Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer Scientific Studies of Photoreading? + some other questions

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