Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer BIG question

Hello everybody

I had just come across PR, and i had to say that it really blowed my mind.. i mean being able to read a page per sec would blow any1 mind.... i have not yet buyed the program, because im still very skeptical... i mean yes im still very very skeptical

I do have one big question.... saying that the program works and that i am able to read a page per sec, how would be the quality of the understanding... i mean not every1 can understand everything, i mean if i come across an advanced quantum physics book... how well will i understand it? will i be able to understand it or the book will just be recorded in my mind but without being undestanded.... because... i mean quantum physics aren´t for everyone....

Thx in advance and sorry if i my writing is bad...

Hello.

You cannot read a page a second. No where in photoreading or learning strategies corporation does it ever say you will be able to read a page a second. You can photoread a page a second but photoreading is not reading. Photoreading is exposing a book to the other than conscious mind by changing your field of vision using your peripheral vision to expose the book to the other than conscious mind. After photoreading you will have little if any conscious recollection of what you just photoread. You consciously get the information from the book through activation techniques.

New or beginning photoreaders should learn photoreading first with non-school books.Then after they have mastered the techniques with regular books and feel very confident then they should transfer the skill to textbooks or schoolbooks.

Photoread4me

Here is an example, to encourage you.

I took an interest in photoreading back in late summer '05. I pursued it for a time, and set it aside. A couple of days ago I realized that I really have quite a pile of reading to get through, and so I said to myself, "maybe it's time to get back into photoreading!" (with which I had extensively experimented previously, so that it is not new to me now).

Well, I have just extracted everything I need from a 190-page monograph, in 28 minutes flat. A couple of days ago, I previewed and photoread it. Just now, in 28 minutes, I went through and found what I needed. I am absolutely certain that the book was familiar to me from having photoread it, that if I had not photoread it I would have had a much harder time picking up the necessary details, the details necessary for me, now. So say total time 45 minutes. I'm finished with it. The details I need can't just be looked up in the index; they are synthetical and scattered around.

At some points in my 28-minute pass over the book I realized I was turning a few pages without really looking, and I tested the matter by making myself check-- and in fact there was nothing there. The paragraphs containing information relevant to my needs just somehow stand out.

I don't think that what I do counts as activation properly speaking. I didn't really ask questions, except to some extent for one question at the beginning. I have to improve my activation technique. I don't really enjoy making maps on pieces of paper. I like to type in what I need, my thoughts, my summary, etc. I don't like making big lines that go this way and that; and what should I do with the paper anyway? When I tried activating that way in '05 I filled up lots of big sheets of paper, and I don't even know where they are exactly. So I like the computer. I have to work on activation technique.

But there is no doubt that photoreading made the research easier. I polished off a monograph in less than one hour total time spent. It's unheard of.

Sure PHotoread made the research easier.
But - If I may - don't close at all with mind maps.
I think they're the most incredible instrument to develop human thought.

Thanks for the feedback!

I just wanted to pop back in to say that today I very successfully went through ten monographs, easily finding what was necessary in each one. In each case the necessary details could not simply be looked up. None of the books were straightforward self-help kinds of things, or business book re-hashes of often repeated advice.

So, I'm thrilled.

I would like to do more with real activation. If you could give me a lead on mind maps, I'd be interested. Two problems with mind maps come to, um, mind (sorry!).

First, some data is always squee-hawed into an awkward space because one can't really plan in advance what areas are going to wind up being the most extensive. Not just squee-hawed, but sometimes hard to read, because handwriting is adjusted to deal with available space.

Second, the data on a mind map isn't digital. So it has to be put into the computer anyway. This means extra work. And once in the computer, the lines won't be preserved anyway. Why not just move the cursor around on the screen and build an outline that way? A linear outline on paper may look sloppy and be hard to coordinate, but on the screen, any area can be expanded, indented, bolded, or what-have-you, easily enough.

There's no hard rule about using mind maps, of course. I don't mean to imply a need for a debate about them. If you want to tempt me into using them again, feel free. I think Alex has told me before that I might as well do what is working. Probably the main aspect of activation is moving through the text actively, with active purpose-based questions, dipping where my eye seems to want to rest. A book that hasn't been photoread looks more opaque, more blank. Once photoread, the passages of interest are spotted.

Hello Carl Reimann

When you wanted to make a mindmap with the computer, you can do it whit a program that's made for it. Such as "Inspiriation 8". See the website: http://www.inspiration.com/productinfo/inspiration/index.cfm
It's really a nice program. I use it also sometimes to make my mindmaps digital (when I don't have a paper or don't wanted to use a paper).

With a paper you have to use one that's have enough space. With a lot of knowledge for the mindmap you can use a A3-paper instead of a A4-paper.

Kind regards,
Ruud

I find that I activate much better using hand drawn mind-maps than with the PC.

Once I'm happy with my mind map I draw it out using Mind Manager, which serves as a little revision in its own right, I can then begin to link it to other mind maps of different books.

Hi!! Thanks you for replying!!

Ive got the tapes, and i am working on them now.

I have one question.... to be in photophocus the only thing i have to do is to not looking directly to the books pages/ looking without focus? for instance i have succesfully seen the "photo read" words in thepicture of the tapes manual, BUT ive noticed thateven if i was not looking directly into the picture, i couldnt see the words, is like a special look to the picture so that the 3d image appear, and i am not sure if i am doing it correctly in the dictionary.... do you understand what i mean to say?

btw: do i have to feel frustrated if i couldnt work out very well the dictionary and word recognition game?... in this moment i don´t feel frustrated, but... you know how its like... as another guy in the forum said: "i need a carrot to stymulate this donkey!!"

I agree that mind mapping is hard for me by hand and I prefer using the computer, although I can see the reasons for the oppposite view point and I may try both as I continue to learn and master PhotoReading. I am on my second pass through the home study course (in over two years--since the my first one using the cassettes, now using CD's) and now on the preview stage on disc 2.

I use NovaMind for mind mapping. It was first Mac only, I think but now is available for PC users as well:

http://www.nova-mind.com/

Yes it's funny that I prefer to do hand-drawn mind maps particularly as I prefer to do everything else straight on to PC. However I find it easier to activate with a hand-drawn mind map, perhaps because I don't have to take my attention away from the book - I can have it in one hand whilst mind mapping with the other... somehow I feel that it's easier to "get inside" the content when mapping by hand.