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).]