Article can be found here.
I am considering trying this, and I'm wondering if anyone on LW has tried this or something similar. This seems like it could work, but it also seems like it could be hokum. A simple search for "how to develop a photographic memory" returns any number of methods. If this works with the success rate that they imply, this seems like tremendously low hanging fruit.
Considering the source, I'd assign a high prior probability to the "hokum" hypothesis.
Try this: randomly search the originating site (eHow) for a question regarding a topic you have some expertise on. Then assume as a default that the site is as reliable on topics you do not know as it is on topics you do know.
This is generally an excellent strategy.
As a skeptical learner, I use this strategy in college to decide which science/engineering professors I can trust. For a given professor it lets me know if I should look up the evidence for everything they teach me, or just believe it and move on.
I want to be skeptical, but I don't have time to learn everything in my field from raw empirical evidence, because it's too much material. This let's me identify the subjects most likely to be poorly supported, and investigate them for myself in detail.
Just the other day on the IRC channel we were talking about the method of loci, which is backed by significantly more theory (and practice).
Speaking of the method of loci, will it work if I use a video game environment rather than a real world location? I live a very drab place.
It looks like you're training a short term visual buffer, but I wouldn't assume that generalizes to long term memory.
At times I'll look at something, turn away, but try to hold it in my head, with varying degrees of success. I assume such things can be trained.
But I'd expect their particular method to be relatively ineffective, however, in that it relies on strong contrast in your image, and then strong contrast between that image and the following image. That would train you to better accentuate and perceive that afterimage process, rather than focusing on controlling your visual buffer.
So, this is about developing a photographic memory for text, one paragraph at a time. Is that really something you want? Why not make an Anki flashcard out of the one thing (or more, if it's a really information-dense paragraph) you most want to remember from the text?
This isn't about memorizing that one paragraph. It's about training your brain to remember things after only seeing it for a split second.
Of course, that's assuming it works.
If this is a hoax, can anyone think of a possible motivation for it's creation?
Edit: To clarify, this is a sincere question- not an argument against it being a hoax.
I'm not very confident about this, but I think that many bad theories and such persist just because people can be very, very confused and there are quite a few ways in which they could be obtaining false beliefs: confirmation bias, etc.
I would apply Hanlon's Razor here.
Off-topic: Is that really the best domain name that they could come up with? Did "spells of magic" even exist in the language before that site?
Off-topic: Is that really the best domain name that they could come up with? Did "spells of magic" even exist in the language before that site?