Home Page Search Eng. Jeff Oliver Merl's World NLP and Addictions
[ < Prev ] Thread Index [ Next > ]

Photoreading validation?

  Well, the temperature of the flames seems to have gone down
considerably since the Inquisition, it hardly burns at all.  :)
(I'm not prepared to recant though).
Maybe this mildness is thanks to the Enlightment & Science.
(Please don't start praying to these, however, anyone).      :))

  My question about scientific studies on step 3 (the actual
"Photoreading") of the Photoreading Whole Mind System wasn't intended
as some kind of sarcasm, as some might have interpreted it as. I
think scientific method is incredibly important for creating useful
belief systems. If the hypothesis stands the tests of experiments,
one can choose to believe in it for all useful purposes, until
someone comes along and disproves it and perhaps introduces an
alternative hypothesis. The problem with the mental health area is of
course that it's incredibly difficult to come up with a hypothesis
that lasts longer than 5 minutes. Still, people have to act according
to some belief system in this area. In this context, someone could
hardly be blamed for believing something that later gets disproved.

 The argument that one has to believe first in order to succeed, is
naturally relevant in some situations. Not, however, if the success
outcome is to be able to take the decision on whether one should
believe a certain statement or not. (And my "inner genius" tends to
agree, Patrick Farrell).

 I think, however, that the hypothesis that Photoreading works could
be tested in a fairly straight forward way with control groups,
statistics, etc. at some university for instance, perhaps as some
project done by students. This could have been done out there, and I still
don't know that it hasn't.

 As for the theories why Photoreading would work, I think they seem
somewhat far-fetched. This is also what made me use the word "con": I
wonder if  Dr.* Paul Scheele belieives in them himself. If I would
learn everything about all I've got in front of my eyes when I'm in
trance, I would know very much more than I know now. But, of course,
this not really a proper scientific disproof.  (& Dennis: I'm glad I
don't remember all sex in the smallest detail, only selected parts.
I'm not going to try to read a book next time.)    :)

 I'm not sure that the stating of the workings of Photoreading has
a great deal to do with cultural differences (as George Wade
suggested). It goes a bit above the normal sales pitch with "great",
"fantastic", "mind-boggling", "life-changing", etc.. I think also an
american company needs to be taken seriously in order to make big
business.

 Let me also repeat that I still find the ideas around Photoreading interesting

and stimulating. I certainly started to think about how I read books
in a different way when I read the book on Photoreading.
I think that the controversial could have been avoided if roughly the same
content would have been presented in a different manner. The photoreading
step could, for instance, have been presented as a way of improving the way
one approaches reading, as a way of feeling relaxed in front of the book.
There certainly should be a point to relearning some of the strategies we
learnt in school. On such a platform the business could be presented with
all types of "great"s & "fantastic"s it sees fit, without loosing any
robustness.

 Alternatively, if a scientific study would confirm that trance-state
book-flipping has remarkable effects on learning the content of the
book during the actual flipping, another situation would occur. One
could show this study to back up the claims, and interesting changes
in belief systems would most likely take place. People would start
trying out trance in nearly all situations where learning is
intended, with all senses and new methods of plugging the "unconcious
mind" with information.  Why not spin text at huge speed on a computer
screen?  (Perhaps I should have applied for a patent)       :)

 Sorry for the length, but at least I managed to stop here...

 Kind Regards,

 Karl Kirsten


 * I didn't intend any disrespect, Patrick Farrell (I hope that one was
OK. I myself prefer people to use my first name, not to call me MS). In the
book on Photoreading I got, Dr. Paul Scheele states that he has a Master of
Arts
degree. Maybe he got a Ph.D. after that.  Or perhaps he got the title the same
way
Dr. Bandler got his.