Talk:PhotoReading

message: 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)
thread_title:  Common sense 

message: ..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)
replies: text: No, I am not awaiting FDA approval.  Thanks for asking.  Doctormatt 23:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  any connection with.. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  search for proof 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other possible source for information on this 

message: 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;"
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)
thread_title: To do

message: 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)
thread_title:  Skepticism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Error 

message: *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. *Finally, it is claimed that the reader can rapidly read the book to gain a better and more complete understanding of the book.
Please do not return this information to the article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 15:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  contested statements removed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  thanks for the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Stubbing