Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ PhotoReading, Memory Optimizer SQ3R and PR

"I debated my teachers all the time, using patterns similar to what you are using now. Are you trained in NLP or do you just do this naturally?"

It comes from being a 'professionally-trained' philosopher...goin' to Grad school next year for my Ph.D.

It sounds to me as if being in Rapport means just being more open to the intuitive-empathetic signals during communication. It's fascinating though, your textbook's dealing with Rapport...I think we ought to look more closely at the possibility of what us "normal" people would consider paranormal phenomena like telepathy. Rupert Sheldrake, one of my favorite living scientists has actually collected hard data which strongly indicates some sort of telepathic bond as a natural phenomena. You guys know that I wouldn't drop this sensationally, I suggest looking in to his research for yourself, his website URL is:
www.sheldrake.org

Jonah, where does this scientific information exist? I'd be fascinated to know where in the Veda's they discuss anything like PRing

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kristoff Olafsson:

The only difference is the PR step, which, as I wrote and exhorted people exhaustively to realize, may or may not do anything beyond the so-called placebo effect, as yet, no available studies have analyzed the efficacy of the PR step in and of itself. This needs to be done, contrary to the obscurantist and looped-logically arguments of Believers such as AlexK.

---

This is very interesting to me, as I came to the same conclusion.

I decided to test exactly this possible placebo affect of the PR step.

I find the photoreading whole mind system very useful, and do not use any other method of reading. I have not had any type of spontaneous activation or other revelations leave me able to confirm for myself that the PR step actually plays a significant role in my reading, although I continue to use the PR step and preview/postview/mindprobing.

At my college, sophomores in the honors program are required to do a research project with a faculty member of their choice. I chose one from the psychology department (I’m a math and biology double major) and designed an experiment that would test the affect of the photoreading step in the system.

I have already posted the method on here at least once, but here it is again:
----------------------------
Take photoreaders, give them a book and questions. Let them preview, photoread, super read and whatever else they want to answer the questions.

Then, part two, give them the book, the questions, but this time, after the preview, substitute a duplicate book with content unrelated to the questions, but with a very similar appearance so as to cause them to believe that they had actually photoread the book. Then allow them to continue as normal with the activation and compare the results.
----------------------------------
At first, I was confident that I would get good results, but now I am not. I have not yet been able to complete the experiment due to the difficulties of getting together/training photoreaders, but I promise to post the results as soon as I am able.
Why did I lose confidence in getting a positive result from my experiment?
Well, the last time I mentioned my experiment here, Dana suggested that I talk to Paul Scheele first. I was very excited, and after a few attempts I did actually get to speak with the man himself.

Except… he hated my experiment. He said it was “lame at best.”
He said that the part where I switch the book, so the people think they photoread but actually didn’t was “the silly and annoying part” of my experiment.
He suggested that I just tell them not to photoread instead of tricking them.

Unfortunately, if I were to do that, it wouldn’t be testing whether or not PR is just a placebo step.

Whatever the results of my experiment, it won’t prove anything conclusively, but maybe someone else will repeat my experiment and we can’t figure this out. It doesn’t seem difficult at all …. Once you get a group of photoreaders together.

Adam

Sorry but I think that's lame too--please don't make PR look bad.

quote:

---

Originally posted by astrowill:
Sorry but I think that's lame too--please don't make PR look bad.

---

Care to explain why you think it's lame?

If the photoreading step is not just a placebo effect, then people should notice a difference in their performance even if they believe that they have photoread.

How would you test for a plaecebo effect?

AdamP the experiment is fine, but you will find that the PR'ing step is not a placebo effect. There is a certain amount of information already in the brain about the book, but not all of it.

I myself cannot understand why Paul Scheele would oppose such a study because it would just prove that PR'ing is not he placebo effect.

Yes, the 'experiment' is lame. The reason is because you are tricking the people by switching the book.

To Kristoff:
See how the brainwaves change when in meditation, concentration, etc. It is in any college psychology book. Even if there were no information on this, faith in the ability to PhotoRead is a big help.

"Chang's assertion that "ancient chinese scribes" used this same technique; where's the historical evidence?
KO" Off man. Where be the white man to write it all down? It isn't history until the white man writes. :-P

I guess our history is wronged then.

Chang

[This message has been edited by Chang Liu (edited April 27, 2003).]

I've tried activating without the PR step, and it's just not the same. The information in the book comes together a lot easier for me when I've PRed it, because bits and pieces of the gaps are being filled in by what my brain has already gotten. I am effortlessly able to read the text faster, too.

-youngprer

AdamP

I think your experiment seemed fine to me. Paul Scheele's suggestion to me seems flawed.

If you did your experiment the way Paul suggests I could critique it by asking whether they have really uploaded the info into their brain. For all we know it could just be getting into the super-relaxed accelerated learning state for a bit that makes the difference. Also, by switching texts you can show that the PR step doesn't just stimulate the brain in someway, that it really does all boil down to content.
So in a way you can detect paul's belief in the method because he assumes that the only way the PR step affects the reader is by the intake of information. Sort of expected really.

The PR step takes no great leap of faith. The research on implicit memory and priming is as old as the hills, I did my psychology dissertation on consciousness and had to cover that. The principles are the same, it's only the quantity of info that differs.

I'm quite interested in the how of PR works, s'pose it's cos i'm a psych student. Don't s'pose i could take a peak at your background research at some point?

Cheerio!

Nick

[This message has been edited by nickuk (edited April 28, 2003).]

The experiment seems fine to me. Tell us your results Alex. As to brainwaves, THEY AREN'T SO SIMPLE! Jonah, in most college textbooks I have seen have precious little about their change during concentration and meditation- in fact, many real studies indicate substantially different EEG's depending on the type of meditation. Therefore, they cannot be taken as proof of anything, in themselves. Your comment about faith makes sense: it is what I have been getting at all along.
KO