Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer pr still confused

My questions weren't answered, maybe I didn't state them clearly, I'll try again. Has photoreading alone been proven effective scientifically? Surely it has after being in existence for 16 years! If not, then why not? If it is as effective as the tapes have told me, then surely learning strategies corp. would have proven it scientifically by now via reputable sources. Please send me the reptable studies and references that have proven directly, that photoreading works. This would rule out the possibility of the photoreading not working perse, but serving as a wonderful PLACEBO enhancing the already time proven concious mind strategies that have been presented to us. By the way every step except the photoreading idea can be collected from other corporations and sources. They may call some of the same concepts by different names of course.
If photoreading works, then I should be able to use soley the other than concious mind and recieve benefit. In another words, I should be able to use, elementary reading (concious mind) + photoreading (other than concious mind) INDEPENDANT OF USING THE ENTIRE MIND SYSTEM and recieve more benefit, than if I ONLY USED THE left to right ELEMENTARY READING ALONE. i.e. using none of the whole mind system vs using only the photoreading step. Am I correct in my statements and ideas of the immediate previous paragragh?
Don't get me wrong the photoreading sounds fabulous and I would love to fly throught all of my books collecting dust on the shelf, but there seems to be a lot of loose ends and hazy ground on the validity of photoreading. Obviously I want the whole mind system to work or I wouldn't have ordered it and listend thru the tapes three times and tried some of the exercices. It basically comes down to the fact that photoreading either works like a charm or doesn't work at all. If I can't recieve convincing answers to these questions then I will send the whole mind system back to you guys. Thanks for your time in answering the above questions, and please help me not to get rid of a good thing.

Okay, listening to the tapes and trying some of the exersises wont cut it, you need to do the exersises as they are being explained (It says so in the book, me thinks). That last sentance seems hazy the way I worded it.

You have to do all of the exersises and in order, or else it wont work. This isnt an overnight thing, you have to practice.

Peace Out

Great, now we're gonna get these messages every two days instead of once a month.

Go to the archives and look up the words "scientific". You'll at least a hundred posts asking what you just asked, with 30 post threads answering them.

If you want, look up "fake" and/or "proof". You'll find everything you're looking for, if you put some work into it.

Mastermind,My questions weren't answered at all!!!!!! Why isn't a question answered? It is because either you don't know, or you are to lazy to respond with any amount of congnitive effort. I'm sending it back BECAUSE of your semi-arrogant response and attitude. I'm sure others would appreciate recieving answers to their sincere questions, instead of a lousy arrogant response, saying just do the program and figure it out on your own. This response of mine to your response, is a mirror image of the attitude I recieved from you. Thank you for you hazi reply.

I really dont care what you feel, what you do, or how you do it.

Its never one thing that makes you do something like this. Its either you arent trying hard enough, your trying to hard, or your not trying at all. Thats the way I see it. I didnt write that response thinking "now lets be an ass to this guy" but "lets try to give him advice because he doesnt seem to be going about this right."

Now if you are gonna crawl up my arse for that, more power to ya, but your only hurting yourself.

muccaboy,
I would suggest you ask Learning Strategies Corporation DIRECTLY for the answers to your questions, since you're not going to get many scientific reports from users of the system
Call them or send them e-mail, this forum is for un-scientifical people like me, and Paul, Dana, Pete, Shawn ... only come by every few days.

I think Mastermind's responses are so ANGRY because questions like yours get asked ALL THE TIME. About half of the posts on this board are "does it really work?", "is this for real?", "give me some proof!" and so forth.

I think you can use the conscious & nonconscious parts of the photoreading system independantly; you could just speedread the whole book, but you would rely on spontaneous activation for just using the photoreading step.

So don't ask us for scientific proof, we're not, for the most part, scientists, ask LSC directly.

thanks
stefan

I haven't found mastermind's reply (the first one) agressive at all! It's straight forward good advice from someone who has gone through the process.

Yeah well you're absolutely right; mastermind's first response wasn't aggressive at all. He just didn't really answer muccaboy's question: instead of supplying him with a hardcore 100-page scientific report on how and why photoreading works, he told him what to do to make the system work for him.
(I'm sorry I'm not trying to put down muccaboy! don'T get me wrong )

Naturally, muccaboy got angry and everybody got angry and then the screaming and oh the pain and everything!

Where's the communication nowadays?

cheers
ste

The problem is that this question gets asked once or twice a month, and it comes up so often that a lot of us are tired of seeing it, especially since if you don't answer it, people are all like, "Ah, no responses, eh? I must be RIGHT!"

These threads end up in arguments a lot, and they tend to get everybody all riled up.

Mucca, if you want scientific evidence, look in the archives for a post by SDSubbio or something to that extent for the text "PR abstracts" or something like that.

Plus, you'll find a lot of threads that talk about other answers to this question. One that came up is, "Just because there's no scientific evidence, doesn't mean it doesn't work." We actually don't know why airplanes fly. We use lift and drag to describe fundamental reactions, but we still don't know WHY planes fly. No scientific proof. But they do, and we have a whole industry out of what's basically a paradox.

PRing is based on NLP research and cognitive science. It's been said that they've ripped off other systems and added their own touches to it. In either case, the placebo effect would probably not affect a comprehension test, since you would have actually comprehended the text, not "felt" like you did.

The real question is, "Does the system work?" and the answer is, "Yes, it does."

We might not know why, or how, but ask people who are comprehending material at 3 times the regular speed, and they'll tell you more than a bunch of graphs and lines will.

-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com