what program is that?

eyeQ, prolly alot of others aswell

self-help books lol.

If everyone had learned some of the things that are available on the internet to accelerate learning in school, i'm sure we would have had 95% less idiots. Too bad the school is too busy teaching people facts instead of teaching them how to learn properly. The school-system will probably go through some serious changes within some 15 years time -- it's waaay too crappy as it is.

you're far too sure of yourself.
I don't agree that there is some magical gem out there on the internet to help people learn. I do agree, however, that teachers should emphasize learning methods rather than fact-dictation.

I did not say there was a magical gem, i just tried to say that the recent available research methods of learning are lightyears ahed of the school system. Changes in the school system take time, and that time is way slower than the evolution within neuroscience and the likes that can help new methods evolve. That's why i would asume that the school had to take some "leaps" now and then, starting soon, too keep up somewhat; just like it has to with upgrading computers -- every now and then. Anyways, i was refering to learning how to learn -- not ultranew software bought by mindless schools :\

and, then, what things are available on the interent that accomplish what you've said? speed reading programs?

Yes, speed reading programs, also; memorizing programs, methods to learn how to memorize and methods to learn how to solve problems.

E.g. they have this program on a site, called supermemo, that learns how many repetitions you need on a given item to remember it, and how long and correct that memory will be -- it starts with a calculated algorithm that suits the average and then adapts: Then you can proceede to input what, how long and how correct you want to remember a given thing. And while i don't automaticly trust this company, as you perhaps asume i would, it did reinforce the my asumtion that this is possible when a team came into my spannish class and let us be beta testers for a language game that used, in essence, the exact same method. They also said said game was "based on new scientific research" ..

I think there are things far more important then speed-reading. For starters, logic should be introduced as a basic class. What you're talking is pretty much non-existant speculative crap. Everyone learns diffrently and everyone defines learning diffrently. Suggesting on Introducing any of the concepts you outlined above into education is just like suggesting that some experimental super-duper mind-control weapong you read about on the internet should be introduced into army. Basically, I think your intentions are well-meant but not thought out.

Reading is very important. When you first start with the basic, reading, why not do it properly; it might not mean "speed reading" (confusing term) for everyone, just learn normal children to read fast enough to be able to enjoy a book or an article -- whatever.

Reminds me of the essay i wrote when i was 12 about why we didn't learn how to type properly on the computer before we were assiged tasks to do on it; i saw children spending 10min typing a sentence using one finger ect.. Same reasoning for methods of reading/learning -- basicly what i'm saying is that there are plenty of methods available, even methods any idiot can make up is better than NONE, which is my point. And how can you make such a connection as a superweapon? I merely implied "more advanced weapons" or even "weapons at all". Sorry if i did/do not make myself clear.

If your country has a decent educational system it should have reading and coprehension. I had to read books over summer, out loud in class, momorize pages of tediouse "white poetry", etc. You have not offered anything new on this subject. You made me think that you were suggesting variouse techniques that I consider shady, untested or unreliable.
Oh, and what superweapon analogy are you talking about? Read my post again. I'm talking about you wanting to introduce something that has not yet been established to exist.
If you're thinking of something specific, feel free to point to it, and we can can discuss the veracity of its results and introduction into education. K m8 =)

"You made me think that you were suggesting variouse techniques that I consider shady, untested or unreliable."

My initial basic point was about learning how to learn: In the case you pointed out; learning how to learn to comprehend and learning how to learn how to read.

They are shady, however, currently we have close to nothing at all, so the main thing we need to address is wether we need to have it or not -- which i am overwhelmingly in favour of.

I think the reason it's not popular yet goes back to the belief that the mind is "the way it should be", that the way you learn naturally is the best way -- i think this kind of thinking is starting to change now.

"My initial basic point was about learning how to learn: In the case you pointed out; learning how to learn to comprehend and learning how to learn how to read."
That sure packs a punch! Learning to learn how learn learning should be learned as well then? I think it's obviouse where you think I don't get something, but where I, in fact, see a mere redundancy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=learn
Learn(1) is basically "To gain knowledge, comprehension, or mastery of through experience or study." There, learning is defined as a process of knowing something through experience or study. You're told about something or you actually do it and gain first hand experience or practise. What is learning to learn. Apperently it's gaining knowledge through experiencing "gaining knowledge" or studying "gaining knowledge". Which is in fact either plain learning(1) or an actual science(2) which studies the process and involves understanding of human brain and a lot of other things.
What is it that you're advocating then?
The first already exists. Yes, you can introduce a few new things/methods into education we have, but those would be the creations of the second study. So, basically a student should not be involved in the learning to learn(2). Anyway, forgetting all that... How does one teach comprehension? How does do you make a person understand something? This is why I said logic should be tought as a seporate subject. Analysing something logically and buiding a cohesive chain of cause and effect is what will get rid of the idiots. I hope you now understand my previous replies. This is my last one.

"Anyway, forgetting all that..."

Yeah, you bet i will forget all that -- how hard is it to see what i mean by learning how to learn?

Anyways..

"How does one teach comprehension? How does do you make a person understand something? This is why I said logic should be tought as a seporate subject. Analysing something logically and buiding a cohesive chain of cause and effect is what will get rid of the idiots. I hope you now understand my previous replies. This is my last one."

I understand your posts. Logic is good, almost good as language, but it really boils down to teaching students how to teach themselfs; and to do this properly they need a huge change in the school-system.

And about reading aloud, that's like the worst thing ever. It didn't affect me too much, but i saw fellow students mumbling as they read because of that; even if they didn't mumble i think many of them were still saying the words in their heads while reading -- which slows down reading immensely. It also slows down fellow readers who wants to read faster than the surrounding sound allows them to.

umm, i thought the whole point of reading aloud is to stop mumbling, diction

if you mean like a presentation, that's good..

but at least in norway it soooo usual to read aloud when the class is reading something like an article or an essey, disturbing :\

Try teaching, it's easy to spout off that crap. There are no quick fixes or we'd already be using them.

The schoolsystem now works with that you cram everyone into one class and make them learn the same things at the same speed. It should be more focus on individual and mental development. I've this feeling that there is a taboo about mental development because some kids are naturally smarter than others, and people think it's impossible to improve. I know they have a system in USA to measure how smart the kids are; if this was to be tried implented in Norway we would see the biggest riot ever i'm sure, it's a very delicate subject, and that's why i think they are not doing the things they could have to improve the young students way of thinking.

idd, communistic school system...
more focus on individuals would require more and better teachers. it would spawn a "class difference", smart vs dumb people. but I believe there's a lot more good than bad comming out of it.

current problems in the west:
- too much about the money than the mind
- we are living good because of previous bright peoples inventions, borrowed time
- creative and bright people today, have close to no room or possibilities to advance on their own
- the slow general speed of the educational system push/scare people away , simply takes too much time and quite embarrasingly little effort
- too easy to drop out of school and have a decent income
- overpaid people in the entertainment business
Not hard to see what this will lead to. India has it going for them, because of these "luxury" and educational problems in the west
went a bit off topic, but you got me started :( mark my words, the revolution will come, Aslan is on the move ;)

\o/

Btw, read an article the other day were they wrote a good full page about people with mental deficits having a though time because there was no proper educational system for them. They ranted along the whole article about how they should make the teaching more individual _even_ though there is no gain for society in doing it, and about how the mentally challanged currently becomes pushed in with the other students. I kept waiting for the part about the special kids who were too smart, rather than dumb, but it never came -- goes to show how touchy that subject is :\

OT - Dunno why but you remind me of Richard Madely for some reson. http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/micr...rdandjudy/

There's a mixture of good points and inaccuracies in your post talking from a UK teaching perspective and I'd be surprised if Norway is all that different. Streaming is obviously preferable and it is coming back in to vogue now fortunately but pupil numbers are often too small for it to be meaningful. A top set in a real school can still contain the few really bright kids and some total fuck wits and you have to cater for that range. Differentiated work is built into the schemes of work although it's very hard to run 2 or 3 parallel lessons at one time.

There has been a significant anti-achievement culture and comprehensive teaching was heavily promoted but the reality of trying to teach children who can barely write or cannot be motivated to do so alongside children who finish the work in seconds is breaking this down. In the UK there's a growing push for the inclusion of provision for the gifted and able (smart kids) to be included in the mandatory special needs framework.

To your later post there is significant gain in individual teaching for special needs children from a brutually pragmatic point of view. It costs society less to teach them in this way than it does to deal with the criminal prosecutions or care that would later be required without that level of education. This kind of highly individual provision and awareness of pupil needs also promotes that culture through out education.

It costs society less to teach them in this way than it does to deal with the criminal prosecutions or care that would later be required without that level of education.

and you can substantiate this? seems speculative at best, to insinuate that mentally challenged are inevitably serial killers.

Working at McDonalds would drive even the most stable to murder.

It was a long time since i read these stats, so it's probably not 100% correct, but it is fairly close anyhow; people with IQ in the range 75-90 are 7times more likely to go to jail than people who are in the range 100-115.

and I'm 7 times more likely to indulge in homosexuality due to my preference in ice cream.

so, then, iq could be said to be a measurement of dis-intelligence, or more aptly, government-obedience?

Take the stats as they are dude; i'm sure that when you make several more guesses as to what it may mean, and make a general connection between them, you are able to see how it can be relevant beyond what you said.

Woah why is redbull illegal? We have a drink called redline in america thats like legal speed, and the US is retardedly strict about drugs and drug laws.

Maybe it's not so strict then!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Redbull is illegal in quite a few European countries because it has like 9999x the RDA of caffeine.

I think some crappy swede died of drinking 15 in a row or smt.. He probably had some other problems aswell.

The fact he wanted to drink 1 redbull (let alone 15!) was probably the other problem :)

But that is part of the first problem x)))

here it is anyways ;)

Must say that you're one crazy, brainwashed fucker.

Crazy, sure. But brainwashed? And that comes from Mr. I-think-porn-stars-have-no-pride? (or was that brandan?)

Besides, I can't see how i'm brainwashed: I enjoy beeing naive because i'm capable, with ease, of refuting any ideas later on -- if you don't have that ability i can understand why you don't understand me and have to classify me with a word that is, at least in my case, wrong from your perspective.

And that comes from Mr. I-think-porn-stars-have-no-pride? (or was that brandan?)

And how does that make me, in any way, brainwashed?
Society is built upon connection by values. Hierarchies. Morals. Religion. Not that I agree with all of their place in society, but for us to be presumably "social," then there must be some boundaries set for what sort of interaction is to take place on an 'intelligent' basis. Thus, it is implemented that to separate us from the beasts, we no longer engage in the animalistic acts of, er, 'random sex.'
While, it is not against my "values" (as I really have none) that you do engage in such acts, and in fact I may at some point in time consider indulging in the aforementioned myself, it is however, by the dictation of society, quite contrary to apropriateness to do so on a large, open scale.
Thus, the dignity of one who commits said acts comes into question.

Besides, I can't see how i'm brainwashed: I enjoy beeing naive because i'm capable, with ease, of refuting any ideas later on

So, then, ignorance is bliss?

Yeah,it comes into question, but stating that she had no pride -- that qualifies as somewhat brainwashed to me; as in the example i had her profession and all it's "wrongness" in mind while i read about her, but as soon as i read on about her, i dismissed the "wrongness" based on what she actually seemed like, instead of holding on my society-given filter while proven otherwise.

How is taking in information without filtering them overly much, the same as beeing ignorant? Unless you can prove that i cannot cope with the "filter" i have, you have no ground for saying such a thing.

And i was refering to "naive" as uncritical, as it is used in norway.. Anyways you should see that from the sentence?

And as for my view on ignorance, i'll say it is the only evil i know of. Besides, the more information and possibilites you take into mind, the less ignorant you become, it's the only way to compare all the information you are given. The act of beeing critical is way hyped, just take things as they are and if they collide with other peoples belifes, make them prove their view; if you take things for granted and filter out the info that is "not proper", then do you not, in a way, become ignorant?

Individuals find their pride in different things.

well, he's putting words into my mouth, anyway. I never said anything about pride, in fact. pride is, indeed, a subjective comment. I said something along the lines that a porn star does not deserve my respect, as he/she does not respect himself. that is not a subjective idea, as it is viewed from within a third person perspective. it could be wrong, however, given that you apply 'respect for himself' to mean that he actually thinks highly of himself. though, my idea of self respect is the result of a more sub conscious effort.

"not respect himself"

Yeah, that was ofc my trigger.. But i see now that's not what you really meant.

I'm sry but: PULL YOURSELF TOGETHER, DUDE.

what?

Sum up: The music was too relaxing, the lamps are great and the reading program helped alot (around 40% faster)

Glad to hear you commented about the lamp was interested in that bit.

It might be that i've more light now than before, but it feels like since the yellowness in the light was gone and it became totally white, i am more alert.

Did you take in, understand and memorise the text as well as you would if you read at a normal rate? If I try to read quickly I can skim my eyes across many lines, repeat their content but it's barely entered short-term memory and I can't read novels like that because you miss anything interesting in the text. What's the point beyond being able to claim having read something? Nothing worth reading can be read quickly.

"Nothing worth reading can be read quickly."

I'll counter that with "slow reading is a way to daydream, not understand".

Anyways.. My possible scanning speed went up by SHITLOADS.. But i was refering to understanding with my 40%.. If you try eyeQ you'll see that they have test where you read a text, 5min, then later they have 10questions if you miss a question they take away some points in your speed, perhaps 1/10? anyways, i took that test twice before and twice after i did the sessions and my understandingspeed went up with 100%. The reason i did not get this 100% is probably because my brain still relaxes like it used to when reading a book. I'm quite sure my mind is able to read a decent book, say, lotr, 300% faster than i'm able to now without any loss of understanding, but it takes time and training.

learning to learn is stupid, please stop being stupid.

Not explaining yourself properly is foolish, stop beeing foolish.

Learning is stupid, it is foolish to explain yourself.

xD

theres something called power-reading (maby thats eyeQ, havent looked into it yet). but the technique works like this. when you read a text, you usally read one word at a time. eventually you start to read two words at a time. next step is three words at a time. next four words at a time and so on. untill you reach the level so you can actually just look at a text and get the information from a whole line of text. you can start out with small columns, like those in your local newspaper (wich usally only have 4-5 words per line), and then to wider texts, like normal books. thats all i remember for now, it was someone back in school some years ago who had a speech about this. all our teachers thought it would be a good idea to have this subject - powerreading - obligatory on our scheme. you can take a course in it, but i think its very expensive. like 1000 euros for three days or something, but you where guarenteed to actually learned to read faster, or you would get your money back.

thanks.

search "eyeQ" ;)

will easily improve your eyes, you already feel after a few days that it's not the eyes trying to keep up with the brain, but the other way around; 50% increase in speed is fairly easy, or at least was for me, since it is the eyes limiting you. But later in the "sessions" i found that the comprehension had a hard time keeping up with the eyes; i'm quite sure it will come tho, i evolve day by day and when i'm really alert it can go insanely fast on easy parts of a text.

thanks. ill look into it.

thanks.

Yeah
was
dicussed
Anyways
dunno
good
Maybe
music
copy
TO

Ya good read mate, didnt get all of it though.

same to you

want to learn? want to read better? find a room with a window, put a table in that room, put a chair in that room, sit, read.

"Reminds me of the essay i wrote when i was 12 about why we didn't learn how to type properly on the computer before we were assiged tasks to do on it; i saw children spending 10min typing a sentence using one finger ect.."

what?

You use the assumtion that the best way to read better is just to start reading naturally, while i think with "learning help" you can increase and better your speed; just like a trainer would make you better in football than you likely would on your own.

i don't see how teaching them anything else would make them faster really. they still have to take the time to learn to type and they'll just be doing the exact same routine as typing an essay.

So say you give them a keybaord and tell them to type something -- they would most probably start typing with one finger, then perhaps later they would use use two fingers; but if you learn them from the start where they should have their fingers and how it is optimally done, they would be insanely fast much quicker, if not faster than they ever could if they started with one/two fingers.

they're a bunch of retards if they can't work out they can use more than 1 finger.

damn i could make a fortune writing books about how you can use more than 1 finger! i could even attempt the dreaded 2 handed guide.

If you think so.

put it this way then, you read a learn to read faster book and your test material. instead you could have read the test material twice or read your homework and another book on the same subject as what your studying. there are no shortcuts i'm afraid.

It's not a shortcut, it's external info about how to optimize your brain to excecute a task. Now, i said earlier that the belief that the brain learns optimally naturally has been thought of and is thought of as the truth by many -- but i do not believe that is true.

speed reading is a con, made up by people to make money.

If you think so.

no, you can't. I typed 20WPM in kindergarten, probably through fourth grade I may have typed 30WPM maximum. when I started talking online, fifth-six grade, my speed went up to 45WPM, then 65WPM, then 75WPM, tested in school through the fifth or sixth grade.
the "learning methods" at school were useless to me. 'practicing' by talking to people online was quite more efficient. since age eleven or twelve, then, I've typed well over 100WPM. now I type 130WPM+.
edit: and how many people can, with accuracy, type 130WPM on qwerty? not many. it takes experience.

It's basicly exactly the same as playing the piano, if you know all the keys and notes. Now, someone might tell me that they do not need a trainer to teach them to play piano and that they developed fine and as quick as they would with one, without one; but it still does not change the fact that in the majority of cases would a "teacher" be better.

I think that's entirely different. You're going from teaching people the basics (e.g. contemporary school methodology), to learning from scratch, with no framework whatsoever. Make up your mind.

What, how? You lost me there. :\

Learning to "play" the piano is nowhere near on the same scale as learning to read or type.

I don't see how the same "rules" would differ. "Rules" beeing that learning the proper basics is better than a random one you invent, because it's hard to unlearn later even if you see another method would be better later.

A lot of uni courses do essential skills modules which teach you how to speed read more effectively and take notes better, like mind mapping.

I feel j00

i have a speed reading book from back in the late 70's. the two tips i took away from it the most were these:

use your finger or a pen to keep pace fast.
don't pronounce the word iny our head like you're reading aloud. just look at the word. you don't have to read a word to know what it is, just look and don't pronounce. people have a tendancy to read aloud in their head.

i just speed read what you wrote and didn't get any of it.

copy answers from nearest smart kid

why cheat cheater

Mandatory speed-reading quote:

I took a speed reading course and read 'War and Peace' in twenty minutes. It involves Russia.
-Woody Allen

P.S. Speed-reading is only interesting to read newspapers and informational things, i.e. things that are already formatted to be read quickly (low column width, etc.). It's totally useless to read a novel or worse yet poetry that was in the author's idea meant to be read out loud. In the end, the time you'll invest learning to read quickly would have been best spent actually reading the stuff.

The gist of reading quickly is reducing the number of eye fixations so long as you can retain what has been read. This may seem counterintuitive to some, since you're actually reading less than you would at a slower speed. Fixations generally become further apart and less meandering, relying on broader visual recognition patterns (learned patterns, naturally). Additionally, weening off your auditory response to words ("hearing" the words read) tends to improve your speed by about 4x. I wouldn't know, but I'd imagine the faster readers out of habit don't percieve the words being read.

Reading for thoughts/ideas instead of reading words is the easiest way to improve your speed and retention. Imagination, imo, is the surest mechanism for associative recall. That, or damaged left prefrontal CORTICES.