Twotontim,
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 |
Request for Answer Clarification by
twotontim-ga
on
18 Nov 2002 12:28 PST
Hello Hammer,
Thank you for your response. I should have been more clear in my
original question. I'm very sure that you are correct, and no
scientific studies have ever been performed on the "PhotoReading Whole
Mind System". What I'm interested in specifically is the
"PhotoReading" step of the system, which involves the reader looking
at the pages of the book without consciously focussing, and
(supposedly) allowing the subconscious to gather the information while
bypassing the conscious mind. The "altered form of consciousness" is
simply a relaxed non-focussed state.
It is this idea of reading/gathering information directly to the
sub-conscious that I had originally intended to ask about with my
question. Having already read the book and being familiar with the
ideas, it never occurred to me that my question was vague. I apologize
for the confusion.
|