Is this possible, sounds like something I saw on Amazing discoveries once. I think it’s a scam but it would be so cool to be able to do I have to know if it’s possible
http://www.photoreading.com/
I don’t know about photoreading but it sounds similar to speed reading, which Cecil has written about.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_155.html
I actually interned at Learning Strategies Corp, and though we’ve been out of touch for a couple of years, I’m pretty up on what they were doing then. I used photoreading successfully in college, along with other techniques, and I feel it helped me earn a 3+ GPA on 1-2 hours of study per week.
Anyhoo, I remember Paul Scheele (one of the head dudes) saying at the time that retention was about 70 percent. IIRC, they tested it by having people photoread books, then answer questions about 'em.
As opposed to speed reading, photoreading dumps the info directly into the other-than-conscious mind, the processing speed of which is quite a bit (like a billion times) faster than the conscious mind. The trick, then, is to get the info out again.
I never found the system to be all that useful for specifics like dates, names, etc., but on conceptual stuff (understanding how a certain process works) it seemed to do pretty well.
-
-
- Last I read, the science of neurology was beating the theory of two minds (consious and subconcious) to a bloody pulp. “Photoreading” appears to be selling one unproven theory based on another unproven theory. Hmmmm… - MC
-
Yes, PhotoReading is for real.
It uses a process of “mentally photographing” printed materials at rates exceeding 25,000 words a minute.
How practical is it? Beginners are able to get through information at least three times faster than they could using regular reading–with comparable comprehension.
Check out what people are saying on the PhotoReading boards:
http://www.learningstrategies.com/forum/cgi/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro
You can also order a free video of a television anchorman demonstrating PhotoReading on the news.
http://www.learningstrategies.com/photoreading/
Folks can learn PhotoReading through a book, home study course, or a live seminar. (Over 250,000 folks have the book.)
Pete
Wow! Are you the same Pete Bissonette who is president of Learning Strategies Corp? I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome you to the SDMB. I have to act fast, because you’ll be banned shortly.
Oh yeah, thanks for the unbiased info on PhotoReading.
'tis I.
I hope I don’t get banned. This is an interesting place. “Usurer” tipped me off to the conversation. Tried not to be commercial; information is great education.
c’est la vie
If that is you trying not to be a commercial, I’d hate to see the hard sell.
Welcome to the boards, Pete Bissonette.
For what it’s worth, I hope you don’t get banned. Ignoring who you are, I didn’t think you post was so bad.
Oh, and my $0.02: I’ll stick to the old-fashioned way of reading, thank you very much.
From the rules of the SDMB:
The first post by Pete Bissonette is pretty obviously an advertisement. In order to register a user name you must go through a page which contains the complete rules of the SDMB. Most posters could claim ignorance and state that they missed that one little thing in all the rules of the SDMB. However, Pete Bissonette registered earlier today and is a trained PhotoReader. Therefore, we’re left with two possibilities, either Pete Bissonette has deliberately violated the rules of the SDMB, or PhotoReading doesn’t work. If the truth is the former, his post should be deleted and he should be banned. If the truth is the latter, his post should be ignored and he should be ridiculed.
Was it commercial because I wrote it? Or, would it have been commercial had anyone written it? (Those are rhetorical.) In looking back, I answered questions, said how to see what others are saying about it, and said how to get a copy of a televised newsreport on PhotoReading.
“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” 
Gone until next year. Have a good one.
Normally, we don’t allow commercial solicitations on our message board, and your first post is clearly one of those, Pete.
But this is a little unusual, in that the post is in response to a question from a non-affiliated person. And while you clearly support your product and aver that it works, you’ve made no attempt to hide your bias, at least after being asked about it.
I’ve kicked this upstairs for further consideration. In the meantime, though, please remove the commercial website from your profile.
Thank you.