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

Neither can the differences between PR and speed reading be used to justify the lack of participation in an event in which independent organizers measure reading speed objectively. After all, reading speed is measured by the total number of words read or photo-read divided by the total number of minutes spent. Since Pete or some of his trainers have the ability to scan screenful of words without the normal preview/activation steps, a multi-session v. single session difference in the speed-reading v. PR does not even exist Note that I am not saying participation in such a contest is the only way to enhance PR technique’s credibility, but some tests conducted by independent organizers certainly would help.

Some of you imply that healthy skeptics either have not read a PR book because they are unwilling to spend $12, or are not open-minded. These suggestions are certainly ludicrous. For one thing, the mere fact that they are willing to spend a lot of time here exploring the controversial technique and sincerely interacting with experienced PR practioners certainly speaks to the contrary. However, they don’t treat PR as a religion, but an experimental technology. As such, a typical approach, such as “believe it first, faith will follow” or “millions of people are practicing it and have benefited from it,” does not appeal to those skeptics, because these are the methods relied upon by religions.

Since I have followed very closely neuroscience developments, I will be very interested if Alex could point out to me what specific scientific results conducted using PET and fMRI would lend DIRECT support to PR technique itself.

quote:

---

Some of you imply that healthy skeptics either have not read a PR book because they are unwilling to spend $12, or are not open-minded. These suggestions are certainly ludicrous. For one thing, the mere fact that they are willing to spend a lot of time here exploring the controversial technique and sincerely interacting with experienced PR practioners certainly speaks to the contrary.

---

Since I'm the only one who mentioned purchasing a $12 book or borrowing one from your local library, I'm thinking these comments are directed to me.

I'm not so sure that it's a ludicrous suggestion. How much time would you estimate that you've spent here when you speak of "a lot of time?" Now tell me how much time would it normally take you to read 80 pages? The entire Photoreading system is clearly outlined in the first 80 pages of the book. As I mentioned previously, there's even a test on page 77 that you can use to measure and evaluate your progress with the system. The main points of the system are highlighted so that you can get the gist of the system in 25 minutes.

Would you say that you've spent more or less than 25 minutes looking for validation of what you've read? I would say that your time could have been better spent exploring the system for yourself and testing yourself to see if it works. That's all that really matters anyway, whether it works for you or not.

I'm sorry you think my suggestions are ludicrous. It was never my intention to imply that you and others are not open minded. I just think you could have conducted your search for the truth about Photoreading in a more productive and less time-consuming way.

Ultimately, it's your time and you should spend it any way you choose.

[This message has been edited by scribe (edited April 10, 2005).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by WestJohnson:
A new drug may work for some people but not for others. Yet there are meaningful statistic analyses out there to determine the efficacy and approvability of the drug.

---

And drugs wind up being removed because the side effects are even more dangerous than the benefits. Drugs only work in 20% of the cases as they are designed to... there is too much differnence in an individual's biology to unlock the key to make drugs work exactly as they should.

quote:

---

The inability to device a statistically meaningful test on the PR technique and the current absence of such a test simply cannot be explained away by saying it will take (or “waste”?) time to do so.

---

Test have been done but have been refuted because they involve a human subject.

quote:

---

Neither can the differences between PR and speed reading be used to justify the lack of participation in an event in which independent organizers measure reading speed objectively.

---

Comparing speedreading to PhotoReading is like comparing a car to a jet... it's not the same thing. They are different modes of reading. You have to give up your old rules for reading to learn PhotoReading Page 17 of the book for more detail.

quote:

---

After all, reading speed is measured by the total number of words read or photo-read divided by the total number of minutes spent.

---

Your statement is inaccurate. I can PhotoRead a book in Chinese but there is no way I can say I've read the book at any speed since I don't know Chinese. Reading is meaningful comprehension

quote:

---

Since Pete or some of his trainers have the ability to scan screenful of words without the normal preview/activation steps, a multi-session v. single session difference in the speed-reading v. PR does not even exist

---

How Pete did that is explained repeatedly on the forum. Learn PhotoReading properly first.

quote:

---

Note that I am not saying participation in such a contest is the only way to enhance PR technique’s credibility,

---

quote:

---

but some tests conducted by independent organizers certainly would help.

---

They chose to release or not release the results as they pay for them. Yes, it would help. Care to set up a feasable project?

quote:

---

Some of you imply that healthy skeptics either have not read a PR book because they are unwilling to spend $12, or are not open-minded. These suggestions are certainly ludicrous. For one thing, the mere fact that they are willing to spend a lot of time here exploring the controversial technique and sincerely interacting with experienced PR practioners certainly speaks to the contrary. However, they don’t treat PR as a religion, but an experimental technology. As such, a typical approach, such as “believe it first, faith will follow” or “millions of people are practicing it and have benefited from it,” does not appeal to those skeptics, because these are the methods relied upon by religions.

---

There is nothing wrong with a little skepticism as long as it doesn't keep you from maximizing your potential.

quote:

---

Since I have followed very closely neuroscience developments, I will be very interested if Alex could point out to me what specific scientific results conducted using PET and fMRI would lend DIRECT support to PR technique itself.

---

I'm watching also. We haven't figured out how to plip pages in a PET yet

Alex

[This message has been edited by Alex K. Viefhaus (edited April 12, 2005).]

It sounds like you wasted a lot of time and money. Doesn't it bother you that those authors may have been conning the public?

quote:

---

It sounds like you wasted a lot of time and money. Doesn't it bother you that those authors may have been conning the public?

---

I wasted some time, I didn't waste a lot of money.

I'm not bothered by it at all. I'm sure those techniques have worked for some people, they just didn't work for me. I don't expect that anything will work for everyone with the same degree of success.

Do you think they are conning the public because I couldn't make their methods work?