Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer Studies done on Photoreading - Proof that it works?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quick.Question:
Are there any studies that have been administered by reputable companies in regards to the validity of Photoreading? (

---

Is there anybody that can answer this question directly? You have to admit that being able to read 25,000 wpm is a pretty amazing feat.

Why aren't we hearing from people saying that they've finished their degrees solely based on photoreading?

Don't get me wrong, I think there is something to this and I plan on trying this out, but I wish someone would give some tangible posts on how Photoreading actualy helped them accomplish a real result (a college/university degree would be nice).

This site seems intersting.
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~pawel-lewicki/simple.html

[This message has been edited by focuskid (edited March 31, 2004).]

Focuskid; You cannot read at 25,000 words a minute & Photoreading doesn't claim that you can read at 25,000 words a minute. Photoreading is not reading. Photoreading is mentally photographing a page 1 to 2 seconds. Photoreading is exposing the text from the book to the other than conscious mind the part of the brain that is much more powerful than the conscious mind & the other than conscious mind outweighs the conscious mind 10 billion to 1.

Our conscious mind is capable of handling 7 to 9 bits of information at a time. Our other than conscious mind can have 20,000 things going on at the same time.

A person has little if any conscious awareness of the material after photoreading. The conscious awareness happens when photoreaders using activation techniques & activate the material.

Once again Photoreading is not reading it is exposing a book or text to the other than conscious mind.
Photoread4me

We don't read at 25,000wpm. Anything above 800 wpm is no longer considered reading.

We photoread at 25,000plus words per minute.

They've attempted research. Done comprehension test but all those test have been invalidated simply because they involved a human subject. There have even been some interesting findings with the research that is never really mentioned. Why because it simply doesn't change the simple methodology for learning PhotoReading. It becomes like doing a study on buoyancy and floation aids just to have a soak in a bath tub.

As for my source of knowledge about research, I've noticed that it always stopped short. Never being conclusiv, when I asked Paul about it he said something along the line of yes, it's interesting, it's exciting but as far as research goes it's immediately invalidated because it involved a human test subject.

To prove that the brain does something during photoreading... we would actually need to put someone in a MRI device and they still need to work out how you're going to flip pages while you're hooked up.

Did you know that it's technically impossible to hit a baseball at the speed that it's thrown? The mind has to know the moment of impact and where the ball will be the instant it leaves the pitchers hand. It takes the correct focused concentration to respond to the instand the pitcher lets go of the ball because it cannot calculate the information while the ball is in fight. The eye may be able to see it but the body cannot respond. That's the really interesting thing that they are finding out... the body is responding "Long" before the mind is even aware of what is happening. So really the mind can freeze the action mid motion by denying it's reaction response by you saying.."I can't", body says, 'oh? Okay, if you say so. So be it.'

Ever notice that some drug test the placebo is more effective than the drug? The human mind has so much potential it's fair to say PhotoReading is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to mind skills.

Why don't we hear from people who are successfully doing degrees with photoreading? Probably because they got the techniques working and don't need to hang around forums reassuring themselves that the system works by telling others about it. They have better things to do and find out with their photoreading skills. Those who can, "do". Those who can't, yet, "still need convincing".

Oops realised I wrote a lot was about to delete it then got the feeling some of you are interested in that stuff. So I've left it for you.

AlexK

Good post AlexK. I still have to wonder though, why don't we hear about double blind tests. Let's say ten subjects undertake the Photoreading course then Photoread a book and are asked questions later about the book? And another group who traditionaly read the same book and are tested with the same questions. A comparison is then made.

I think if I was advocating photoreading I'd try to offer some tangible numbers like this. The more testing, the more stats I'd be able to generate and the numbers would back me up.

Again, don't get me wrong, I beleive Photoreading is real even though it cannot be explained fully. But I think if I was offering something like this to the world I'd be compelled to show numbers like this along with my tesimonials. If anyting has held me back it would be this.

Simply because we have human subjects and those test are invalidated.

Interest in the subject plays a big role in comprehension. No two people are alike in their like or dislike for a book or movie. Even the rate at which individuals learn in the class is affected by the books we have them work with. Since you cant retest with the same book, can't be sure they haven't read it, there are just too many variables.

Even as a photoreader my pace through books varies. the ones I have a dislike for I might just PhotoRead and post view and throw the book away.

Another examply why numbers based on human test subjects is invalid. New cancer drugs, shown 60% success rate in clinical trials, when taken out into the real world have perhaps a 20% success and some shocking side effects that it's quickly replaced with another. What happened? Those participating in a test or trial are unique individuals willing to have a go and struck up confidence in the proceedings.

The difference between someone passing and failing at school is not intellectual it motivational. When you have a great teacher the whole class will often succeed, even schools have shining records more because of attitude that aptitude.

That's why test involving human subjects are statistically invalidated. You cannot control an individuals attitude. You want to have a test that proves it works find a group with a high expectant attitude of success that it will work. Want test to prove it doesn't work find some people who seriously doubt it... it's been done.

Kung fu - everyone can learn to chop wood with their hands... that really isn't true. If you learn kung fu then yes, you'll find that innate skill, the other 99% of the world population seriously doubts and if you're like me have witness someone who hasn't learnt kung fu test out the skill of chopping wood with the hand. Wood intact, hand broken bone. Yes chopping wood with the hand works if you take time to learn it, the rest of us make kindling using an axe. PhotoReading works, but you need to take time to learn it. It isn't a magic pill it's a simple skill.

Another reason why the suggested test wouldn't work... ever noticed that everyone using the same techniques of 'regular reading' does not score the same on a school test, many fail miserably on school reading comprehension assignments. Where a photoreader would manage in 30 minutes to be prepared for such a test a regular reader might take a couple of days to get ready for such a test. Then we have a problem with timing and control.

We did conduct one, 'prove it to yourself' experiment at the retreat. We all had 30 minutes with a book that someone else selected for us. We had to photoread and activate that book and only had 30 minutes for it. Then we had to explain to that person what the book was about, in detail. We all did it, over 100 of us with varying years of skills and experience and confidence.

AlexK

[This message has been edited by Alex K. Viefhaus (edited April 01, 2004).]

In the course of that 30 min. activation period, about how many different questions did you ask and find the answers to? At this point are you able to pick up considerable amounts of details that you didn't directly ask for by superreading?

-CameronJ

Hey Alex,

Congrats on the new gig at LSC. What a dream job you have.

Ditto on the magic stuff. When I first started, it was the idea that photoreading was a magical thing that actually hindered my progress. It wasn't until I started to regard the process as more common-sensical that I realized how easy it was and the rest is history.

Thanks for your informative posts and, once again, congratulations on a job reward well deserved.

Take care,
CS

I can't say how everyone else did it but my approach was for "I wanted to know everything" I need to know to fully explain this book.

Area of interest for me... zip. Book on the subject of negative gearing. Confirmed my suspicion about negative gearing investment properties, pain of agents no agents, types of insurance and advise to talk with the tax office for information about the current do and don't of buying property for investment (I had to laugh at that one Tax officer that actually knows something about taxs is a rare breed. You have better luck with an accountant or lawyer).

My technique for handling that... turn chapter headings and subheadings into questions, if i know the answer I'd skip to the next one. Last 7 or 8 minutes I mind mapped all the chapters to give me cues when I start explaining the book.

So what I finished up knowing from that book...

The book was dated and some of the advise was invalidated by some new rules. According to the book those changes make negative gearing a less lucative option in the current market. Getting an agent is more costly but considering that they take over the responsibilty of upkeep and knowing insurance etc a better alternative if you tend to get a emotional about "your" property. Properites with high price tags are not really the best investments because rental is only marginally more, its not enough to cover most espenses and it makes more sense to buy two properties for the same total. Check that the rental area is really renting, trends change don't trust an agent on this do the footwork. Then there were some interesting factors for partnership (won't bore you with them) but you get the idea. I don't have the book haven't seen it since that afternoon in February so all that is from memory. I don't even have the mind map it was just on a scrap of note paper that I threw out afterwards (I wasn't interested in the book).

You can pull up a lot of information lot of information in 30 minutes from one book. The requirements are purpose, and questions that you can relate to your purpose. BTW my purpose was to be able to give a detailed summary of what the book is about so that I can give the individual information that would be useful to him if he went into negative gearing.

Thanks CS. The offer took me by surprise

AlexK

[This message has been edited by Alex K. Viefhaus (edited April 02, 2004).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by focuskid:
Why aren't we hearing from people saying that they've finished their degrees solely based on photoreading?

---

While it was not based solely on Photoreading, I was able to ace my final semester in college and make the Dean's List with less work than any other semester. On several tests all I did was Photoread the textbooks and activate the information during the tests. At that point I was not yet able to consciously activate the information. The answers just came to me.

I was working full time and training at the dojo for 8-10 hours a week plus I was listening to all the NLP tapes and reading whatever NLP books I could get my hands on. I did not have time to study.

[This message has been edited by Dosetsu (edited April 02, 2004).]

Dosetsu, do you really think that there is a cause and effect relationship between your NLP training and the spontaneous activation you experienced so effortlessly? I hope to be so lucky as you in the near future -- those darn'd testing situations...! :-)