ZMNC, while I do think you're having a naughty, little troll, I also believe you are raising a valid question here: Where are all these amazing Photoreaders with their amazing results?
The questions for comprehension in the PR book, are also pretty obvious without having 'Photoread' it, especially if you already have an interest and some knowledge of brain/mind-related ideas. Multiple-choice is an easy way to get people to give the response you want for your statistice.
For example:
The book 'Photoreading', bu Paul Scheele, is about:
(a) llama breeding
(b) making fruit smoothies
(c) improving your ability to process information at an other-than-conscious level
A far more realistic test would be one whereby the Photoreader has to summarize the contents of a chapter, giving full details and references without all the obvious prompting.
If you looked for the NASA study, you'll see that the results were as follows (source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhotoReading):
The results of the study generally follow the pattern that PhotoReading and normal reading require a similar amount of time to complete.
In one test, the expert scored 37 of 38 possible questions correct with normal reading taking 19.43 minutes to do so. Then the expert took a similar test after PhotoReading the passage and scored a 38 out of 38 possible questions correct in a time of 18.13 minutes. McNamara took the same test, and scored a 92% both times. However, photoreading took 21.30 minutes whereas regular reading took 15.80 minutes. These results do not support Scheele's 25,000 words per minute claims.
In a text about perception, the expert read normally and finished the text in 8.82 minutes and answered three questions of eight correctly. Then, the expert "photoread" the text in 0.87 minutes and proceeded to read the text for another 8.12 minutes before finishing. After photoreading, the expert scored one out of eight questions correctly.
These results do not support Scheele's assertions that Photoreading helps one study faster and with greater comprehension than with ordinary reading techniques.
To conclude the study, McNamara noted that, "In terms of words per minute (wpm) spent reading, there was no difference between normal reading (M = 114 wpm) and PhotoReading (M=112 wpm)" (10). So why is it that so many people tout photoreading? In her conclusion, McNamara states that, "One aspect of the PhotoReading technique is that it leaves the reader with a false sense of confidence."
I, too, remain unconvinced. I like LSCs products, and I'm not accusing LSC of anything underhand here, but I, too, would like to see a bit more - or any - concrete evidence that it actually works, beyond people just saying it does! It reminds me of Ziad Fazah and his claim that he speaks 57+ languages, yet when he was actually called on to perform, he couldn't understand even the most basic of utterances in languages at which he is supposed to excel. So, Jacktuff13, I don't think it's a matter of gloating; it's a question of no concrete evidence supporting the claims of Photoreading, much like being unable to understand 'What day is it?' in Russian, when you claim to be the world's most accomplished polyglot.
Photoreading isn't the only 25,000 pm reading system out there. Ed Strachar has a system called 'Reding Genius' out there, and Dan Lee Dimke created a program in the 70s that he teaches in his Ultralearn seminar.
