We should cite sources if we're going to say it doesn't work. RJFJR 03:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely. I think the article as it stands is terrible and clearly biased against the technique, unfairly IMO since there are no references to actual studies to verify the assertion that meta-guiding is essentially a failure. I read the speed-reading page and initially felt that it was also somewhat NPOV and unfairly sceptical about the concept but, having read the (very long) discussion page in its entirety, I see that it arrived at that state of somewhat equilibrium through a lot of work and evolution from both pro and con-biased wikipedians, who gave justification for their contributions in great depth. So at least I felt some degree of confidence in the belief that it is representative of the views of most people, experts, charlatans and the general public and points to sources for many of its statements.
This on the other hand, makes a very strong assertion without anything at all to back it up. So if nobody objects or provides a counterpoint, I will edit the text later (once I've figured out how - this is my first participation on wikipedia) to try to balance it somewhat.
For the record, I borrowed Tony Buzan's Speed-reading book from a public library many years ago, kept it for a few years until I eventually bought it from them and searched for it again. When I first started working through it, I found I made some improvement using the simple techniques it begins with, I never had much success with the meta guiding techniques, and gave up on it at that point (although I did go through a phase where I felt my comprehension was high reading two lines at a time in both directions - a la full duplex printing or whatever it's called).
So while I also share some pessimism and wonder whether the whole array of techniques (beyond finger-guiding which I do find useful) works, I think blanket statements like this need to be qualified strongly.
Proposed merge from Meta Guiding Systems
editAny objections to this? - N (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)