree with you on sociology. I majored in Social Sciences but will be the first one to say it is not scientific. IMO it is pretty much a bunch of people using statistics and wierd logic to "prove" their political idiologies. They have an outcome and they then search for facts and psuedofacts to prove it.
[This message has been edited by jonah (edited April 24, 2003).]
If you apply just the steps of SQ3R most people can significantly reduce the amount of time spent with their reading material.
One of the fundamentals not often taught is establishing your purpose for your reading. Then having questions to keep you focused on the reading material. It is also a false assumption that the sound fundamentals of reading have been taught in all schools. A look at the high illiteracy levels being addressed by remedial reading programs seems to point to a only handful of people being taught those sound fundamentals. In fact there are corporations spending money training their employees to preview, prioritise, question and read, their reading material.
While photoreading alone can be all that is necessary, spontaneous activation is elusive for many. The addition of manual activation adopted from methods like SQ3R help with the mind probing which so many have not been taught in relation to reading.
Anyone who has learnt the photoreading system can try for themselves if skipping the PhotoReading stage makes a difference.
Alex
It comes from being a 'professionally-trained' philosopher...goin' to Grad school next year for my Ph.D.
It sounds to me as if being in Rapport means just being more open to the intuitive-empathetic signals during communication. It's fascinating though, your textbook's dealing with Rapport...I think we ought to look more closely at the possibility of what us "normal" people would consider paranormal phenomena like telepathy. Rupert Sheldrake, one of my favorite living scientists has actually collected hard data which strongly indicates some sort of telepathic bond as a natural phenomena. You guys know that I wouldn't drop this sensationally, I suggest looking in to his research for yourself, his website URL is:
www.sheldrake.org
Jonah, where does this scientific information exist? I'd be fascinated to know where in the Veda's they discuss anything like PRing
quote:
Originally posted by Kristoff Olafsson:
The only difference is the PR step, which, as I wrote and exhorted people exhaustively to realize, may or may not do anything beyond the so-called placebo effect, as yet, no available studies have analyzed the efficacy of the PR step in and of itself. This needs to be done, contrary to the obscurantist and looped-logically arguments of Believers such as AlexK.
This is very interesting to me, as I came to the same conclusion.
I decided to test exactly this possible placebo affect of the PR step.
I find the photoreading whole mind system very useful, and do not use any other method of reading. I have not had any type of spontaneous activation or other revelations leave me able to confirm for myself that the PR step actually plays a significant role in my reading, although I continue to use the PR step and preview/postview/mindprobing.
At my college, sophomores in the honors program are required to do a research project with a faculty member of their choice. I chose one from the psychology department (I’m a math and biology double major) and designed an experiment that would test the affect of the photoreading step in the system.
I have already posted the method on here at least once, but here it is again:
----------------------------
Take photoreaders, give them a book and questions. Let them preview, photoread, super read and whatever else they want to answer the questions.
Then, part two, give them the book, the questions, but this time, after the preview, substitute a duplicate book with content unrelated to the questions, but with a very similar appearance so as to cause them to believe that they had actually photoread the book. Then allow them to continue as normal with the activation and compare the results.
----------------------------------
At first, I was confident that I would get good results, but now I am not. I have not yet been able to complete the experiment due to the difficulties of getting together/training photoreaders, but I promise to post the results as soon as I am able.
Why did I lose confidence in getting a positive result from my experiment?
Well, the last time I mentioned my experiment here, Dana suggested that I talk to Paul Scheele first. I was very excited, and after a few attempts I did actually get to speak with the man himself.
Except… he hated my experiment. He said it was “lame at best.”
He said that the part where I switch the book, so the people think they photoread but actually didn’t was “the silly and annoying part” of my experiment.
He suggested that I just tell them not to photoread instead of tricking them.
Unfortunately, if I were to do that, it wouldn’t be testing whether or not PR is just a placebo step.
Whatever the results of my experiment, it won’t prove anything conclusively, but maybe someone else will repeat my experiment and we can’t figure this out. It doesn’t seem difficult at all …. Once you get a group of photoreaders together.
Adam
quote:
Originally posted by astrowill:
Sorry but I think that's lame too--please don't make PR look bad.
Care to explain why you think it's lame?
If the photoreading step is not just a placebo effect, then people should notice a difference in their performance even if they believe that they have photoread.
How would you test for a plaecebo effect?
I myself cannot understand why Paul Scheele would oppose such a study because it would just prove that PR'ing is not he placebo effect.
To Kristoff:
See how the brainwaves change when in meditation, concentration, etc. It is in any college psychology book. Even if there were no information on this, faith in the ability to PhotoRead is a big help.
I guess our history is wronged then.
Chang
[This message has been edited by Chang Liu (edited April 27, 2003).]
-youngprer
I think your experiment seemed fine to me. Paul Scheele's suggestion to me seems flawed.
If you did your experiment the way Paul suggests I could critique it by asking whether they have really uploaded the info into their brain. For all we know it could just be getting into the super-relaxed accelerated learning state for a bit that makes the difference. Also, by switching texts you can show that the PR step doesn't just stimulate the brain in someway, that it really does all boil down to content.
So in a way you can detect paul's belief in the method because he assumes that the only way the PR step affects the reader is by the intake of information. Sort of expected really.
The PR step takes no great leap of faith. The research on implicit memory and priming is as old as the hills, I did my psychology dissertation on consciousness and had to cover that. The principles are the same, it's only the quantity of info that differs.
I'm quite interested in the how of PR works, s'pose it's cos i'm a psych student. Don't s'pose i could take a peak at your background research at some point?
Cheerio!
Nick
[This message has been edited by nickuk (edited April 28, 2003).]
The photoreading step helped me slice through a foreign language text. Rather than having to read and understand each word I was able to read for ideas and concepts.
When hooked up an IVBA during the photoreading stage there is a distinctive brainwave pattern. Paul Scheele had hooked up members of his photoreading class to let them see their brainwave pattern on a computer screen. The seminar attendees were able to witness this on the screen. The pattern was consistant.
The faith that one can benefit from photoreading is the same faith one uses for breaking boards with their bare hands, walking on hot coal, in ones ability to swim or ride a bike. It's the same faith one must apply to learning to drive, fly a plane or hang gliding. It's that faith that enables one to do well in one subject in school and fail miserably in others. Until we've gained confidence or the habit of doing something different we need to apply a personal faith in our ability. That is usually learning the steps and applying them till they become automatic.
The placebo effect is handy when the mind can convince the body to heal using the body.
How much more damning is the placebo effect if the mind can convince the mind that it can function better by just spending 3 to 7 minutes preparing and getting into a 'can do' state?
By spending 3 to 7 minutes photoreading a book I have walked away knowing more of the content of a book in a total of 20 minutes (that includes the photoreading time), than I have managed to gain in an hour without the photoreading step.
Perhaps the question should be is photoreading the placebo or are preview/postview, manual activation the real placebos?
Alex
Can that possiblity turn your trust in PRing down? As to one who believes he is doing PRing or correctly. Sees that he isn't even in alpha state when PRing, but gets the same results... would that turn into more damnation if one was to find out? Ignorance=bliss? Down side to my PRing is that I hate to notice my emotions because I tend to fear then, and by that I miss a lot of "signals" I guess... But I am seeing books connect, and yes, ideas go AHA! all the time anyways just by knowing and thinking...
Placebo... I PRed my lit book like 5times, try to activate some stuff, yes, I understood it, but quiz comes, I fail it miserably, same with most of my classes... What's up with that? I dipped, I read.
Chang
KO "Busily Hammering The Idols"
P.S. Chang, you really annoy me. Few of your posts make any sense. I asked an honest question and you resorted to calling me racist, unless that was a poorly-disguised joke. Does any information in the Veda's actually show ancient chinese scribes using PRing or a similar technique, and where can I find this? I really want to know.
quote:
Originally posted by Kristoff Olafsson:
P.S. Chang, you really annoy me. Few of your posts make any sense. I asked an honest question and you resorted to calling me racist, unless that was a poorly-disguised joke. Does any information in the Veda's actually show ancient chinese scribes using PRing or a similar technique, and where can I find this? I really want to know.
That's true. Most of his posts have nothing to do with the topic. It 'fuses me.
-youngprer
The discussion thread regarding the benefits of the PhotoReading whole mind system needs to be separated from the the discussion of testing the PhotoReading step itself. Here's why:
The course is designed to load the participant with a MEGA dose of interventions in one's reading pattern. Posture alone has shown to influence reading speed and comprehension. One's positive internal dialog regarding comprehension has shown to improve comprehension significantly. In fact, every component of the program is used because of it's benefit. Name it: establish purpose, establish state, preview, rhythmic perusal, etc, etc, etc...they all have one intent; intervene in a person's reading process to offer better options, that use multiple intelligences and more of the whole mind.
In that regard, there is nothing contained in SQ3R that isn't reproduced in some fashion in the PhotoReading whole mind system.
My contention is that the PhotoReading step is THE paradigm shift to a new way of processing vast amounts of written data in less time. The paradigm shifts because the very act of PhotoReading affirms two things:
1) I have a preconscious processor
2) I have nonconscious resources that can serve me in acquiring information at a conscious level
It follows that it would be fruitless to PhotoRead and deny 1 & 2. So the operating presupposition of the course rests on research that indicates both 1 & 2 are true for anyone.
Now, how about testing the efficacy of the PhotoReading step?
There are plenty of good ideas on how to do that. Unfortunately AdamP's is not one. Any PhotoReader who picks up a book is going to know by feel of pages, images of the structure of pages, chapters, characters, bolds, etc. that one book is different than another. There is NO WAY that a graduate of PhotoReading could be deceived into activating a book that they didn't PhotoRead.
In fact, for years we covered up books and PhotoRead them upside down and backwards. The affective impact of the experience was so dramatic that most of the class participants could immediately distinguish between the books purely on the basis of emotional content.
Hence, the design of AdamPs experiment is poor.
As to the IBVA...you can find out more about the technology at www.IBVA.com
I don't think it proves PhotoReading. We are intrigued by the fact that all PhotoReaders show a similar brainwave signature when hooked up to the machine. We found it was not an Alpha state, but a state characterized by increased amplitudes in low Beta and high Theta frequencies. Additionally, it was fascinating to find that the major driver of the signature was the PhotoFocus state, not the physical relaxation of the PhotoReader.