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

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.