Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer Scientific Evidence that PR works

I'm looking for scientific evidence that PR works, particularly the PR stet. I've read Preconsious Processing and most of the other references in the PR book but found nothing concrete.

I'm not looking for proof that the mind can process information when you aren't thinking about it, that's obvious. I'm looking for proof that the subconscious mind can take in simple literal information and make the conscious mind aware of what the literal facts are. In other words, I know I can't PR a algebra book and "know" it. But if I PR a short article and only want to know the name or location of something, that's the type of proof I'm looking for.

sites, journals, books, studies, something that 9 Jurors on Judge Judy would agree on, that's what I'm looking for. Thank you.

Poor Mark! Couldn't get the system, and then he went to Reading Genius, and now he wants proof that PR works.

First off, there's tons of things that are evidence that PR works. First off, spontaneous activation as often as it does CANNOT be coincidence. Simply put. There have been various studies using the "PhotoFocus" technique and how it relates to the subconscious. It in fact, does put information, images, pictures, and everything into your subconscious within your field of vision. Now me? I can't answer you clearly.

However, PhotoFocus, or even anything within the PhotoReading Whole Mind System, is nothing new. There's concrete proof that everything within the system works and it's been there for ages throughout the past. Did you know that PhotoFocus, or something along those lines was even used in the art of Ninjitsu for picking out enemy targets in the dark? Amazing!

Anyways! There was also a brainwave chart, and study that was done a little while back. If you order the free PR tape, with the news broadcast, I believe they include this chart. It shows the significant differences in how your brain deals with the information.

-youngprer

I'm glad you read Norman Dixon's work. Preconscious Processing is quite a tome, and was instrumental in motivating me to pursue PhotoReading as a concept. By the way, my original charge as HR consultant was to design "an accelerated learning application of speed reading" for the IS&DP division of IDS/AmExpress in Minneapolis.

Having spent time with Dr. Dixon in England, I continue to believe we are on the right track in our hypothesis of why PhotoReading works.

Until we have MRI or PET studies to show that we are using natural brain channels for Implicit Learning (see Ch. 35: Learning and Memory, pp. 651-666 in Essentials of Neural Science and Behavior by Kandel, et al., 1995) we are, essentially, building our case on related studies and highlighting compelling anecdotal evidence from our worldwide client base.You will have to decide if naturalistic inquiry (ref. Helen Lincoln's book by that title) is a relevant scientific method.

In the meanwhile, two excellent scientific sources continue to support my description of PhotoReading. Tor Norrentranders "The User Illusion" (translated in 1998) and the work of Dr. Pawel Lewicki from the cognitive psych labs at Tulsa University. For his work check out:
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~pawel-lewicki/index.html

Keep up the good work youngprer! We appreciate your attitude!

PS

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulScheele:
Keep up the good work youngprer! We appreciate your attitude!

PS

---

Thanks for the enouragement, Paul. That's an honor coming from you.

Paul, that's exactly what I'm looking for. Thank you.

YoungPR, didn't I tell you that I returned RG? I was just speedreading after the PR step with music. Yeah it works but it's not practical to apply at the office. "Hey shut up everyone, I'm playing my tapes!"

As cool as something might be, if I can't use it then I can't use it. I can't swipe my hands accross the page all the time so I guess Evelyn and MegaSpeed are out also. Get my drift?

I'm trying to get PR + 1 Activation Pass to "work." Taking more time than that is what I was already doing before I was doing anything fancy like this. I'm not a yes man. I'm the type of person you want as a researcher, I measure the results of things, not what I "think." I'm an accountant. I count the beans. No beans, no count. No BS. Just the facts. Black and white. Do I know the fact or don't I. Do I have the write answer or not.

With the amount of information and missinformation at hand it's the job of the information vendors to set themselves apart from the rest with EVIDENCE. It's not MY job to do that.

[This message has been edited by MarkP4 (edited August 29, 2002).]

Of course, if evidence were presented, that would hardly effect your ability to photoread.

I should also note that to this day know one knows for sure how airplanes can fly. People disagree on the reason to this day. But they can still fly.

The other problem is what would constitute proof for you? I'm guessing if proof were released, that instead of being satisfied there, you would analyze the evidence. Then you'd analyze the variables in the evidence. Then there's always whether or not the variables are simply true or not (and with the amount of medicinal investigations going on, faked lab reports aren't exactly on the decline).

In any case, despite all the investigation or not, whether a product actually works is regardless of further investigation on its part. Airplanes fly. If someone did a conclusive study saying the shouldn't be able to, that would hardly effect the ability for airplanes to fly.

In any case, I think it's good for you to make sure and double-check things, as well as research things, but if you can't do so, that's hardly a reason to dismiss something.

-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com

There are all kinds of things posted on this DF that respond scientifically to your question. Maybe you can find them in the archives. But young & Ramon really make salient points.

Ramon, i never knew that about airplanes. I always wonder how a plane can fly when i'm on one. It still feels like a mystery to me and now i find out it really still is. They say we know almost nothing about how our brains function. My guess is that the key lies in understanding what the word mystery implies. The Greeks had their mystery religions and all cultures have their esoteric practices. I just can't get over the fact that people, scientists, can't agree on how a plane flies.

According to an old post by Dana, I believe - he said something like:

"We don't have all the how's and why's."

PhotoReading is a technique using the subconscious. How do we even know that that truely does exist?

And yes, you did tell us that you returned it. That's my point. Poor guy.

Eddy isn't that great, ya know. I warned ya! I warned you all with Can Jedi PhotoRead? Part 2. That topic strikes down Reading Genius and its lies and claims.

It's not practical, that's true. That another point that was made by not only me, and many others, but even the top three PhotoReading ppl'z on LSC - Dana, Pete, and Paul. Well...Dana for sure. *Squints as he thinks.*

Anyways! I've already brought back a 97 on a quiz that was for memorization of vocab. and I used PhotoReading on it. That's good enough for me!

Ramon is right. Just let it go. It's not about the how's and why's. It's about if it a.) causes any harm. And we obviously know the answer to that: NO. B.) does it not work? That's an argued yes. The truth is that you really don't realize its true brilliance until you see it working for you in all its glory.

Concentrating on "why" the public education system teaches math without explaining what it's for will likely be waste of time. Learn the math, and then when the situation arises to use it, BAPOW!

-youngprer

If you're looking for more info on the planes thing, check out a book called:

What Einstein Told His Barber: More Scientific Answers to Everyday Questions

The short and skinny of it all is that there are two theories devised to explain how "lift" in an airplane works.

One is the Bernoulli effect, which more or less states that in order for air molecules on top of a wing to meet air molecules below the wing at the same time, it must move faster, which in a roundabout way creates lift (this would take way too long to explain in great detail). In any case, this is flawed because there is absolutely no logical reason why it should have to do this, which is a pretty big flaw.

The other theory is the Newtonian theory, which couples with the "Every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction". The theory goes that air molecules are like shotgun pellets, and when a wing is tilted, all these repeated "shotgun pellets" hitting the bottom of the wing "nudge" the plane upward. The big flaw with this theory is that it entirely ignores the top surface of the wing, which would mean the top of a wing could be any shape, not mattering, which we know is definately not true.

So basically, we know of lift, we know of drag, we just don't really know how either of them work. We just use what we know of both paradoxes to make better wings and props, all the time not having any clue as to why lift works. In a sense, our entire aerodynamics industry is based on "testimonials", repeated progressive outbreaks with different-shaped wings, and various professors and scientists raving about why "theirs is the best".

From this we can conclude one thing:

NASA is an infomercial.

My general feeling on all things is, "If it works, it works."

-Ramon http://razor.ramon.com

[This message has been edited by razordu30 (edited August 30, 2002).]