Can Photoreading really go that far? (Derren Brown)

[bluedragon]

YouTube - Derren Brown Photographic Memory

I like Derren Brown very much as a mentalist, although I don't agree with him saying that there are no real psychics. But that's beside the point. What do you think, can he really use photo-reading to THAT level?

[Shane]

Very unlikely.
Derren Brown is an illusionist first and foremost. The whole point of what he does is to make it seem like mind-reading/magic/super-memory when it's actually a trick.

I'm not saying I know how he does it.
But I know some very, very basic card "magic" and from there I know that with sometimes very simple tricks and deceptions one can create absolutely mind-boggling effects. If I can learn such tricks over the course of a few weekends, what can Derren Brown learn in all his years of experience?

That's my two cents.

[Brutha]

No, he doesn't. He's a mentalist.

[Shane]

Were you addressing my post, Brutha?

If so, what is a mentalist other than an illusionist who performs acts with a "mind-reading" slant?

[bluedragon]

Originally Posted by Brutha

No, he doesn't. He's a mentalist.

I know he is, but isn't photoreading one of the things mentalists do? After all, photoreading is a developed mental skill.

[bluedragon]

I'm guessing most people here have never learned Photoreading, but I was hoping there is someone who did, and who can say from experience weather something like this can be achieved with practice. I don't think Derren Brown said he was using one particular technique when he was actually using another one, unless it's really impossible to memorize a dictionary.

[Brutha]

Were you addressing my post, Brutha?

No, I was addressing the bluedragon.

I don't think Derren Brown said he was using one particular technique when he was actually using another one,

Nearly all what Derren does is about using one particular technique while saying/hinting that he uses another one.
That's how effects get created.

Photoreading such as it's sold by Paul Scheele is more than the phase where one goes through the book at a speed of 1 page per second.

Really, the Derren Brown isn't using photoreading in that video.

[bluedragon]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Really, the Derren Brown isn't using photoreading in that video.

Ok, I believe you, but I was hoping to learn more about photoreading with this. I mean, it helps to know what the limits of something are, to see what the experts can do with it. That gives you an idea of what you can do, as a beginner, and what you can expect later on.

Originally Posted by Brutha

No, I was addressing the bluedragon.

Oh, thank you. I'm honored to be "THE" Blue Dragon

Originally Posted by Brutha

Photoreading such as it's sold by Paul Scheele is more than the phase where one goes through the book at a speed of 1 page per second.

How about going through 1 page at 1 paragraph per second? Can that be done? Can I remember the names of 3 authors and 2 books with this method, easier than I could without knowing photoreading?

Originally Posted by Brutha

Nearly all what Derren does is about using one particular technique while saying/hinting that he uses another one.

Really? That's kind of suprising to me, as what he does seems pretty straightforward - he is a magician using his skills to fool people, and he is open about using tricks and manipulation. In this particular experiment, it would seems any trick would be totally unimpressive, since anyone can put a camera behind the librarian and see what he is reading, or some other trick. It would be just dumb and would require no skill, while Derren's tricks are usually pretty clever, at least I think so.

[Brutha]

I mean, it helps to know what the limits of something are, to see what the experts can do with it.

But then you shouldn't look at something who is in the business of creating the impression of impressive mental effects.
Derren is a bad source when you want to know about the limits of something. You don't know which effects are slight of hand, which are hypnosis and which use different methods.

Really? That's kind of suprising to me, as what he does seems pretty straightforward - he is a magician using his skills to fool people, and he is open about using tricks and manipulation.

Yes it's interesting how people think that someone who is open about using his skills to fool people gets a result that someone like you think that they haven't been fooled.
It's the classic stratagem of hiding in plain sight.

In this particular experiment, it would seems any trick would be totally unimpressive, since anyone can put a camera behind the librarian and see what he is reading, or some other trick.

If you know the trick of a magician it's often unimpressive.
If you however don't know the trick it gets impressive.
That's what magic/mentalism is about.
Using a hidden camera is a trick.

Derren show starts with announcing that there no stooges used.
He doesn't announce that he doesn't use camera editing and hidden cameras with are both in the standard tool set of the trade.

It would be just dumb and would require no skill, while Derren's tricks are usually pretty clever, at least I think so.

That's what it's about, using a variety tricks to create an impression that it's clever.
A lot of people like yourself can be easily made to believe that they have seen something that's pretty clever by using tricks and manipulation.

How about going through 1 page at 1 paragraph per second?

I don't think that you get what photoreading is about.

[bluedragon]

Maybe I am fooled, but I don't think my reasoning is foolish in itself. When someone does something impressive, many people jump and say that it can't be done, and that the artist must be using a trick. Derren, for example , says psychics are all fake, because HE is able to do what they do, with mentalism. (at least, he thinks he can). That doesn't mean that all psychics are actually mentalists. I don't think it is a good strategy to automatically dismiss what someone does just because WE can do it using another method, and because we believe his supposed skill doesn't exist. This, in principle.

As for this particular situation, I understand what photoreading is about, but I don't see why it couldn't be honed up to the point where you would become so good, so proficient, that you would really be able to memorize concrete sentences, and not just the general idea.

If the eye can really register so much information, why couldn't we train ourselves to grasp the essential names and titles from a page, for example, and discard the irrelevant information?

Anyway, I will learn Photoreading myself, as soon as I decide I can afford it. Then I will be able to check it out for myself.

[Brutha]

Maybe I am fooled, but I don't think my reasoning is foolish in itself. When someone does something impressive, many people jump and say that it can't be done, and that the artist must be using a trick.

Keep in mind that the artist is saying: "I'm using a trick".
That's the way Derren conducts himself. Derren calls himself a mentalist, wrote books about how to be a good mentalist and produced videos explaining some mentalist tricks.

Photoreading effects are described in mentalist literature.

The story would be different if you would have a random person claiming to archive something with photoreading.
In that case the default should be either skeptic or open minded (meaning that you neither believe it's true or it's false) till you search for further proof.

Going around and simply believing that claims are true is a bad idea. The search for magic pill is also an endeavor that doesn't lead to success in life.

If the eye can really register so much information, why couldn't we train ourselves to grasp the essential names and titles from a page, for example, and discard the irrelevant information?

The eye isn't the limiting factor but the brain. The brain is no computer.

Anyway, I will learn Photoreading myself, as soon as I decide I can afford it. Then I will be able to check it out for myself.

How about going to your local library and getting Paul Scheeles book in which he explains Photoreading?

[bluedragon]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The story would be different if you would have a random person claiming to archive something with photoreading.
In that case the default should be either skeptic or open minded (meaning that you neither believe it's true or it's false) till you search for further proof.

Going around and simply believing that claims are true is a bad idea.

Interesting point. You're right. That's why I posted the question here - I didn't believe it right away.

Originally Posted by Brutha

The eye isn't the limiting factor but the brain. The brain is no computer.

However, a computer cannot even recognize a cpatcha protection, while the human eye can almost read an entire sentence in a split-second. Intuitively, it doesn't seem that big of a feat to photoread 1 or 2 pages and memorize concrete facts.[/quote]

Originally Posted by Brutha

How about going to your local library and getting Paul Scheeles book in which he explains Photoreading?

I will see if I can find it, or if there is any certified trainer here in Romania who teaches it. Or maybe I'll order the book from Amazon.

[crazy horse]

I've taken a course "smartreading" and it uses the same principles as photoreading. The only difference is that "smartreading" is the Belgium equivalent of photoreading.

During the course we had to "scan" (=photoread) a book and and an hour later we would discuss about it. The results were actually quite impressive. The trainer talked with us and said is there anything in the book about this and immediately I could see the page in my head and tell things about it.
I was also thinking about a quote but I couldn't know exactly what it was, But in my mind I could see it in the middle of a page with one piece of text above it and one underneath it. I looked in the book and I immediately found where it was.

I also have the photoreading course, and during the first lessons you have to scan the dictionary. I've practiced a bit with it and I used a word recognition game. I had to guess the places of 10 words. With many of these words I had figured the exact same place and with others I was very close to it. (after a bit of practice off course)

In photoreading they also state that you should be able to have spontaneous activation (activation of a book immediately after photoreading or during a dream).

There are also a lot of other sources on the internet with great movies.
This one is from one of the founders of photoreading.
YouTube - Photo Reading Infomercial - "Computer Speed"

[Brutha]

However, a computer cannot even recognize a cpatcha protection, while the human eye can almost read an entire sentence in a split-second. Intuitively, it doesn't seem that big of a feat to photoread 1 or 2 pages and memorize concrete facts.

I repeat, it isn't a computer. It neither a slow nor a fast computer. It works differently.
Our brain doesn't store facts but associations.

During the course we had to "scan" (=photoread) a book and and an hour later we would discuss about it. The results were actually quite impressive.

It's impressive that the thing you find impressive about the photo reading has nothing to do with how it helps you learn information faster but with stunts.
That again a sign of magic pill syndrome. Concentrating on the awesomeness of a stunt instead of results isn't the way you archive results.

[crazy horse]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I repeat, it isn't a computer. It neither a slow nor a fast computer. It works differently.
Our brain doesn't store facts but associations.
It's impressive that the thing you find impressive about the photo reading has nothing to do with how it helps you learn information faster but with stunts.
That again a sign of magic pill syndrome. Concentrating on the awesomeness of a stunt instead of results isn't the way you archive results.

I've actually found that it does help met get through material a lot faster. you must also take in account that it was my first time that I practiced it at that moment.

Maybe you know other learning methods where after an hour you can already tell tings about the book? If so, please write a review and I would prefer one with stunts off course.

[bluedragon]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I repeat, it isn't a computer. It neither a slow nor a fast computer. It works differently.
Our brain doesn't store facts but associations.

I will take this into account and read more about how the brain works.

Originally Posted by Brutha

That again a sign of magic pill syndrome. Concentrating on the awesomeness of a stunt instead of results isn't the way you archive results.

I know you were addressing someone else, but I just wanna say - I personally don't come to this forum for magic pills. However, most of the things that people who are into personal development do seem magical to people who genuinely believe that they cannot change their lives in any way. I am open to finding out about magical methods as well. Such as the 20-minute belief elimination technique that Steve so warmly recommends. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. But I won't limit my options by deciding it must be a fraud. Looking for something fast and efficient isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Looking for awesomeness maybe is indeed looking for a magic pill - I agree - I genuinely learned to not look for the sensational anymore in general - this attitude has helped me a lot in my dealings with other people, but I still look for efficient things, which can be also used to impress others, once you learned them for their true value.

[Brutha]

Maybe you know other learning methods where after an hour you can already tell tings about the book? If so, please write a review and I would prefer one with stunts off course

If you spent one hours with a book and read a bit here and there you should be able to say some things about it regardless of the technique you are using.

Note that I never made any claim about photoreading being ineffective or that it's a waste to learn it.
I said that it's irrelevant whether you are able to pull stunts if you don't increase your daily effectiveness.

I am open to finding out about magical methods as well. Such as the 20-minute belief elimination technique that Steve so warmly recommends.

The point isn't that people who make magical claims are frauds.
Making magical claims is good marketing.

If you however want to be effective it's a bad idea to make your decisions primarily based on the marketing instead of looking for results.

There are PUA who can get a makeout with a girl in the first hour of meeting them and still can't live happily in a relationship.
Now you can discuss whether getting those makeouts is impressive but that misses the point. They aren't the goal.

The same goes for having a deck of cards memorized in your head. Sure it's impressive to people and people start to think you have an impressive memory but that's not the goal of most people who want to improve their memory.
You might do those things to improve your self confidence but otherwise being able to do the stunt isn't the thing that matters.

The problem with awesome stunts is that you forget your goals.

If you find the participation in the stunt more remarkable than the results you achieved with the technique you have a problem and the diagnosis is magical-pill-seeking-disease.

I will take this into account and read more about how the brain works.

This is a good article that lines out a few differences. It won't give you the "meaning" of those differences but it should show that the idea that the brain is a powerful computer misses the point of the way the brain works.

[crazy horse]

Originally Posted by Brutha

If you spent one hours with a book and read a bit here and there you should be able to say some things about it regardless of the technique you are using.

Actually you look up information around a certain goal. Yesterday I photoread 3 books about hypnosis and made a huge mindmap of it. Basically that is something that will take a lot of time if you want to do it in the normal way.

[joyfulgrowth]

If you practice photoreading, please listen to your body. I overdid it some years ago (that is, I continued scanning while I could already physically feel the overload), and it didn't serve me.

[crazy horse]

Originally Posted by joyfulgrowth

If you practice photoreading, please listen to your body. I overdid it some years ago (that is, I continued scanning while I could already physically feel the overload), and it didn't serve me.

How many books were you scanning then? Or how many hours were you practicing it?

The longest time that I've scanned is the dictionary, and that was like 30 minutes (later it went to 20). But it didn't feel weird