Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer Anything wrong with the report?

i have heard about Photoreading and am going
to buy the PR book.

But when i read the review about the book, one of them said
"...don't believe me see for yourself, http://www.sti.nasa.gov/Pubs/star/star0003.pdf
- it's on page 146..." lazy_einstein from Clearwater, FL USA

After that i visited NASA's site and read the report, it said the PhotoReading technique yielded no benefits compared with a normal reading method.

I believed PR technique works but how should i interpret the result from NASA's report?

Thanks for all the reply

Don't listen to people who lie for living.

There are many people here for whom Photoreading worked and they use it every day, I am one of them and it works for me. So shell it work for you if you believe it will.

It works for me.my vocabulary has definitely improved.
I didn't, and have never, photoread the dictionary I got with the system.I used my own dictionary I already had.This was just in case LSC were using some kind of trick dictionary, that was going to make me more likely to recall the position of words in the dictionary game.For example the dictionary contained some pictures, but the dictionary I used didn't.

This was nothing personal against LSC, of course, it's just my right to go about things how I please.

The dictionary game still worked.

Nasa, so what, like they are the source of all knowledge, they've never got anything wrong.Yeah right.

Nasa knows a lot of things, but they don't know what's in my head, m mind, and yours.

Like a said in a prior post, maybe the people who progress with the system the best, all have a similar mindset, as in they don't follow the general consensus or what is considered to be right, even if the 'right' thing obviously isn't working.They don't follow just what has been laid down as the "way things work"
As in "school" or "Nasa."

I have nothing against Nasa, don't know masses about them, but photoreading is workingfor me, so why the heck stop just ebcause a certain person/org/whatever says it doesn't work.

Thanks!

quote:

---

The "NASA" report was based on one study done using only two subjects the researcher/trainee photoreader and an experience photoreader of some years.

The researcher asked that the experienced photoreader read a passage at her regular reading speed. (Being a photoreader of some years her regular reading speed and techniques is Photoreading). This flaws the research in the first instant. This (1) person is not an unbiased sample. In fact their speed should be on average the same through the test.

The trainee was also the researcher who was controlling the application of the research proceedure. This again flaws the research. This (1) person is also not and unbiased sample.

NASA has based it's comments on this one research.

The trainee was also the researcher who was controlling the application of the research proceedure. This again flaws the research. This (1) person is also not and unbiased sample.

NASA has based it's comments on this one research.

As soon as you use human subjects in a research you can only speculate not produce facts.

If you would like to look further to look at the failure rate of instruction methods relating to reading you only need to look at failure rates in reading comprehension in schools the world over. The institutions are admitting to a failure rates 60%. Meaning that students are failing to achieve the expected standard of literacy in greater numbers than those who reach it. Many are sliding through the school system who are really illiterate. How can you compare average reading speed with someone who has reached the level of proficiency for their age against someone who hasn't? Also just because someon is literate in one subject doesn't make them equally literate in another. So, How can one really compare when the necessity of understanding the subject will slow down a reader no matter how fast they read.

---

Having seen the actual report I have some 50 questions for the researcher.

Alex