Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

'What do you know about 'The Urantia Papers'?'


Luis Marco
 Share

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Nup That's what sherapy said But she failed to understand that i could copy the text, then answer it from the copy  once the time limit on the text expired and it disappeared.

I can read fast enough to find all the answers  very quickly  (in seconds) 

However its hard to determine how much time i might need to answer the questions 

Multiple choice would use less time but also aid in recall /locating a piece of text   Having to type answers would take more time and allow more time to cheat.

  After id made my initial claims  (based on how long it takes me to read a book of 30000 words  ( about 50 minutes))  I went to several sites online just to ensure i hadn't been exaggerating my speed. if anything i had been underestimating it when reading a short  piece  The longer a piece the harder it is to  judge  the speed as you tend to stop, mentally or physically, for short periods  during an hour's reading  I often read for 3 hours a t a time   which is enough to read a full average sized novel (80000 to 100000 words )

Last night after cleaning up after  Christmas  dinner.  i read the two latest novels by Jack Carr (author of The Terminal List)  (about 120000 words each )and a shorter western of about 30000 words I would have kept reading, but my wife told me to put my bed light out around 2 am :) 

Then you would only need 30 seconds per question there will be 3 questions. You can read about 100 thousand words in 5 mins. We are really being generous with the 10 minutes. No worries on the cheating one can set up the test with honorlock or proctoring app., an app used these days for online testing and cheaters.  I am sure our NW a computer savvy young man can do this and prevent you from cheating MW. 
 

I choose a Philosophical test because it requires one to not only read but be able to comprehend the works as the questions do require one to understand the material. 
I am interested in if speed reading sacrifices comprehension. And one of your incredible skills and speed reading prowess are just the expert we would like to test. 

Unless your claim has changed as many of them have over the years. 
 

Nuke, I have all the test questions and answers from the Philosophy course I took 4 or so years ago, because I got them all right.:D

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, echoes answer, mournfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

 

You're not comprehending what I am telling you.

You would be given a test that would not allow you to reference the readings.

Once the time limited has passed for reading the text, it will disappear.

You will be unable to go back. You will be forced to answer the multiple choice answer within a minute, which is generous. Failure to do so in the time allotted would result in 0 points for the question.

Again, there could be control questions found within this test, so some of the choices might have been in the test, but if you are able to recall information as accurately as you claim, then that will be a non-issue.

It's nice that you keep telling me about how fast you are reading. If you're not willing to collaborate with me to get a test going to prove it then you can't really get mad at me for saying that what you're telling me is nonsense.

I guarantee you that I would make the test such that you can't possibly fail it if your abilities are as you claim. It will be designed to ensure that you are retaining rather than skimming.

Thats not possible. i could screenshot the text  photograph it on my phone or copy it in another form   so it was still in front of me as i answered the questions As i said it is no the reading time which creates the problem it is the time required to answer questions where i could be reading the text and finding the answers even after the text had supposedly disappeared.

   Multiple choice questions are always easier to get right, and in this case, provide cues which are helpful aids to memory. 

The point is that cheating  is  possible and thus i would be accused of doing so, when I produced a result you did not believe was possible 

 I know and have tested my reading speed and comprehension many times.

It ls actually irrelevant  (to me)  what you are ready to believe.

I am not getting mad.

Your disbelief is understandable, but wrong and irrelevant.  I am not sure WHY you don't think it is possible, when many people read much faster.

IMO 600wpm is not even speed reading, just fast, normal, recreational, reading. its the speed i read all my books at 

Speed reading  uses a different skill,  Eg you have to train your eyes to see a whole page at time, not a single word or sentence or paragraph (all steps in faster reading) true sped reading   can allow you to read up to 4000 wpm ,and retain good comprehension if you have a good eidetic memory  

I suspect most people could achieve similar  speeds (600wpm) and comprehension given that 4 of us, raised by the same parents,  manage to do so ,but  perhaps it is that  childhood training and early reading which gives us an advantage 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Mr. Walker, no one believes your able to read 600 words a minute or faster. Now the issue I have is not I dont believe, I believe you may be able to do so, however I suspect your reading comprehension is severely compromised and that in reality you are unable to retain what you have read in a comprehensive manner. So do me a favor here is a very very easy test you should have no problems with at all my friend! Please take it and publish the results online in this thread.

Go to the site below take the practice test, and honestly if you are unable or unwilling to take the test and publish your score here,

Mensa IQ Test Practice Home Page | Mensa International 

Please just humor me!:tu:

 

 

 

Thats a failing in their own abilities and experiences 

600 wpm is not even speed reading, It is just fast normal reading 

all my siblings and most of their  adult  children can read a t least that fast . 

My retention is not as good as when i was younger but its still good (tests show about 80% retention at 600 wpm)  80% is about what a normal "slow"  reader will achieve in a single reeding and a lot of slow readers will also struggle to remember what they read . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

Thats a failing in their own abilities and experiences 

600 wpm is not even speed reading, It is just fast normal reading 

all my siblings and most of their  adult  children can read a t least that fast . 

My retention is not as good as when i was younger but its still good (tests show about 80% retention at 600 wpm)  80% is about what a normal "slow"  reader will achieve in a single reeding and a lot of slow readers will also struggle to remember what they read . 

Ok what about the test?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Manwon Lender said:

Ok what about the test?

Ive done that test a couple of times before, which might affect the results in my favour . it also takes 25 minutes  which I dont have right now  

it is also  an intelligence test, not a speed reading test.  I'll think about doing it again when i have more time  but i probably wont   or more likely  i will do it again and have look at the results, but not tell you what they were.  i dont have anything to prove to anyone. I know my capabilities ( although i am always ready to test them for myself)  Those i care about know them.

    You (people online) either accept what i post or you don't.  If you don't  then  you are underestimating the potential abilty, not  just of me, but of any human being.

  Apart from  my genetics (family history involving a lot of back ground in learning and education) )  and upbringing, I am no different to anyone else, and thus anyone could  potentially  do the same  ie read a t similar speeds. 

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Ive done that test a couple of times before, which might affect the results in my favour . it also takes 25 minutes  which I dont have right now  

it is also  an intelligence test, not a speed reading test.  I'll think about doing it again when i have more time  but i probably wont   or more likely  i will do it again and have look at the results, but not tell you what they were.  i dont have anything to prove to anyone. I know my capabilities ( although i am always ready to test them for myself)  Those i care about know them.

    You (people online) either accept what i post or you don't.  If you don't  then  you are underestimating the potential abilty, not  just of me, but of any human being.

  Apart from  my genetics (family history involving a lot of back ground in learning and education) )  and upbringing, I am no different to anyone else, and thus anyone could  potentially  do the same  ie read a t similar speeds. 

 

Are you a member of Mensa?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Are you a member of Mensa?

as ive said before on Um i passed the entrance tests 

In Australia people away from  the capital cities can have the testing conducted by a registered  psychologist  They just use  standard IQ tests , which  I had been doing every year

Get into a certain percentile and you were accepted into Mensa  without the specific Mensa test.

 https://www.mensa.org.au/membership-information/how-to-join

(see the section on prior evidences) 

When i had a personal  and professional  interest  in  IQ and how to improve my own, and tha t of my students so the y could perform better in tests I undertook the test  This was back in the mid to late seventies when I was teaching in Whyalla 

I qualified   but never took it any further. I really didn't have any  reason for, or interest in, actually joining  the organisation.

I just wanted to know if could pass the entrance tests.

  I don't really join any groups, and never have much  That includes sporting, religious, political, or other groups 

One exception were professional groups like the Geography Teachers Association of South Australia.  I was elected a member of the governing group  after being nominated  by a colleague, and elected,  (after winning their award for "best teacher"  in South Australia  ," ) but never attended any meetings and never sought re-election  Oh, and i was a proud member of the Anti Football League  for some years in my early  days  :) 

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goodbye sweet thread, I hardly knew ye.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

Goodbye sweet thread, I hardly knew ye.

No sir, I only had few questions and now I am going away!!!!:D So at this point there is no reason for this threads death, at least not by my hand!:yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Thats not possible. i could screenshot the text  photograph it on my phone or copy it in another form   so it was still in front of me as i answered the questions As i said it is no the reading time which creates the problem it is the time required to answer questions where i could be reading the text and finding the answers even after the text had supposedly disappeared.

So then I would make the text appear as word chunks so you couldn't take a screenshot of the whole text. If you tried to record the video you would still be taking precious time trying to go through the entire text as you answered the questions. You have a way you could cheat and I have a way around it. I'd also have the text based on content that you're not familiar with, with questions maybe even closer to the middle or the end of the test such that you would have to speed it up significantly to get to where you wanted, reducing the ability to cheat even further. 

I might even give you less than a minute. 20 seconds per question? Maybe I'd make it only useable in full screen mode with any keystrokes other than a mouse click within the frame resulting in a fail? Maybe I'd do what the proctors did for my recent certification exam and have you do a live webcam feed and any suspicious activity would result in a fail? I could have you use your webcam to show me your desk environment, from every angle.

Anyway, this isn't about you trying to outsmart me on this (hint: you wouldn't). This is about your blatant refusal to prove your claim. You can't and won't.

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Your disbelief is understandable, but wrong and irrelevant.  I am not sure WHY you don't think it is possible, when many people read much faster.

I never said it was impossible, jus that YOU can't read at those speeds and retain it as you claim. Your inability to comprehend basic information in studies and articles is a testament to this.

Let the records show that MW yet again turned down every opportunity to prove his claims.

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

  You (people online) either accept what i post or you don't.  If you don't  then  you are underestimating the potential abilty, not  just of me, but of any human being.

I don't. You make false claims. :)

I've given you several opportunities to support your claims with evidence, and yet you have turned down every one of them.

Edited by Nuclear Wessel
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

This consciousness shows the cosmos to consist not of dead matter governed by unconscious, rigid, and unintending law; it shows it on the contrary as entirely immaterial, entirely spiritual and entirely alive; it shows that death is an absurdity, that everyone and everything has eternal life; it shows that the universe is God and that God is the universe, and that no evil ever did or ever will enter into it; a great deal of this is, of course, from the point of view of self consciousness, absurd; it is nevertheless undoubtedly true.[3]

"This consciousness" refers to a human experience, and only to that human experience. The rest of the quoted passage is Bucke's metaphysical view, what he believed that he and others had become conscious of.

As has already been discussed, Bucke's term cosmic consciousness refers to something whose reality has been established (that humans can and sometimes do undergo a remarkable cognitive crisis with recognizable features that differ from ordinary conscious experience), and not to something whose reality has not been established, and may very well be impossible to establish, namely metaphysical propositions.

It is worth remembering that Bucke (1837-1902) died almost 120 years ago, and he was not the only one studying the phenomenon in those days. William James (1842-1910) devoted a lecture to them in his Varieties of Religious Experience. As with Bucke's cosmic consciousness, I suspect that James's book title partially explains the popularity of the phrase religious experience to refer to something similar, a kind of human mental state.

It is instructive to compare Henri Poincare's (1854-1912) "sudden conviction" experience, in which he instantly understood what became a branch of mathematics in its own right. What Poincare did next, despite his feeling of conviction, was to prove each and every proposition of whose truth he had already experienced certainty. Well, that's what mathematicians do.

(I am reminded of the Zen aphorism: before enlightenment, wash the dishes; after enlightenment, wash the dishes.)

Bucke, unlike James and Poincare, chose to explore metaphysics based on the naive propositon that whatever consciousness apprehends is either real or else pathological. Having eliminated pathology, he was left in the best Sherlock Holmes style with reality.

I can see why that would appeal to you especially, but it is not the only way to view the relationships between consciousness and the objects of consciousness. Regardless, the cosmic consciousness whose reality is established is an interior mental state, and not another name for the Universe, God, gods, or aliens.

ETA: On a point arising.

When Sherapy was taking the courses in question, she shared some of the readings and some of the questions that were posed. I wouldn't worry much about cheating.

Quote

Nup That's what sherapy said But she failed to understand that i could copy the text, then answer it from the copy  once the time limit on the text expired and it disappeared.

No, that wasn't the nature of the questions. If you tried that approach, then you would simply fail the test.

It has been a while since I've taken any reading comprehension test, but as I recall, there was a mix of questions, some of which were of the "find a fact" kind, but others required actual understanding. The questions Sherapy is talking about are the actual understanding kind.

I also recall that some of the tests were of the type where the questions and text were available at the same time ("comprehension" is more than recall, and some of the tests were focused on the beyond-recall aspects, which are, after all, what would be available to a student in a real situation). The time limit, then, would apply to the whole performance: reading, reading the questions (not trivial with what Sheri has in mind, let me assure you), and producing the answers.

That, plus the kind of apps that Sheri mentioned, and I'm very confident we could come up with something that would establish useful information about your facility with apprehending written materials.

But of course your abilities are the sort of thing that we groundlings couldn't possibly test. We understand that, and why. Really, we all do.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Thats a failing in their own abilities and experiences 

600 wpm is not even speed reading, It is just fast normal reading 

all my siblings and most of their  adult  children can read a t least that fast . 

My retention is not as good as when i was younger but its still good (tests show about 80% retention at 600 wpm)  80% is about what a normal "slow"  reader will achieve in a single reeding and a lot of slow readers will also struggle to remember what they read . 

Mr. Walker please take a moment and explain this to me with a post and also tell me what it is

cosmic human gif | PARALLAX:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, eight bits said:

"This consciousness" refers to a human experience, and only to that human experience. The rest of the quoted passage is Bucke's metaphysical view, what he believed that he and others had become conscious of.

As has already been discussed, Bucke's term cosmic consciousness refers to something whose reality has been established (that humans can and sometimes do undergo a remarkable cognitive crisis with recognizable features that differ from ordinary conscious experience), and not to something whose reality has not been established, and may very well be impossible to establish, namely metaphysical propositions.

It is worth remembering that Bucke (1837-1902) died almost 120 years ago, and he was not the only one studying the phenomenon in those days. William James (1842-1910) devoted a lecture to them in his Varieties of Religious Experience. As with Bucke's cosmic consciousness, I suspect that James's book title partially explains the popularity of the phrase religious experience to refer to something similar, a kind of human mental state.

It is instructive to compare Henri Poincare's (1854-1912) "sudden conviction" experience, in which he instantly understood what became a branch of mathematics in its own right. What Poincare did next, despite his feeling of conviction, was to prove each and every proposition of whose truth he had already experienced certainty. Well, that's what mathematicians do.

(I am reminded of the Zen aphorism: before enlightenment, wash the dishes; after enlightenment, wash the dishes.)

Bucke, unlike James and Poincare, chose to explore metaphysics based on the naive propositon that whatever consciousness apprehends is either real or else pathological. Having eliminated pathology, he was left in the best Sherlock Holmes style with reality.

I can see why that would appeal to you especially, but it is not the only way to view the relationships between consciousness and the objects of consciousness. Regardless, the cosmic consciousness whose reality is established is an interior mental state, and not another name for the Universe, God, gods, or aliens.

ETA: On a point arising.

When Sherapy was taking the courses in question, she shared some of the readings and some of the questions that were posed. I wouldn't worry much about cheating.

No, that wasn't the nature of the questions. If you tried that approach, then you would simply fail the test.

It has been a while since I've taken any reading comprehension test, but as I recall, there was a mix of questions, some of which were of the "find a fact" kind, but others required actual understanding. The questions Sherapy is talking about are the actual understanding kind.

I also recall that some of the tests were of the type where the questions and text were available at the same time ("comprehension" is more than recall, and some of the tests were focused on the beyond-recall aspects, which are, after all, what would be available to a student in a real situation). The time limit, then, would apply to the whole performance: reading, reading the questions (not trivial with what Sheri has in mind, let me assure you), and producing the answers.

That, plus the kind of apps that Sheri mentioned, and I'm very confident we could come up with something that would establish useful information about your facility with apprehending written materials.

But of course your abilities are the sort of thing that we groundlings couldn't possibly test. We understand that, and why. Really, we all do.

Omg, those test questions :D let’s just say spot on Paul, one really cannot cheat one has to comprehend the material it isn’t 6th grade Geography where you scan and pull answers or get lucky on guessing or use test taking strategies, not gonna work for this. Honestly, I had to read some of the philosophers work more than once and thank goodness I had you to help me grasp some of the stuff. Kant was no walk in the park:P
 

I am still grateful I had your help back then. Thank you.:wub:
 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyhoo…… Up to the slightly scientifically dubious evolution bits of the book(s). Not gonna lie, this is the bit where I tend to go “you’re just making stuff up now”. You know, two humans magically appearing, apes no longer evolving (and in fact, devolving) etc.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Mr. Walker, no one believes your able to read 600 words a minute or faster.

Actually, I believe this.

When I was growing up, speed reading was all the fad (thanks to JFK, who was another speed reader.  Newspapers reported it at the time and there were a number of books that taught the technique-- Evelyn Wood was generally the go-to for this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Wood_(teacher)

I picked up her book when I was 11 or 12 and learned it and practiced. 

I now read many times faster than most people and with good comprehension.  Like Walker, I was reading about age 3. An average "I'm only paying moderate attention" speed is upwards of 1,000 wpm (just tested it on multiple sites.)  If I'm glancing to get the gist without going for details, it's far faster than that.  The times he's reporting to read things is well within my range (a 200 page book lasts me less than an hour and that's if I'm reading every word and slogging through it.)  When reading for pleasure, I can go through 4-7 books per day.

It's not a miracle, and not out of range for anyone, particularly someone who learned to read early and loves books.  I jokingly call it my "superpower" but, as I've said, it's simply a set of learned techniques that anyone with good literacy can use and can learn fairly quickly. 

It's a wonderful skill to have.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

So then I would make the text appear as word chunks so you couldn't take a screenshot of the whole text. If you tried to record the video you would still be taking precious time trying to go through the entire text as you answered the questions. You have a way you could cheat and I have a way around it. I'd also have the text based on content that you're not familiar with, with questions maybe even closer to the middle or the end of the test such that you would have to speed it up significantly to get to where you wanted, reducing the ability to cheat even further. 

I might even give you less than a minute. 20 seconds per question? Maybe I'd make it only useable in full screen mode with any keystrokes other than a mouse click within the frame resulting in a fail? Maybe I'd do what the proctors did for my recent certification exam and have you do a live webcam feed and any suspicious activity would result in a fail? I could have you use your webcam to show me your desk environment, from every angle.

Anyway, this isn't about you trying to outsmart me on this (hint: you wouldn't). This is about your blatant refusal to prove your claim. You can't and won't.

I never said it was impossible, jus that YOU can't read at those speeds and retain it as you claim. Your inability to comprehend basic information in studies and articles is a testament to this.

Let the records show that MW yet again turned down every opportunity to prove his claims.

ah its personal then, which s precisely why i feel no need to prove myself to you  This is not about what I am capable of.of but how you feel about me and my honesty.

 I dont understand half the technical stuff you are talking about, but it doesn't matter. I wouldn't have to cheat.  the point was that i could  The web cam might work, except that  I  don't possess one :) And yep I have no problem turning  down every opportunity to prove claims. I know that if you came to me I could prove them,  except even then you probably wouldn't  accept the proofs eg you would claim my witnesses were lying or I had set them up to confirm my claims.

Now that i know this is personal, I wont be responding to any more comments as, unless the enquiry is open minded and genuine,   it is just derailing the thread to no purpose.  

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speed "reading" is just skimming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, eight bits said:

"This consciousness" refers to a human experience, and only to that human experience. The rest of the quoted passage is Bucke's metaphysical view, what he believed that he and others had become conscious of.

As has already been discussed, Bucke's term cosmic consciousness refers to something whose reality has been established (that humans can and sometimes do undergo a remarkable cognitive crisis with recognizable features that differ from ordinary conscious experience), and not to something whose reality has not been established, and may very well be impossible to establish, namely metaphysical propositions.

It is worth remembering that Bucke (1837-1902) died almost 120 years ago, and he was not the only one studying the phenomenon in those days. William James (1842-1910) devoted a lecture to them in his Varieties of Religious Experience. As with Bucke's cosmic consciousness, I suspect that James's book title partially explains the popularity of the phrase religious experience to refer to something similar, a kind of human mental state.

It is instructive to compare Henri Poincare's (1854-1912) "sudden conviction" experience, in which he instantly understood what became a branch of mathematics in its own right. What Poincare did next, despite his feeling of conviction, was to prove each and every proposition of whose truth he had already experienced certainty. Well, that's what mathematicians do.

(I am reminded of the Zen aphorism: before enlightenment, wash the dishes; after enlightenment, wash the dishes.)

Bucke, unlike James and Poincare, chose to explore metaphysics based on the naive propositon that whatever consciousness apprehends is either real or else pathological. Having eliminated pathology, he was left in the best Sherlock Holmes style with reality.

I can see why that would appeal to you especially, but it is not the only way to view the relationships between consciousness and the objects of consciousness. Regardless, the cosmic consciousness whose reality is established is an interior mental state, and not another name for the Universe, God, gods, or aliens.

ETA: On a point arising.

When Sherapy was taking the courses in question, she shared some of the readings and some of the questions that were posed. I wouldn't worry much about cheating.

No, that wasn't the nature of the questions. If you tried that approach, then you would simply fail the test.

It has been a while since I've taken any reading comprehension test, but as I recall, there was a mix of questions, some of which were of the "find a fact" kind, but others required actual understanding. The questions Sherapy is talking about are the actual understanding kind.

I also recall that some of the tests were of the type where the questions and text were available at the same time ("comprehension" is more than recall, and some of the tests were focused on the beyond-recall aspects, which are, after all, what would be available to a student in a real situation). The time limit, then, would apply to the whole performance: reading, reading the questions (not trivial with what Sheri has in mind, let me assure you), and producing the answers.

That, plus the kind of apps that Sheri mentioned, and I'm very confident we could come up with something that would establish useful information about your facility with apprehending written materials.

But of course your abilities are the sort of thing that we groundlings couldn't possibly test. We understand that, and why. Really, we all do.

As i said you have preconceived idea of the limitation Bucke put on the cosmic consciousness

Indeed as you say it was Bucke's impression of this contact that he describes.

That is all a person can do.

I can only describe my impression of the first powerful  contact i had  and what it told   or showed me. He only had a momentary one off experience on which to draw conclusions, but his inspiration, Walt Whitman, lived with this awareness and connection most of his life, and Bucke knew this.

  You assume  he made a naïve assumption, because you only believe in internal consciousnesses, not external ones, or connections between consciousnesses.

Given my experience THAT is naive 

  Here is the difference Your inner consciousness cannot show you  or teach you things it does not know  It cant take you through a tour of the planets in about 1962    and show you, accurately aspects of the solar system unknown to science a t the time.It cant take you to, and show you accurately,  parts of the world you had never before seen, either personally or on any media.  It cant connect your mind to tha t of other people 

On your second point  there are some interesting questions  you  raised 

I guess i was speaking in the knowldge of just how fast i can read 

I could read a short piece of text and  answer questions with80% accurately  at well over 600 wpm. I know because ive done it on online tests many times 

That means i could read a text almost instantly, leaving a lot of time to play around with it  OR i could simply take  a screen shot or photo of it as soonas it appeared t refernce while answring questions Then i could read it several times in  the time given.

For a slower reader this might not be possible and the idea might not occur to them  that someone else could do this 

Its the problem of allowing time for me to respond which is the difficulty  Theoretically on Skype or web cam I could answer orally But i dont have thise facilities.. 

This really boils down  to the ongoing problem. I know what i can do. I see no need to prove it to others. BUT, only when you accept my posts as true can you appreciate and undertsnd me and the experiences I speak about  pr learn any thing from them. 

yes some texts have questions available at  the same time That simply makes it much easier for a fast reader  and is why most do not  provide the questions until the text disappears 

First a  fast reader  (especially one who can see/read 300 words a t a glance ) has   longer to go back over the text and find the answers, second each quote is recognisable to a good reader ie  while you  may not actually recall the exact answer you know it, when prompted by a quote,  from  the context of what was and what  s not in the text (i found this especially so when doing the speed reading test on JFKs inaugural speech  ie I kew that some of the multiple choice answers simply didn't fit into the speech  and others jumped out a t me  

Maybe you could find a way to test me that satisfied the true skeptics but i doubt it However i have no need to prove anything  to a bunch of online skeptics who don't even know me( or like me very much :) )  I could simply post the results of half a dozen online tests but you would not believe them .

Once you accept how much i can read and comprehend, it helps understand how i think, how i know so much and how i can research and comprehend things easily and quickly 

Its my  true super power  and one ive slowly and methodically learned and applied since infancy  

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

It's a wonderful skill to have.

There is simply insufficient evidence to suggest that these speed reading courses improve anything beyond your ability to skim. When it comes to university textbooks and such, yes, it is a very effective skill to have.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 

This really boils down  to the ongoing problem. I know what i can do. I see no need to prove it to others. BUT, only when you accept my posts as true can you appreciate and undertsnd me and the experiences I speak about  pr learn any thing from them. 

Your claims aren't true.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Mr. Walker please take a moment and explain this to me with a post and also tell me what it is

cosmic human gif | PARALLAX:

 

 

I haven't got a clue what it is or how it is created  but it appears ( to me) as an image of a  woman  or androgynous human with the universe shining out of her. I would  take it as a metaphorical image with special meaning to the artist  Now given the nature of human eyesight and cognition there could well be alternate ways of seeing this image but i took you at your word and gave you my immediate and instinctive answer without searching the image for other clues or searching the  internet for the image  

That quick look also gave a hint of something else, based around her shoulder;  perhaps a child or a wolf.

It reminds me a little of some native American art work which used to be popular in various media, including velvet, and which glowed   in the dark  under ultra violet light  (from  the 1960s )  it also reminds me of some images connected to various creation myths 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Actually, I believe this.

When I was growing up, speed reading was all the fad (thanks to JFK, who was another speed reader.  Newspapers reported it at the time and there were a number of books that taught the technique-- Evelyn Wood was generally the go-to for this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Wood_(teacher)

I picked up her book when I was 11 or 12 and learned it and practiced. 

I now read many times faster than most people and with good comprehension.  Like Walker, I was reading about age 3. An average "I'm only paying moderate attention" speed is upwards of 1,000 wpm (just tested it on multiple sites.)  If I'm glancing to get the gist without going for details, it's far faster than that.  The times he's reporting to read things is well within my range (a 200 page book lasts me less than an hour and that's if I'm reading every word and slogging through it.)  When reading for pleasure, I can go through 4-7 books per day.

It's not a miracle, and not out of range for anyone, particularly someone who learned to read early and loves books.  I jokingly call it my "superpower" but, as I've said, it's simply a set of learned techniques that anyone with good literacy can use and can learn fairly quickly. 

It's a wonderful skill to have.

Thanks. it wont help  others believe my claims but you are of course correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.