Talk:PhotoReading

Common sense

Provided it is true that Scheele trained a mere 150 individuals, there is no way one can postulate he pursues commercial interests. 1-on-1 training as suggested by the quote is akin to a philanthropic deed out of conviction.

Those 110 w/min achieved by McNamara is elementary school level. It's what you should aim at when reading source code or mathematical proofs.

Personally, I have listened to time-compressed speech in a foreign language at a rate of 500 w/min and I can share with you that it has been intelligible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenrius (talk • contribs) 09:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

My biggest gripe so far

I have begun the audio cassette program (comes with a manual and book) and my biggest gripe so far is that the program really is only 10% content. I am not judging the content. I don't know if it works or not yet, but I went through about 4 chapters now and he keeps mentioning how great photoreading is and how much it will benefit me. I know how much reading fast with high comprehension will benefit me -- that's why I bought his program! The entire program can fit on one two sided cassette. I understand that he might be trying to keep me motivated, but the motivation will come when I see results. Results won't come fast if he's talking about how awesome his program is 90% of the time.

any connection with..

..Eidetic memory? I think there is.

I made some changes yesterday to Paul Scheele's photoreading explanation that were very cogent. Why did the Widipedia staff delete them? I read the book "Photoreading" and I am a cum laude Ph.D. The explanation of photoreading before I edited it was condescending to the genius of Dr. Scheele. It is eidetic memory but I explained how it works with Dr. Scheele's help in the photoreading book. I do not appreciate deleting my pertinent text. It was very good. User:Dr. Grantham Hughes 04:24, 3 October 2006

Well, first of all, this is what Wikipedia is all about. I suggest that you not make edits here if you aren't prepared to have others make changes to them. Note that the changes weren't made by "staff", but by a contributor just like you. Second, my opinion is that "Photoreading" is bullshit. I can find no independent research suggesting that this method has any validity whatsoever. Until someone gives at least one reference to an independent, scientific study of this technique, I think an encyclopedia should not suggest that the method is anything but a commercial venture. To do so amounts to advertising. Doctormatt 18:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to have a negative attitude about photoreading. My simple question is "Did you read the book?" If you have, we can then continue this discussion because the Wikipedia article did not do the book justice and perhaps my remarks were not reporting but too opinionated. I wiil correct that being more jounalistic instead of giving value judgements. I agree with you there. However, Paul Scheele had some very viable information. Grant Hughes

Doctormatt, I agree with G. Hughes points. If you are not prepared to have you comments edited, you know... In addition, your statements about photoreading are weak. You haven't tried the method and yet you consider it "bulls...". On top of that, you are awaiting for independent, scientific evidence...are you also awaiting for FDA approval..? I believe you could be more impartial, read the book and users testimonials, try the method and then give your opinion. That might change the way you think and see life. It looks like you may benefit from it. Good luck. (edit at 13:29 8 October 2006 by user 67.191.92.177)

No, I am not awaiting FDA approval. Thanks for asking. Doctormatt 23:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

search for proof

My biggest question is: has dr. Scheele demonstrated to public HIS OWN ability to read at 1page/second? Raigedas (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well he's got us on a technicality - he claims that the photoreading part, the part where you skim it over with your eyes is the actual reading portion. However, to "activate" this you need to read it more or less normally. If you take a look at the study you will see that the photoreading part was considered a very small amount of time, and the non-photoreading part (regular reading essentially, though they call is something fancier like super reading and dipping), is the other portion fo the time spent

So, I will say that if you want to split hairs you can photoread something and not understand it, and then "activate" read: "actually read" something and really understand it. The book itself states something like, "the entire process will probably cut your reading time to 1/3 the orignal time" - this is equivalent to speed reading. The problem with that is that speed reading was semi-debunked years ago when researches took two separate texts and alternated one line of one text with one line of another (interweaving the texts), then people read these texts and said "they had a good understanding of the texts", then they were told that the information was nonsensical. This is the sort of confidence portion of it.

I will say one thing about photoreading - it may help you access information faster when you look for information in a book. Somehow when you page through a book, it is just easier to find things especially in reference texts. But, this does not change the fact that this is a scam of sorts - pseudoscientific hype. Don't buy it. - Photoreadingdebunker

Other possible source for information on this

I found this thread on a science blog that discusses PhotoReading from a somewhat objective perspective. I don't have time to go through it now, but it looks like they link to some independent research:

http://www.sciforums.com/-t-3341.html

I found no links to independent research on this page. It only has an old discussion about photoreading, with a lot of people indicating interest, and scepticism, with many seeking independent verification and not getting it. Doctormatt 01:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to add that there is now a study that fully routes the PhotoReading idea. In addition, there is also a skeptical analysis. I feel very strongly about this issue since I was taken in by Scheele several years ago and spent a lot of time and money learning about the technique. Caveat emptor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.197.206 (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If the above person is referring to the "preliminary report" by McNamara, you should read this page: www.learningstrategies.com/photoreading/NASA . The author of the preliminary report was also one of two subjects of the report, which does not a study make. You'll also find a few other points that brings into question the entire document, which, again, the author called a "preliminary report," not a "study." That's a huge distinction. Good & Fair (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Made some changes

I have made some changes to the article, but it was difficult in my opinion. From what I've seen, there are many 'contributors' that insert their opinions randomly onto the article. I hope someone organizes the article. I've spent quite a deal of time trying to provide better clarity by assigning sections to common elements scattered all around the introduction. Remember, the introduction is not supposed to bring out sides and issues but to give the reader a concise sense of the article itself.

I wish that no one will delete information because of subjective reasoning. Use objective judgement to do what's proper. Please refute it without words such as "lying, deceiving, good, etc." or "obviously, clearly, nonsensible". Evoking emotion with unsubstantiated words misleads from the truth. You can not state that something is obvious or clear without evidence. In the argument section, you can make a following note that refutes a statement that appears to be untrue if there is evidence behind it.

---

• LOL, you can rewrite the entire beggining section if you want, its been totally messed up for some time now. Anything i would write would be completely biased seeing as I'm a photoreader. I disagree with you putting the external systemic thinking link in the External links section seeing as i put it there to show a founding principle of photoreading and anyone who clicks on it probably won't make heads or tales of why its there in the external links section to begin with so i'll be moving it back. anyways, great job thanks for the contributions. CHERRYBOX

---

I edited the intro because there was many biased words that bashed photoreading. I simply neutralized some of it. -nueway

To do

McNamara and Danielle in Preliminary Analysis of Photoreading reported "The results for all measures yielded no benefits of using the PhotoReading technique. The extremely rapid reading rates claimed by PhotoReaders were not observed;" [1]

That article is available as a free link. Check the skepticism link in the main article for that link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.197.206 (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The skepticism has been responsed by Learning Strategies Corportation(http://www.learningstrategies.com/PhotoReading/NASA) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.77.231.125 (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Skepticism

The section detailing the skepticism is awesome. It pretty much disproves the efficacy of this technique. 168.103.155.97 (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read the above mentioned response from Paul Scheele and Learning Strategies. I think you'll find it more awesome. As an aside, I took a PhotoReading seminar from Paul once where he said that skepticism is healthy, but keep an open mind. Good & Fair (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Error

Error: In the Ms McNamara's report,the expert was not Mr Scheele but a woman authorized trainer

Thanks. Fixed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.69 (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In a text about perception, Scheele took 8.82 minutes to read the text using normal reading. There is still an error. It was not Scheele but a woman authorized trainer. Daniel Gagnon www.lecturerapide.info

OK now it is fixed.

contested statements removed

• The distinguishing feature of PhotoReading as opposed to normal reading is that is involves the reader's unconscious mind to rapidly absorb material visually and then logically or consciously recapture the information thus memorised via multiple perusals, as opposed to conventional reading or speed reading, which relies solely on the conscious mind to sort information through one passing conscious mind. {{Fact|date=December 2006}}*Finally, it is claimed that the reader can rapidly read the book to gain a better and more complete understanding of the book.{{Fact|date=December 2006}}

Please do not return this information to the article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 15:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the article

I checked this out upon running across an advertisement for a trial offer. It's a wonderful resource when I can always check wikipedia for "is xyz a scam" and find an entry on it. Looks like the summary is that it can be as good or slightly better than normal reading, but never a jillion times better. If somebody can dig up what they ask for in payment for the package, that would be nice too. Nice job folks. Bachcell (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Stubbing

I started stubbing the article. It should be reduced further unless new references are found (independent, reliable sources that is). Maybe a sentence or two from the study, a bit more about the company that offers it, a short and descriptive definition, etc. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm so far unable to find any independent, reliable sources. I'm also frustrated by what Learning Strategies Corporation's inability to concisely describe the product themselves. --Ronz (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.photoreading.com/howdoesitwork.asp provides a bit of information that might be used for a definition. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)