PhotoReading danger?

[paranoid?]

I just heard about photo reading recently and while it seems semi-valid I cant help but think it's incredibly dangerous.Am I misinterprating PR here?Because it seems to be the an example of extremly bad practise.

[Don]

Why do you think it would be "incredibly dangerous?"

[paranoid?]

Why do you think it would be "incredibly dangerous?"

Forgive me for exagarting, but the idea seems that it's suposed to go directly into your unconnsius, like a hypnotic trance, so like a trance wouldnt it be dangerous say to read t,like this, that it's a good idea to jump infront of a truck.

[Steve]

Photoreading is safe.
Hypereading is also safe (yes I'm biased ;-)

With the light trance used, you are quite conscious and able to reject unwanted suggestions.

[Simple Guy]

There is a distinction between receiving information into the subconscious
and acceptance of the premises contained in what is being read. Proponents
of some quick reading systems would probably point to this in response to
your question. They would likely say that info is received without conscious
interference, more rapidly, though not in a more non-critically acceptable
way.

[Don]

Your unconscious receives many billions of bit of information every day. You consciously action on a relatively few of them.

[Just me]

I have been discussing the issues for a while now with friends and believe that the danger may lie in an overload of information. While a healthy person may or may not be able to cope with this, I'd definitely advise anybody with psychological problems to refrain from PhotoReading. A friend of mine photoread a 1000 page psychology book when recovering from burnout, and she became seriously depressed -- which she had not been before.

[Don]

Hmmm. So you think that reading a book was more of a cause than the burnout? I would be inclined to think that burnout is far more likely to cause depression that reading a book...Well, I've read some depressing books, but although some psych books are boring, none I've seen have ever caused depression any more than listening to Ozzy caused people to commit suicide.

[P tèr]

Hello,
A few years ago I read a book about photoreading. I also met someone who had done it and was positive about it. In my enthousiasm I subscribed to a course in the USA. For me and my pal.
Then my friend asked for more references. I searched on the internet, and found very bad references. Only a minority could do it. I myself am able to read very fast without any exercise. And it was a lot of money. So, I asked more information about the course. It came back as that those people who could not do it, where lazy, just going to such a course because it was a kind of holiday. However, indeed, the percentage who were successful was low.

I asked my money back. They refused. I mailed Paul Grinder, because he recommended the course in the beginning of the book I mentioned above. He answered back he did not know anything about this recommendation. He contacted that course. I got my money back.

I do not know if in the latest edition this recommendation still exists. But I think photoreading is a fake. I am still glad I got out of this fake without damage. I would not take anymore any course from someone who advertises photoreading.
P tèr.

[Jack]

Forgive me for exagarting, but the idea seems that it's suposed to go directly into your unconnsius, like a hypnotic trance, so like a trance wouldnt it be dangerous say to read t,like this, that it's a good idea to jump infront of a truck.
Where did you get the idea that an hypnotic trance was dangerous?

Jack

[Don]

Hi, P tèr.

Thanks for your post. We believe that every person is entitled to a personal opinion, and although YOU think photoreading "is a fake," I would point out that many other people do not share your opinion.

I would also like to respectfully suggest that although the internet is a wonderful place for gathering data, such data is unfortunately "raw" and as many people will tell you, is often incorrect and misrepresentative of the truth. Remember, anyone can inexpensively set up a web site that rivals the sites of large organizations. If three disgruntled users of a service set up separate sites they often give the appearance of having three times the presence of the service, even if the service has scores of people listed who support that surface. In short, take everything you read on the internet "cum grano salis," with a grain of salt.

[Merlin]

Hi,

My personal experience has been quite different, very successful.

But I went for Hypereading.
I cannot vouch specifically for photoreading, but it's my understanding they are basically the same

[Merlin]

The telly shows about 25-30 pages per second.
The reading methods only one.

It would seem to me that the telly is about 30 times more dangerous then.

[P tèr]

Hi Don,
I do not go for the "respectfully", because you suggest that my looking for information can not be good.
I found out that the recommendation in a book about photoreading was a fraud.
So, I think photoreading is a hoax.

In most cases I can read very fast. If I read mathematics, I read very slow, so to say with my hand. If I read philosophy I read 20 times as fast as most people. And for years I can be interested in that one text, discovering new interpretations I never would have thought about. But I have the text in my mind. Most literature I can read faster. For me photoreading equalled to seduction. I was lucky to escape. That is my story. Not finding information on the internet. Still I think I am very good in that too. I have made my own search machine which refines google to just what I am looking for. I contacted at that time all the people who criticised photoreading. I judge such contacts.

No, the more I know the less respectful I become. There is so much blabla with a lot of money, and just for that money only. Think about the gurus. Most gurus in NLP do not tell the world: now I have enough money, I will give conferences for free. But I know a guru who wanted to own the three letters "NLP". Money. But most of them: they sure want to have respect. They live from it. I also know one guru who helps for nothing.

I do not go for legal battles. In this case I could have. I also do not have the intention of warning the big public. I look at my own behavior and ask myself how to avoid such trap the next time. Moreover, in the case of photoreading I am special as I already read fast. I do not think photoreading is dangerous in general. It costs money. And if someone thinks he or she gets better from it, I am the last one who cares. But I like to put down my experiences...

Freedom of expression always clashes with respect. The little child in the story of Anderson's naked king was not respectful. He did not think about it. But all the experts (and the people who believed them) were respectful.

P tèr

[Unregistered]

F.Y.I., the thread "Photoreading and FA" at the discussion area of
www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com .

[Don]

You're right! Quick! Kill your telly!
:-)

[Don]

Hi P tér.

I apologize for not being clear. I did not mean to imply that researching any subject "can not be good." I have lectured all over the U.S. (I just returned from Albuquerque, New Mexico) and in Europe, and I always tell people not to take my word for anything but to check it out for themselves.

The point I was making is that the information found on the internet is notoriously unreliable. Lies are spread. Rumors or questionable opinions are represented as being unassailable facts. Finding information in books tends to be more reliable because editors for book companies look out for errors which could cause a lawsuit. (With the increasing quality of the physical appearance of self-published books, however, this safeguard is increasingly lost.)

Many years ago I took the original Evelyn Wood speed reading course and was able to get my speed up to over 12,000 words per minute, so although I do not use the photoreading method, I am quite familiar with speed reading.

You are correct in saying that freedom of expression clashes with respect. But this board is a place for freedom of ideas, and that does not equal freedom of expression. Here we invite freedom of ideas and disagreement, including strong disagreement, as long as we can disagree without being disagreeable.

IMO, the story you presented to represent the concept that the child was not respectful is not a very good analogy. IMO, it was the people who didn't tell the truth who were not respectful. A ruler cannot rule well if he or she does not have truthful information. Therefore, what you are calling respectful in the story I would consider to be lying and disrespectful. The child presented truth. That was respectful.

But let me take it one step further. The child didn't say that the king was a moron and a lamebrain for not wearing any clothes. He simply said that the king wore no clothes. The former would have been disrespectful. The latter, simply saying the truth, was respectful.

You can certainly say that for you any particular process doesn't work. That is simple truth. However, implying that because something doesn't work for you means that it doesn't work for others--without supplying any evidence to support it--would be inaccurate. IMO, knowingly giving inaccuracies to the king--or in this case, people reading here--is disrespectful.

Unfortunately, you are also quite right in that we all want to avoid getting ripped off. On this website I have posted about another site that is offering "doctorate degrees" if you take five mail order courses from them and pay an additional $1,000. I explained what they were doing (telling the truth) without calling them names such as rip-off or fraud. I assume excellence in my clients and in others, and simply telling the truth is enough for people to make up their own minds.

Developing abilities, such as speed reading, is very personal. At the speed reading course I took some people could barely reach 1,000 words a minute while others soared to speeds much faster than I ever obtained. Again, because something didn't work for you doesn't mean that it isn't going to work for others. If you look at the tests done on drugs to see if they'll work, often they are ineffective on 10% or more of the subjects. Is the drug a fraud if you're in that 10%? I don't think so.

[The Mentalist]

That was an amazingly well written post Don.

[Merlin]

>Most gurus in NLP do not tell the world: now I have enough money, I will give conferences for free.

There is good reason for this P tèr. People value less that which is free or of low price.
'If it's so good, why don't you charge more' and so on.

As for the reading course, it is likely the people you contacted were not taught well. Maybe a poorly written manual or tape. Maybe an inexperienced trainer. But it's not the reading method itself which is flawed.