Re: speed reading
- From: "David Loewe, Jr." <dloewe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 12:59:36 -0500
On 3 May 2007 07:48:02 -0700, "dwight.thieme@xxxxxxxxx"
<dwight.thieme@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 3, 9:30 am, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 3 May 2007 06:46:54 -0700, "dwight.thi...@xxxxxxxxx"
<dwight.thi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 3, 8:37 am, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I've come in within a hairs-breadth of the *average* figures you
cited. You still think I'm outside the parameters of your cite? I
don't think I am. That's the point I'm making here.
Also, if you have more useful figures than those naked .25/.1 second,
I'm all ears.
I should have pointed this out in my last post - _I_ don't have to
prove anything. You are the one advancing the claim. The burden of
proof is upon you, and _only_ upon you.
This is, again, basic good science technique.
I freely agree that my little experiment above, entirely statistically
invalid for several reasons, would clearly never pass muster as proof
of anything at all in a peer-reviewed journal.
Honestly, I though that was too obvious to even mention to anyone who
(as you so often reiterate) believes in scientific technique. My
apologies.
You do realize that nothing of what you wrote has anything to do with
what you quoted, right?
Fortunately, that is not it's purpose. I did it to informally check
that I read about 120 pages per hour. I was amused to see that I can
do it *almost* within the parameters you gave as evidence that I
couldn't. If I'd been reading 29 seconds per page, I'd have been
within your parameters.
So I posted it to see if you'd use your scientific open-mindedness to
even consider the possibility that I could.
I don't think you realize how crankish you sound. Part of that is
that you _will not_ respond to anything that I write about the
validity of subjective experience.
I don't think you realize how cranky you sound. What on God's Green
Earth makes you believe that anyone in this thread has ever been
scientifically measured?
They are relating their own experiences to you. They believe their
comprehension skills are adequate. For you to barge in and demand
peer-reviewed scientific proof of Joe Average NG reader's reading
skill is just ludicrous.
I'm probably the one who comes closest to having been scientifically
measured and that was 27 and a half years ago.
--
Clearly, you can't. No matter, your loss.
Uh, right. There's that comprehension thing again . . . though in
this case it looks like willfully miscomprehension.
I'm still interested in a cite for the stats behind the fixate and
saccade figures, because I find that sort of thing interesting.
After the way you'bve been behaving, you want me to supply you with
figures? When all I'm doing are google searches that you could do
just as well yourself?
The mind boggles.
"I would like to electrocute everyone who uses the word 'fair'
in connection with income tax policies."
- William F. Buckley
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: speed reading
- From: dwight.thieme@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: speed reading
- References:
- Re: speed reading
- From: Jaimie Vandenbergh
- Re: speed reading
- From: dwight.thieme@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: speed reading
- From: Jaimie Vandenbergh
- Re: speed reading
- From: dwight.thieme@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: speed reading
- From: Jaimie Vandenbergh
- Re: speed reading
- From: dwight.thieme@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: speed reading
- From: Jaimie Vandenbergh
- Re: speed reading
- From: dwight.thieme@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: speed reading
- Prev by Date: Re: speed reading
- Next by Date: Re: Looking for CATCH THE FAR WINDS Author
- Previous by thread: Re: speed reading
- Next by thread: Re: speed reading
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading