You know what? I give up.
If you guys don't wanna do it, then don't do it. Everybody who has the system down is just shaking their heads at this topic, because you're trying to disprove that the world is round to them.
* What does it say about the system when a Photoreading instructor performed worse then average readers?
Show me the case study on this. While I could say the instructor was incompetent, I'm curious about it (this better not be that NASA case we talked about already).
* Why is Paul Scheele and Pete Bisonette not in the Guines Book of World Records when they can read as fast or faster then Howard Berg?
Because IT'S NOT REALLY READING, HOW MANY TIMES DOES THIS HAVE TO BE STRESSED? You SKIP sections! If you want to argue against the efficacy of photoreading, argue the fact that they SKIP sections. They'll argue how important that skipped section was to the text, and then it's something interesting. But the reason they're not in the record books is because it's NOT really reading.
* Is it reasonable to believe that they can teach most people to read as fast as the fastest reader in the world?
It's not really reading...
* What can be originally credited to Paul Scheele in this system?
Another point. Originally credible to Paul Scheele is the activation process. If you want to disprove someone, go over to subdyn where I think they try to teach spontaneous activation to beginners.
* Why do they only guarantee a 3x faster reading speed?
They guarantee a 3x reading speed for when you start out. After that you increase.
* Why have they not did a ton of scientific studies to counter these types of questions?
Because these type of questions have already been answered with previous studies on the original systems.
* How strong is the argument that the system works because they are a licensed private school?
I don't know who used that argument, but yeah, it's crap. That doesn't necessarily mean the system doesn't work, though.
* What achievements has Paul or Pete made outside of this system and have they demonstrated its effectiveness in some other field?
They've taken a professor who had a doctorate in reading and wrote a book on reading efficiently, and after he took the course, he now practices PRing instead and is working with LSC.
* How many people on this forum claim to have "really got" the system as described?
This question really irks me.
After people "really get" the system, not many stick around. I can't even count the number of people who've gotten it already and left. In fact, why am I still here dealing with this?
Some points:
*If you don't want to learn the system, then don't. It makes no difference to me. I don't know if you've read the replies to your posts, because your questions have already been answered several times now.
-Where is the scientific back up?
-Why only 3x?
-I think Dana answered your question on the two studies you mentioned already
These have already been answered here and in other posts. This is such a dead topic and the same exact points have been asked and answered in the archives repeatedly. This is probably seconded only by "Does the Photoreading step really work?"
They have no scientific reason for why planes fly. They use drag and lift to illustrate it, but it's not the reason. They just know it flies.
You're telling a bunch of people who've been in airplanes that you won't fly in one unless you see why it works, waving papers of examples where planes haven't taken off, asking for scientific research since there isn't any.
Why would you do a side-by-side comparison if you can already see that people can photoread and do well on a comprehension test? What's the point of having regular readers there? To take longer on the test and do well on a comprehension test? There's NO POINT.
Buy the course, try it, return it, if you're that curious about it. That usually appeases most skeptics.
This is my last post here, since I've answered this thread over and over again with different subject headings.