Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer Real PR Secret Withheld?

Ked,

Time and purpose are factor I consider when it comes to PhotoReading books I've activated. If I keep PhotoReading it after I've activated it I quickly get to a point where I have spent as much time with the book as with elementary reading. That was not my reason for learning PhotoReading. I rather get my hands on other books to PhotoRead in those two to three minutes it helps me to decide if I've just found something worth spending more of my time with.

3-minutes to PhotoRead the PhotoReading book over seven days = one Activation pass time I could be spending on another book or another activity. I like learning new things. Once you've got it, you need to trust that your mind, got it. When I quote page numbers from the PhotoReading book I know what page the information is on but I have not PhotoRead again since February 2003. I trust my mind. It's there and more is not going to be better for me.

Information about the 5-day test starts on page 76 of the 3rd edition of the PhotoReading book.

SubZero,
Activate at least one book a week using the method outlined in the 5-day test. It may take less or more than five days to fully, activate that book. The activation process builds the body mind connection by developing the conscious awareness of what it is like for you.

Alex

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex K. Viefhaus:
Time and purpose are factor I consider when it comes to PhotoReading books I've activated. If I keep PhotoReading it after I've activated it I quickly get to a point where I have spent as much time with the book as with elementary reading. That was not my reason for learning PhotoReading. I rather get my hands on other books to PhotoRead in those two to three minutes it helps me to decide if I've just found something worth spending more of my time with.

---

Ahhh, thanks. I was photoreading the PR book every day as part of my 3-10 books with the purpose of using it for the purpose of direct learning (that the skill would be tranferred without actually activating again). So the 3-10 books should always be ones you haven't read and different each day? If not different, at least ones you haven't read yet, correct? For direct learning (ie with the PR book) that's a different process?

In a word, yes.

For direct learning I had posted a suggestion for PhotoReading before.

Since there is only on book on PhotoReading as such. Grab some other books on reading. Rapid Reading, Speed Reading and comprehension. You might even include the mind map book as the contrast book however since PhotoReading is about tactics you might consider a book on sailing, chess or the Art of War. Have a collection of 5 to 6 books and PhotoRead the lot for Direct Learning.

The idea of PhotoReading other books and 3 to 10 a day is to help build the body mind connection. This makes spontaneous activation easier to notice and the variety gives the mind more signals. It is almost a wake up call for the brain. If you PhotoRead different books the mind is going to go, 'hey what's going on here, this is interesting stuff. I could use this information, and you know this stuff coming in now, helps make more sense of the stuff consciousness is already playing with, better tell my consciousness about it.' If its the same stuff, the mind is more likely to go, 'yah, saw dat, saw dat, already told consciousness about it, consciousness wasn't interested, consciousness already knows.'

Another way of looking at it. Having a teach say you have to do it this way, saying the same thing over and over but you just cannot make sense of it (PhotoReading the same books over and over). Then you mention it to your uncle and he explains it a new way (PhotoReading different books) and now what the teacher makes perfect sense so you do it her way (PhotoReading gives you result).

Alex

Like many readers here, I still have not located an independent report on, and therefore continue to question the validity of, the claimed PR of the US Patent Law in the PR book. The assertion appears only in the book and some radio shows attended by the same claimant(s), yet with no corroborative evidence from other sources, such as witnesses from the university in which the purposed event took place. At this point I can only call that claim a myth to be debunked.

With regard to other success stories, it certainly appears that PR shouldwork well on those relatively easy to read or understand stuff (pop fictions, romance novels, etc.) Typically, most best sellers (especially nonfictions) are structured so that an average reader without PR training may get the most of the it by simply browsing through the chapter titles and subtitles. Therefore, these books are not good test cases for one’s progress.

A better test should involve materials one doesn't already have some pre-exposure to or the "potential" to comprehend. For example, I challenge anyone here with no legal training to PR a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court or a law textbook, or those with no quantum physics background to PR Dirac’s books on quantum mechanics. When one has to rely on prior knowledge about a subject, and browsing through the book a couple of times ,including note taking or mind-mapping (as suggested by PR trainers), the direct benefit from PR itself becomes questionable, as a cancer patient may be thought to have benefited from PR if he is receiving all radio-/chemo- therapies while at the same time doing PR.

We all know how our reading efficiency and comprehension can dramatically increase as our final exam date approahes. Focusing and concentration, coupled with a sense of purpose and goal, are the key. Therefore, a claimed increase by a factor of three is really nothing extraordinary. Anyone who has been adequately educated can easily accomplish that without attending any PR program. The real "benefit" of PR should not depend on and resort to those conventional approaches.

Note that I'm not against PR in any way. I am simply questioning the existence of some of its claims, and the the true benefit of PR besides its reliance of those well established techniques such as Qi Gong for mind relaxation and concentration, key word highlighting and Tony Busan's Mind Maping.

…

[This message has been edited by WestJohnson (edited April 09, 2005).]

There may be some here who would take your test. What method would you use to independently verify the claims of people who took your test?

I think it's great that you want to prove or disprove what you've read, but it would be nice if you had a way of settling things once and for all. Any test you devise, with results that can't be verified, isn't going to help others. It will just add to the list of the many other experiences that skeptics find difficult to believe.

Soapbox time:
I guess what I don't understand is the need that some people seem to have to disprove Photoreading. When I wanted to learn to read faster I read the testimonials of some who had tried Tony Buzan's methods of speed reading. I tried it myself, it didn't work for me. I did the same the thing with Evelyn Wood's methods. Again, it didn't work for me. Next, I tried Photoreading. It did work for me.

I never felt the need to go to Tony Buzan's or Evelyn Wood's websites and tell them their methods were flawed or try to devise tests to make sure they could do what they said they could. That would have been a waste of my time. Even if they had passed all my tests I still doubt I, personally, would see good results with their methods. Their stuff just didn't work for me.

This stuff isn't directed at you personally WestJohnson, but it just seems that every so often there's a new group of people who are intent on disproving the method rather than just trying it and seeing if it would work for them. I just don't understand that mentality.

Dear Mr. Scribe,

Thank you for your reply.

I certainly agree with you on the necessity of “a way of settling things once and for all.” In this case, if the key claims by PR (especially the PR of the Patent Law) can be substantiated independently, that would be a way of achieving that purpose. After all, PR is not a religion and can not stand on certain unverified myths announced by the PR founders. On the PR website, it has already put on video clips of TV shows, etc. It wouldn’t be too much to ask that they put on the video clips or articles on the Patent Law demonstration.

I think it is really up to PR to come up with some experiment procedures that its practioners have used to measured PR’s success. When it says it “worked” for many people, what exactly does it mean? How is that being quantitated? Earlier, a reader wondered why PR practioners never participated in any speed-reading test and was told PR is not speed-reading. But did that really answer the question about why PR has never participated in an event in which its effectiveness can be independently measured?

As I said above, I’m not trying to disprove PR. I’m merely raising my doubts. Deep in my heart, I am hoping they can be easily dispelled.

[This message has been edited by WestJohnson (edited April 09, 2005).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by WestJohnson:

... I’m merely raising my doubts. Deep in my heart, I am hoping they can be easily dispelled.

---

Nope. I don't think it can. Any test that you devise that involves a human as part of the test can be thrown out because it can be argued that attitude, intent, interest,level of performance anxiety (nerves) and self exteem of the participant influence the results.

It's the same reasons why 30 people in the same geography class taking the same test on the same subject, they learned with the same teacher, can get vastly different results. And if you say you need a 70% to prove that the teaching worked when 50% of the class has a grade below 60% do you scrap teaching geography because it didn't work?

When you test a humans knowledge by asking them questions in a test you are only finding out "what" they can draw up from their memory. We all have access to the same knowledge if we heard or saw it. Were're testing what they are able to access in in their mind. Given that our mind stores every last bit of information we learned in our memory we should be able to call it up in a test. Some of the factors that affect test results have already been mentioned. They are all going to be flawed.

So if you are not open to the experiment where the patent at 693,000 wpm and the testimonials given by others there is no test that will prove for you that PhotoReading works even if you were there watching it. Even if you tried it yourself you'd fail.

Thanks for asking us to try and convince you.
Rather than try to convince you I think it would be more exciting if you could experience the untapped potential of your mind.

I know when I learned PhotoReading I was not insterested in Matrix like download of information. I just wanted to be able to read 3 books in the time it took me to read one. That was my practical application. What I uncovered in learning PhotoReading made me realise that I my brain or mind has far more potential than I ever thought.

To me it made no sense to PhotoRead stuff I don't need. 3 minutes is still three minutes of my time. What you're asking will take more than 3 minutes to organise to consider it valid and at the end of the day there will still be people who don't believe it.

Pete was filmed for an infomercial PhotoReading a book on a computer screen. They had to cut it because people felt it is impossible to do that and refused believe what they saw. So what is the point of doing these demonstrations when we know they will not convince people?, other than wasting our time?

If you want proof that PhotoReading works don't look to PhotoReading proving it. Look at brain potential. What they have learned about the brain in the last 7 years since the access to PET and fMRI research equipment.

When you're ready, PhotoReading will be here for you to learn.

Alex

quote:

---

I think it is really up to PR to come up with some experiment procedures that its practioners have used to measured PR’s success. When it says it “worked” for many people, what exactly does it mean? How is that being quantitated?

---

They already have designed experimental procedures that can be used to measure success. There is the 5-day test outlined in the book. The only hard and fast statements/guarantees that I've seen are that you can read 3 times faster than your normal reading speed. Pete's experiences are extraordinary, like Alex I didn't try Photoreading because I wanted to be like Pete.

quote:

---

Earlier, a reader wondered why PR practioners never participated in any speed-reading test and was told PR is not speed-reading. But did that really answer the question about why PR has never participated in an event in which its effectiveness can be independently measured?

---

It answered it for me, but that's because I understand the system. A speed-reading contest is about how fast you can read at one sitting with a timer on. Photoreading isn't like that. It's based on a completely different principle. Photoreading is about the total time you spend reading and that total time can, and probably will, be spread out over a number of days or a number of hours in the same day. The total time it will take you to read will be about 1/3 the speed you were reading at without Photoreading.

Like I said, I tried speed reading and it didn't work for me. Photoreading is different and for me it was a lot easier to get the hang of. If you think speed reading techniques will work better for you than Photoreading then that is where you should concentrate your energies. If you want to try PR, you should spend $12 on the book and learn what it's all about. Even better, borrow the book from your local library. If you're familiar with speed reading techniques I think you'll see rather quickly how PR is different than speed reading and why Photoreaders don't enter speed reading competitions.

I am just testing if my registration works...

hi,

I used to read some of the posts at this forum, but I wasn't registered, and now I felt peaced off so I decided to post sth.

I am a PR beginner, and I noticed some good results, but that's not a reason why I am writing this post.

Obviously there are many sceptics and it's ok, but some of those sceptics spend so much energy trying to prove that PR doesn't work for anyone, just because it didn't work for them after they PR one or two books and expected to know every page by heart.

Does this sound imposible, to know every page by heart after PR a book and spending 20 min in total? probably yes, but it's possible, yes you read it right, it's possible and I will give you a proof of it now and even the greatest sceptics here will be convinced and everyone here will be much more motivated about PR.

just to mention, I have nothing to do with learning strategies.

so let's start, I live in Sweden and during a short period of time they were showing a very interesting program on tv. People in England will recognize what I am talking about, since the program originally comes from England and it's name is "Mind Control", and the main person in the program is Derren Brown, to all sceptics remember well this name.

Derren B. masters many skills that involve subconscious and as he says it took him a long time to reach that level. one of these skills is PR and in one program he demonstrated PR skill. He went to a library, I think it was in London, and he gave Oxford dictionary to a librarian (let's call him A). then DB (Derren B) asked A to open any page and to chose any row on that page. A chose a page and a row so he said to DB the page and row number. then DB told him what was written in that row. A was suprised, but even more suprised when DB told him that he spent only 20 min with Oxford dictionary.

Ok, maybe DB has spent 1 year learning every page of Oxford dictionary, we don't know that.
But they did another test, DB asked A to go around the whole library and to pick up some book. After some time A came back with a book, it was some book about history or philosophy or sth similar. Then DB took a book and spent with it 20 min. They showed him in photo focus state how he was flipping the pages.
After 20 min DB and A met again and they did the same
thing as before. A chose a page and a row and DB
told him what was writen in that row. Then A chose another
page and row and DB told him again what was written there.
Second time he made a small mistake, he pronounced
wrong one word in the row and A told him that, but before
A told him what word that was DB corrected himself and said that the word
was written in French and that it was written in
cursive style. Then DB explained for A that the amazing
technique he uses is called PhotoReading.

So all sceptics who want proof, you can buy a CD with Derren B. program and see with your own eyes what I described above.

And to Learning Strategy stuff you can also get this program and put this clip somewhere at
your web page, I doubt you can get better commercial for PR.

take care
Lule