Talk:PhotoReading
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] any connection with..
..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)
It is unnecessary to have a negative attitude about photoreading. My simple question is "Did you read the book?" If you have, we can then continue this discussion because the Wikipedia article did not do the book justice and perhaps my remarks were not reporting but too opinionated. I wiil correct that being more jounalistic instead of giving value judgements. I agree with you there. However, Paul Scheele had some very viable information. Grant Hughes
Doctormatt, I agree with G. Hughes points. If you are not prepared to have you comments edited, you know... In addition, your statements about photoreading are weak. You haven't tried the method and yet you consider it "bulls...". On top of that, you are awaiting for independent, scientific evidence...are you also awaiting for FDA approval..? I believe you could be more impartial, read the book and users testimonials, try the method and then give your opinion. That might change the way you think and see life. It looks like you may benefit from it. Good luck. (edit at 13:29 8 October 2006 by user 67.191.92.177)
- No, I am not awaiting FDA approval. Thanks for asking. Doctormatt 23:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Other possible source for information on this
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)
[edit] Made some changes
I have made some changes to the article, but it was difficult in my opinion. From what I've seen, there are many 'contributors' that insert their opinions randomly onto the article. I hope someone organizes the article. I've spent quite a deal of time trying to provide better clarity by assigning sections to common elements scattered all around the introduction. Remember, the introduction is not supposed to bring out sides and issues but to give the reader a concise sense of the article itself.
I wish that no one will delete information because of subjective reasoning. Use objective judgement to do what's proper. Please refute it without words such as "lying, deceiving, good, etc." or "obviously, clearly, nonsensible". Evoking emotion with unsubstantiated words misleads from the truth. You can not state that something is obvious or clear without evidence. In the argument section, you can make a following note that refutes a statement that appears to be untrue if there is evidence behind it.
- LOL, you can rewrite the entire beggining section if you want, its been totally messed up for some time now. Anything i would write would be completely biased seeing as I'm a photoreader. I disagree with you putting the external systemic thinking link in the External links section seeing as i put it there to show a founding principle of photoreading and anyone who clicks on it probably won't make heads or tales of why its there in the external links section to begin with so i'll be moving it back. anyways, great job thanks for the contributions. CHERRYBOX
I edited the intro because there was many biased words that bashed photoreading. I simply neutralized some of it. -nueway
