›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Photoreading

Nine BoomerNine Boomer
edited January 2009 in Everything Else
So I learned of this little thing called photoreading, which is essentially the fastest way that you can read. It's reading at 1 page a second.

Basically, the way it works is that you don't even consciously read the page, you're letting your brain read it for you 1 page per second. Then, after you finish reading the book you are able to recall what you had just read. It's a bit more complicated than that, because you have to get yourself in the right frame of mind and relax yourself. You're also supposed to skim through before you start photoreading so that you can find a goal for your brain to focus on.

I tried it out once, by photoreading a dictionary. I then imagined a random word, and thought of the location on the page of this word. Despite having no conscious recollection of ever seeing this word, I still managed to guess the correct location and another subsequent word. I can say for sure that I did not consciously seek out these words during the process of photoreading, and although my choice of the word might have been biased, there was certainly no conscious bias.

This seems like something I should pursue and learn more about, but the whole thing sounds like BS. However, I definitely had a very real experience in which that I can personally say that it worked (so far), and I need to see if I can attain good comprehension of a book with this thing before I can consider it useful. Also, this sounds like something I would use for speeding through boring stuff. I wouldn't want to speed read the Prince of Nothing. I would want to speed read through a manual as long as I can understand everything. Before I spend more time on it I want to hear if other people have had any experiences or info concerning photoreading? I'm doubtful, so at least I'll be spreading this information to everyone on this forum.

Comments

  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    edited January 2009
    Ok.. why do I want this? If I am searching for information, I'm not looking in a book and if I'm reading narrative, I'm taking time to read it. What scenario does this work best in?
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • StarfoxStarfox
    Basically, the way it works is that you don't even consciously read the page, you're letting your brain read it for you 1 page per second.
    What does that even mean? You let your brain read it? It's just pseudoscience bullshit.
    You're also supposed to skim through before you start photoreading so that you can find a goal for your brain to focus on.
    Right. Because a page a second isn't skimming.
    I then imagined a random word, and thought of the location on the page of this word.
    How are you sure it was random? How specific was your prediction of where it would be on the page?
    I still managed to guess the correct location and another subsequent word.
    Congratulations. You got two words out of a whole dictionary. That's some great comprehension.
    the whole thing sounds like BS.
    Nailed it!
  • my quaymy quay
    I have a low opinion of Photoreading. One of my former bosses used to teach it (rather than her actual job) and she was also inapporpriately promoting it at work. Not particularly professional. The few people she convinced to do it over the weekend weren't impressed by it either.
  • Nine BoomerNine Boomer
    edited January 2009
    What does that even mean? You let your brain read it? It's just pseudoscience bullshit.
    You let your subconscious read it. Hell if I know. (BS part, of course)
    How are you sure it was random? How specific was your prediction of where it would be on the page?
    I doubt it was truly random, but what I said later on was that if I had a bias, I was not aware of it. For how specific the prediction was, I was spot on. I know exactly where it was on the page. It was on the left page, second column, a little above halfway through the page. The word was polar. I don't remember what the second word was but I know that my prediction was also spot on.
    Right. Because a page a second isn't skimming.
    What I mean is that you read the titles of the chapters and the first paragraph to get the feel of the book. You don't skim through the whole book, it's just so that you can understand the whole idea of what it is about.
    Congratulations. You got two words out of a whole dictionary. That's some great comprehension.
    This isn't pure magic, it's not supposed to work instantly. If it claimed it did, then you could safely ignore it knowing it's BS. Also, my mind was starting to wander so I wasn't able to bring up any more words. If it's true, then it's a skill that you would have to develop with time.

    I'm looking at my personal findings, these two words that I accurately determined the location of in the dictionary. Understandably, you look at this with a critical eye. However, I get the feeling that if I was able to find the location of those two words, there has to be at least a little smidgen of truth even if all the grandiose claims are false. At the very least, I could waste about 30 minutes - 1 hour of my life doing something pointless. Honestly, I don't have high hopes, but if I leave this thread hanging loose it will be nagging me for a long time.
    Post edited by Nine Boomer on
  • RymRym
    I call shenanigans. Without a proper, controlled study, I doubt that this is a viable means of accomplishing anything.
  • WalkerWalker
    The Wikipedia article details a scientific study of photoreading, which concluded that it works, but that it probably gets you nothing more than a false sense of confidence. It links to a 28 page paper on the study as the source.

    Not looking so good for photoreading.
  • StarfoxStarfox
    I doubt it was truly random, but what I said later on was that if I had a bias, I was not aware of it.
    The thing is, even if you weren't conscious of any bias, if one were there it still invalidates your data. Which is anecdotal to begin with, so it was no good anyway.
    the PhotoReading expert generally showed an increase in reading time when using the PhotoReading technique in comparison to when using normal reading strategies to process text. This increase in reading time when PhotoReading was accompanied by a decrease in text comprehension.
    Wow, sure sounds effective.
  • MamathMamath
    I've heard of people reading a sentence or paragraph at a time. That actually seems reasonable. Provided the paragraph wasn't too big... I don't think that's meant to be reading on a "subconscious" level though. Just plain old reading but really fast.
  • gordothemangordotheman
    I agree with Mamath. I do believe the photoreading seems unrealistic. I find it highly unlikely that someone could read a page in one second. However, there is such a thing called speedreading. It is the ability to read texts at a substantially faster rate. I believe I have heard that once you have mastered the skill you can read a paragraph in a matter of seconds. This is a more realistic goal if you want to read faster. it takes practice,but it is feasible.

    Photoreading to me sounds like a cousin of photographic memory. The ability to recall information because you have that specific image in your head. However, I do think that you would skip alot of information in the text if you tried to "Photoread".
  • RymRym
    edited January 2009
    details a scientific study of photoreading, which concluded that it works,
    That "study" is unimpressive. Furthermore, this seems based on or related to "Neuro-linguistic programming," which it itself bunk. Most of the "articles" linked to from this one are also bunk, filled with weak or misleading citations and generally poor research (if it could even be called such).

    This is 100% woo-woo flim-flam made-up garbage. I maintain my shenanigans.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • Nine BoomerNine Boomer
    I agree, the study on wikipedia is quite weak. Also, is it the only one? I would assume that if there was more studies on this subject, Wikipedia would have had a much more general section instead of this dedicated piece about the study.
  • RymRym
    I would assume that if there was more studies on this subject, Wikipedia would have had a much more general section instead of this dedicated piece about the study.
    Articles like this one are written and maintained by a fairly static set of nutjobs who seem to make it their mission to "get the word out" on their collective delusions.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited January 2009
    I've heard of people reading a sentence or paragraph at a time. That actually seems reasonable.
    I've done that before, but it was always with some material with which I already had a high degree of familiarity.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
Sign In or Register to comment.