Thread: Photo reading

I need to learn how to photo read.[/b]

Photo reading doesnt actually exsist.

Those desiring to increase the speed of their reading would do better to enroll in a community college course devoted to building study skills, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. It would cost them less, and they would not end up wasting their time trying to read 10 lines at a time, backward and forward. They would also avoid the frustration that will be inevitable when they find that while they can skim through material at a greater rate than they can read it, the utility of such a skill is limited (good for most of what's likely to be in the daily newspaper, for example, but not for studying physics or reading a good novel). Skimming makes both comprehension and taking pleasure in words or ideas next to impossible. Why read fiction at all if you don't want to enjoy the language and the ideas? Who would want to hire a physician or lawyer who skimmed rather than read his or her texts?[/b]

http://skepdic.com/speedreading.html
Oh psychology wise i just read the theories by Boris Sidis. Well dont waste your money on photo reading it a con.

is there anything anyone has said here you agree with?

is there anything anyone has said here you agree with?[/b]

Well i agree with onus about the subconscious he has explained the problem i had with it.

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

Photo reading doesnt actually exsist.[/b]

Once again, you are going by what you have read somewhere instead of experience.
I know it to exist. For I have done so my self on a basic level and learned it from some one who can do it well.
They even taught the basic concept in our school for crying out loud.

It is not meant to read novels and such. More for information purposes.

A member UMJ was very into photo reading.
Here is one of his posts ---> http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/index.php?...ic=8659&hl=

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

Photo reading doesnt actually exsist.
[/b]

Are the people that clam to be able to photo read fake? Do they just guess the content of the book and is it just a coincidence that they are right? It all comes down to proof in the end, but I've read somewhere that they tested this and that the photo reader was correct. They flashed a page of text every second or something similar. And I don't think that you linked the proper article. That says speed reading, not photo reading.

Ok you have your beliefs and thats ok, but don't you eaven except that there is a small possibility for it's existance?

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

its a stupid argument
even scientists dont know how our minds/brains truly work
we udnerstand 15%
the rest is what we categorize as our subconcious mind
[/b]

I just wanted to note that I have seen a lot of people use this percentage of understanding concept.

Stop it!

How can you rate a percentage of understanding when you are simultaneously admitting that you do not know how much of it you can know? Is this not the samething as saying, "We are 10% of the way into our journey..... I do not know where we are going, but we are 10% there." This is really sophomoric as the percentage would change completely once you actually chose a designation and the percentage would completely change each time you changed the destination.

This also applies to the "we only understand 10% of our brains". If you are admitting that there are parts of the brain we do not yet understand or know of, then you can not put a percentage on how much you understand!

~

its a stupid argument
even scientists dont know how our minds/brains truly work
we udnerstand 15%
the rest is what we categorize as our subconcious mind[/b]

I didnt say that. I know the ten percent thing is a myth and we know virtually everything the brain does from scanning technology, all they have to do now is slot them together.

Are the people that clam to be able to photo read fake? Do they just guess the content of the book and is it just a coincidence that they are right? It all comes down to proof in the end, but I've read somewhere that they tested this and that the photo reader was correct. They flashed a page of text every second or something similar. And I don't think that you linked the proper article. That says speed reading, not photo reading.

Ok you have your beliefs and thats ok, but don't you eaven except that there is a small possibility for it's existance?[/b]

Put it this way their alot of people willing to take your money would you waste 15 pound if somebody offered you some magical beans that grew really high and then you can climb up it to get some gold. See you can waste your money on magical beans but i will keep mine.

Once again, you are going by what you have read somewhere instead of experience.
I know it to exist. For I have done so my self on a basic level and learned it from some one who can do it well.
They even taught the basic concept in our school for crying out loud.

It is not meant to read novels and such. More for information purposes.

A member UMJ was very into photo reading.
Here is one of his posts ---> http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/inde......ic=8659&hl=[/b]

This was pointed out on Darren Brown new book well he said it not photoreading but skimming see he said moron dont know the difference between skimming and photoreading.

Has there ever been any objective studies or research performed on the
concept of PhotoReading? If so, what was found? Is it effective? Does
it do anything? Is it worth using, or is it a waste of time?

http://www.learningstrategies.com/Ph...ding/Home.html[/b]

Normally, I wouldn't post a negative answer to this sort of question,
but, in this case, I think the indicators are strong enough to go
ahead and do so.

I see no mention of objective studies or scientifically valid research
on Photoreading. I see three types of mention of this subject:

1. Marketing sites for selling books and seminars on Photoreading. One
thing that seems to confirm the lack of scientific evidence that
Photoreading is effective is the lack of mention on these sites. If a
study proving its effectiveness was available, these sites would be
very likely to be jumping up and down about it.

Here is an example:
http://www.photoreading.com/
2. Photoreading is sometimes described as requiring an "altered form
of conciousness" to achieve. It is sometimes grouped with information
on Lucid Dreaming, hypnosis, Remote Viewing, etc. This is probably why
neilzero commented as he did.

3. Anecdotal evidence in both directions. A Groups search on Google
using "photoreading" turns up threads with people both swearing by
photoreading and insisting that it is pure drivel.

I do not, however, see any valid scientific studies on this topic.

- Hammer[/b]

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=109697
Well i can look for more but i think if you were not a moron you would look for it yourself. Their no evidence and it based on peusdoscience rubbish and all they want to do is take your money. Seriously you should be more skeptical. This remind me of NLP crap http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html see they push claims because they know a bunch of idiots are around the couner to give them money.

It is not meant to read novels and such. More for information purposes.[/b]

What information purposes well their something called a index, you know you want to know a fact so you look in the back find the page and turn to it. Also you can waste your time doing something else like planting your magical bean.

Becomingagodo

You're saying that PhotoReading is a con. I don't blame you for believing that because neather have I seen any scientific proofs nor do I know anyone, that I completely rely on, who can do it.

But I believe it can be done. I've read PhotoReading Whole Mind System and its really interesting.

You must know that Derren Brown is a magician not God.

Just a question: Doesn't Derren claim that Speed Reading is impossible too? But it is. I Speed Read but I'm not using any Meta Guiding technique such as reading 7 lines at one sweep. I use other techniques.

But I believe it can be done. I've read PhotoReading Whole Mind System and its really interesting.

You must know that Derren Brown is a magician not God.

Just a question: Doesn't Derren claim that Speed Reading is impossible too? But it is. I Speed Read but I'm not using any Meta Guiding technique such as reading 7 lines at one sweep. I use other techniques.[/b]

I belife that not science or proof i wish i could pick up object with my mind but i not going to go out and waste my money when it has no proof just claim i.e. it comes down to the would you buy some magical beans. Darren Brown says speed reading is okay, but he also says that the skill is useless this is supported by skeptics to http://skepdic.com/speedreading.html .

I did some database searching and becomingagodo is right so far. I have not found a single piece of research done on photoreading, speedreading, flashreading, etc.

This is the closest I have found to "research":

From BMJ Careers Journal:
http://careerfocus.bmj.com/cgi/content/ful...ourcetype=HWCIT

Speedreading is mentioned in this article but only as a credential that employers look for. The fact that I have not found any other sources with photoreading in it also indicate another frustrating truth; employers look for the implausible!

If anyone would like a list of the databases I have searched, please just post so and I will post them (I did not post here because it is very lengthy). Although, I will mention the databases I included were the American Psychological Association, Canadian Psychological Association, Society for Neuroscience, SAGE Publications, and a plethora more.

I think what these photoreading classes really do is essentially a placebo effect. Perhaps the classes merely bring focus and attention to the individual's reading and textual comprehension. The "new levels of consciousness" may simply be a new appreciation for reading. I do not see this as a bad thing at all. In fact, ask any psychologist and they will agree that humans almost always require some sort of "ritual" or training in order to feel that they are a certain person or that they have attained a certain skill (ie. rituals to becoming a man, school classes in subjects you may already know, etc.)

~

I cannot believe it took me this long to even notice the existence of this topic. I stopped looking for anything related to the original topic not long after it ended.

So it seems you do not have so much a problem with the unconscious, as you do with the Freudian view of the “man behind the curtain”. I thought I had been over that earlier. The views have changed from the Freudian belief. Psychologists do not even really refer to it as the unconscious/subconscious anymore. The functions are referred to as implicit, giving rise to ideas like implicit learning and whatnot. I am not going to review what I once wrote in the original topic, but I am sure it was there somewhere.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

Also, classical conditioning is NOT the root of all our behavior. It is one form of learning, there are others[/b]

all our behavior is learned i dont want to go into neurbiology and how the brain works because your proberly holding onto one side logic and one side creativity i can go into more detail if you want.[/b][/quote]

Due to this comment being directed at what I believe was one of mine, I feel it is only right that I give a rebuttal.

The argument I made was concentrated upon the false concept that you developed, which stated something to the effect of “classical conditioning is the root of all behavior.” The argument never addressed your counterargument, which is said with a clear behaviorist tone that pretends that every behavior is indeed learned. Instead, I point out that classical conditioning is not the source of every learned behavior, nor is it the root to all our behavior.

For a behaviorist, you do not seem to be well-informed about the concepts that comprise the explanation to behavior and learning. Classical conditioning is nothing more than learning through association. There are other sources of learning, for example, operant conditioning, which is learning through reinforcement/punishment. This form of learning is actually well established, and has helped with many disorders. Also, have you ever heard of a token system? It is based on this very concept. Perhaps, you are also familiar with the Skinner Box? Skinner is a well known behaviorist that used the concepts of operant conditioning with the Skinner Box.

Another example of learning is observational learning. This is the type of learning one might employ when watching someone operate machinery or a tool. Then later, they may get a chance to demonstrate what they observed. As to behavior, this shows how some people pick up certain tendencies from their parents or peers.

I see this brimming into epsitemology. Because of that, I would like to give some questions to consider:

- Do we learn how to breath? Have we always known since being a fetus..?
- Do we learn how to crawl? Was there a time, as an infant, that you struggled on the floor figuring out how to go form one place to another..?
- Do you learn the jargon of baby-language that summons your parents? Were you born with the instincts of survival..?
- If we were born with innate instincts, concepts, etc. does this mean that, when we first employed these innate concepts, that we learned their utility?

Hope I stirred the pot.

~

About your link, becominagodo. I don&#39;t think it&#39;s very reliable. Read "user&#39;s comments" at the bottom of the page...

As it&#39;s said in the article TRADITIONAL reading is not possible over 300 words per minute because in traditional reading you sound out the words in your head, aka. subvocalization. And RESEARCH have prooven that subvocalization does actually not have any thing to do with comprehension (according to "The Speed Reading Book by Tony Buzan). You must believe in direct eye-mind contact.

EDIT: if you want to learn more about speed reading ----&#62; http://www.studyhall.com/SPRD/spreading.html

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

What information purposes well their something called a index, you know you want to know a fact so you look in the back find the page and turn to it. Also you can waste your time doing something else like planting your magical bean.
[/b]

Thank you for pointing out your own ignorance on the matter so I did not have to. This clearly indicates you do not understand the concept.

As far as things being a hoax. You don&#39;t think every idea has their fair share of people who take advantage of consumers, I.E. - Lucid, dreaming pills.
So does that mean you cast the entire concept of lucid dreaming out the window?

There is no Truth to the Question&#39;&#39; Does the Subconscious exist?&#39;&#39;
Same thing for Time: Time doesn&#39;t PHYSICALLY exist, we made it up. But as I see it, in another way than Physical, it DOES exist. It is simply the way we can meisure the time between 2 events. Sunrise, Sundown, Winter Summer. Bla bla bla. So does that mean it Doesn&#39;t exist? Just cuz it isn&#39;t Material and Physical?

Nonsense. Do you have a Mind? It&#39;s non-physical, but it does exist. Just as Love. You wanna say love doesn&#39;t exist just because we made it up? Sure enough does exist. And so does the Subconscious.

The Subconscious is not some kind of fable to which we have no proof. The subconscious is a part of the Mind that is Clearly Different from our Conscious Mind. We have SEEN and NOTICED a difference and therefor DEVIDED the mind into 2, understandable, parts. Named the Conscious and the Subconscious Mind.

PS: Half of our ENTIRE reality, if not MUCH more, is MADE up by people. This remains to be the &#39;&#39;founded truth&#39;&#39; untill the contrairy or something entirely dfferent is proven. Then we Establish a new, updated &#39;&#39;Truth....Untill, in Turn, that Truth is proven to be untrue. And so on and so on. Make syou wonder about reality.

But I say: Reality is only for a Small part a solid, steady thing. Most of it keeps changing as we are Limited to our PERCEPTION of Reality. We keep finding out, forgetting, Finding out otherwise and rewriting Reality.
In a sense everything we THINK is true is True. Just like the Sky is Blue. It&#39;s simply all we know due to our &#39;&#39;Perception-handicap&#39;&#39;.
Feel it, See it, Experience it, Recognise it, Give it a name and a Description and Voila; Reality is born.

Thank you for pointing out your own ignorance on the matter so I did not have to. This clearly indicates you do not understand the concept.

As far as things being a hoax. You don&#39;t think every idea has their fair share of people who take advantage of consumers, I.E. - Lucid, dreaming pills.
So does that mean you cast the entire concept of lucid dreaming out the window?[/b]

No because their has been objective scientific studies to determined if lucid dreaming is possible and they all point to yes. However as onus has pointed out their is no objectable test to determined truth for photoreading. The reason why i am here now should suggest i not close minded but still i am no idiot. Our you&#33;

You got a point SKA but i guess i dont like magical thinking that where my problem with subconscious is. Reality is born well were only automatoms.

Do you think that the subconscious or let me rephrase that.. Our brain can process and remember information through a process that we are not consciously focused on?
What I mean by that is maybe listening to a CD when you sleep, subliminal messages.

Originally Posted by Howetzer

Do you think that the subconscious or let me rephrase that.. Our brain can process and remember information through a process that we are not consciously focused on?
What I mean by that is maybe listening to a CD when you sleep, subliminal messages.
[/b]

Now that is something I have seen fellow students do a study on.

However, what ended up happening was that the students who volunteered for the experiment got, for the most part, lazy and in fact did worse in class. Most of the others simply showed no correlational statistics in their grades or testing.

SKA:

Be careful when asserting that the mind has no physical properties - there are many neurology advocates that would argue that the brain is the mind. As a philosopher, I would say that the brain functionally acts as a mind for the human being along the similar basis that, the nervous systems of insects that do not have brains, functionally act as minds for them.

Furthermore, if we are limited to empirically believing only what we can perceive - then what is the perceptual realistic difference between the dream-state and wake-state? How can you trust your reality when many people have illusions, hallucinations, etc. and then claim that it is in fact no real when they perceived it? How can you trust reality in this respect?

Becomingagodo:

Interesting that you say scientists prefer the notion that lucid dreaming is possible. I have come across a plethora of psychologists and neurologists who simply say that you are actually only dreaming of a lucid dream - this is because of the neurological differences that remain between the dreaming or unconscious state and waking state. Also, there seems to be no neurological difference to a claimed lucid dream sleep and a normal dream sleep. Thus, you can understand why many people are hesitant to adapt such a theory or method of therapy.

I am not ignoring the fact that many psychologists do believe in lucid dreaming. I am just trying to make note that there are many who believe otherwise because of the neurological differences.

~

Some skeptics do not believe that there is such a state as lucid dreaming (Malcolm 1959). Skeptics don&#39;t deny that sometimes in our dreams we dream that we are aware that we are dreaming. What they deny is that there is special dream state called the &#39;lucid state.&#39; The lucid dream is therefore not a gateway to "transcendent consciousness" any more than nightmares are.

Self-awareness resides in the prefrontal cortex, which shows reduced activity during sleep for most people most of the time. This reduced activity may well be why we can dream of the most bizarre things without being aware of how bizarre they are until we wake up and remember them. Perhaps lucid dreaming is possible for some people because their frontal lobes don&#39;t rest during sleep.[/b]

http://skepdic.com/lucdream.html
Well i dont believe in a special state or trance http://skepdic.com/hypnosis.html . However as pointed out lucid dreaming proberly is just increased activity of your brain. Onus can you give links to the psychologist that dont believe in lucid dreaming.

... Do YOU beleive in it? Please, I am tired of you just posting links and taking your opinions from them. Answer us straight.

Do YOU beleive in it? Please, I am tired of you just posting links and taking your opinions from them. Answer us straight.[/b]

I believe in science so i take my views from science. So i have no opinions or belifes i just have scientific fact that why i post link so people can understand. Plus it shows i dont base my belifes on rubbish. Well moving back to the topic.

Do you think that the subconscious or let me rephrase that.. Our brain can process and remember information through a process that we are not consciously focused on?
What I mean by that is maybe listening to a CD when you sleep, subliminal messages[/b]

http://skepdic.com/subliminal.html if you have read the link then your see subliminal messages are rubbish and have no scientific evidence to support them. So then it boils down to belife.

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

I believe in science so i take my views from science. So i have no opinions or belifes i just have scientific fact that why i post link so people can understand. Plus it shows i dont base my belifes on rubbish. Well moving back to the topic.

http://skepdic.com/subliminal.html if you have read the link then your see subliminal messages are rubbish and have no scientific evidence to support them. So then it boils down to belife.[/b]

I think what you may be failing to see is that while books are a great source of reference, you cannot learn everything from a book.
You can&#39;t believe everything you read. That is dangerous.
Most likely anything you provide a link for that discredits something you can to find one that does not.

Thus, it is believed that one can influence behavior by surreptitiously appealing to the subconscious mind with words and images.[/b]

You don&#39;t think that companies spend tons of money on creating a commercial that will stick to your psyche? Sure there may not be hidden messages under the surface. But your mind is taking in more than you realize.

I think what you may be failing to see is that while books are a great source of reference, you cannot learn everything from a book.
You can&#39;t believe everything you read. That is dangerous.
Most likely anything you provide a link for that discredits something you can to find one that does not[/b]

Well it boils down to this do you trust science. Now if science says that the earth goes around the sun and gives evidence to support it i will believe it. See but then if you havent got evidence to base your belifes your no better then creationist as 99% of scientist reject creationism. Now you can become a moron and believe the scientist our wrong but then your moving into selection biased, confrimation biased and bad thinking.

You don&#39;t think that companies spend tons of money on creating a commercial that will stick to your psyche? Sure there may not be hidden messages under the surface. But your mind is taking in more than you realize.[/b]

Now again that is a belife and it not supported by science as their is no evidence for subliminal messages http://skepdic.com/subliminal.html .