Live data from Hacker News

Speed reading promises are too good to be true

sciencedaily.com

21–30 of 43 posts

Re: Speed reading promises are too good to be true

#21

I've never quite seen the point of speed reading. When I read, it's either to look up some information I need, or for entertainment. In the former case, it's much more efficient to just look for the particular information and avoid reading most of the text at all. In the latter case, speed reading would make the entertainment run out faster.

Particularly in the context of academia, speed reading or skimming a large number of texts may be useful for keeping up-to-date in one's field, or for quickly surveying a number of approaches to a problem before investigating those which seem most useful or interesting.

Re: Speed reading promises are too good to be true

#23

Straw man? I've never heard it claimed that speed reading can give the same level of understanding as normal reading. Just that it's a way to quickly get a sense or gist of a work.

From the Spritz FAQ page[0]:

"Our testing shows that the retention levels when spritzing are at least as good as with traditional reading and that, with just a little bit of experience, you will retain even more than you did before."

So at least some companies are making claims of this nature.

[0] - http://spritzinc.com/faqs

Re: Speed reading promises are too good to be true

#25
On its own, you're not going to magically be able to reduce your reading time by 95% and still maintain the level of retention you get by a slow word-for-word read from a few weeks with an app/course. As the article states, there's more to reading than just swallowing a word more quickly. But the techniques enable you to change the way you consume information by eliminating the bottleneck and associated procrastination of staring down a 1000+ page book and the weeks it will take to get through it.

I'm a huge advocate of speed reading, personally[1]. However, I think the points made in the article have a lot of merit.

Speed reading should be seen as a tool for consuming information, but you have to adjust the way you learn accordingly[2]. I can read, cover to cover, a 1000 page book in a few hours. My strategy for learning from a large book is to read it more than once (often three to four times) to treat the first read as a 30,000 ft view. I don't do included exercises, and I also limit my note-taking. My second read is with pen and paper in hand. I break for exercises and notes, but otherwise continue to read just as rapidly. If I struggled with the concepts, I'll repeat the process.

Years ago, that book would have taken several sessions to complete the first read and the second read would only be over particular sections. I'd be done after weeks, rather than a weekend, which also negatively affected my retention. Reading from day 1 is built upon and by day 19, it's foggy. When I can do that in an afternoon, it's fresh on my mind. And at worst, with several reads, I'm still getting through the material in half the time it would have previously taken me and with solid retention[3].

It's also not something you become good at over night. After I took the course, I could read twice as fast, but not twice as effectively. It requires a lot of practice. When I sit down to read something, I have a goal of learning whatever it is I'm trying to learn, but I have a second goal of consuming that material more effectively. The first few years, I focused on reducing my time spent on the first read. As the years have gone by, I've adjusted my note-taking and methods for retention. I read a 500+ page book (often equivalent text in PDF) nearly every weekend. I pick things I am using today and grab books that build on that.

[1] I took a multi-week course that focused on the typical "eye movement" techniques along with skim/scan techniques. That course started, for me personally, a rapid change in my ability to consume information from text and I still believe it was one of the most important classes I've ever taken. I greatly prefer book reading over courses these days because I can completely control my pace from very rapid to word-for-word.

[2] I'm speaking purely of technical reading. I do not speed read fiction and my personal experience is that speed-reading fiction is awful. I stick with audio books for that.

[3] I do not have data to back this up. I've been reading large, technical programming books for 18 years, and some of that added speed is that I have a relative understanding of the work before I begin. I know how to read a programming book to maximize my retention and I read programming text to become better at what I do, which is something I've learned how to do from years of practice.

[Edit: Added a note clarifying fiction vs technical]

Re: Speed reading promises are too good to be true

#26
Link to the actual paper: http://psi.sagepub.com/content/17/1/4.full?ijkey=0GSjhNaccRK...

I took on speed reading in college after realizing I needed to study and learn faster or I would fail miserably. The book I picked up seemed like a lot of common sense steps the first one being to inhibiting subvocalization, the internal voice we are used to hear while reading since we where taught to read out loud. The idea here being that our mind can process information much faster than the speed of speech.

The paper cites several studies that suggest inhibiting subvocalization reduces comprehension. However it takes the result of these studies as fact when they might be flawed. An example in their chapter about the role of phonology:

> First, consider a study in which skilled readers were asked to indicate (with a button press) whether briefly presented words were members of a certain category (e.g., foods; Van Orden, 1987). The people in this study incorrectly responded “yes” to a word that was not a member of the category (e.g., meet for the category food) about 19% of the time if that word was a homophone of a true member of the category: In this example, meet is pronounced the same as meat, which is a food. Incorrect “yes” responses to non-homophone words—for example, melt—occurred only 3% of the time.

I looked a the Van Order paper (http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03197716) since it shows the highest reading comprehension failure rate (19%). They came up with that number from an experiment studing just 5 male and 5 female undergraduate students (see Experiment 1, page 3)

I think citing this study altogether as a basis of one of their main conclusions (eliminating subvocalization lowers comprehension) is flawed: The study didn't compare regular undergraduates with speed readers (people skilled at comprehending without subvocalizing), it just concluded no subvocalization could lower comprehension by 19%.

Re: Speed reading promises are too good to be true

#27

Link to the actual paper: http://psi.sagepub.com/content/17/1/4.full?ijkey=0GSjhNaccRK... I took on speed reading in college after realizing I needed to study and learn faster or I would fail miserably. The book I picked up seemed like a lot of common sense steps the first one being to inhibiting subvocalization, the internal voice we are used to hear while reading since we where taught to read out loud. The idea her…

Did you find a personal improvement when inhibiting subvocalization? I find it an interesting idea. I'd love to be able to process two streams of English at once but find the inner voice has only one channel it can work with. I can't listen and read but that would be awesome.

Re: Speed reading promises are too good to be true

#28
post #19

I've never quite seen the point of speed reading. When I read, it's either to look up some information I need, or for entertainment. In the former case, it's much more efficient to just look for the particular information and avoid reading most of the text at all. In the latter case, speed reading would make the entertainment run out faster.

I'm currently (finally!) reading 2001 . I was half a page from the end of a chapter when my train was seconds from stopping where I wanted to get off. Thanks to speed reading, I could finish the chapter and put the book down in my bag before leaving the train!

Every other commuter I see seems to solve this problem by reading while they're walking, head down, oblivious to their surroundings.

Re: Speed reading promises are too good to be true

#29

If I'm looking to process a reading queue, I'll do a lot of skimming, most writing contains lots of fluff and very little substance. I look for the main idea and some supporting context, think about them briefly, make some conclusions, and move on. Only if the text is exceptionally well-written will I slow it down and really dig into what the writer was trying to convey. It's like a conversation. Some are really wort…

Bingo. As the saying goes, "I would have written a shorter letter, but I didn't have the time." (attr. Pascal)

Saying more with fewer words takes work, and not everyone does it, or can do it.

Re: Speed reading promises are too good to be true

#30

Straw man? I've never heard it claimed that speed reading can give the same level of understanding as normal reading. Just that it's a way to quickly get a sense or gist of a work.

I've definitely seen promos for seminars that claim to "double your speed" and at the same time "increase your comprehension," so I'd say that speed reading being on par with normal reading is at least a real claim made sometimes and a perception that probably exists among many.

The course I took promised both, so the problems the article has with speed reading courses are completely fair IMO. They're ridiculous and on par with claiming a pill will make you lose hundreds of pounds without any effort or work.

I've way more than doubled my reading speed from when I took a course 18 years ago. My retention is dramatically higher, as well. The main reason for the increased retention, however, had less to do with the course than a change in the way I consume information from books. If the technical book is worth reading, I read it at least twice. "Read" includes skimming/scanning techniques that I've gotten very good at over 18 years. Thinking "well, I can read 90% faster with these techniques" will result in retention that is very low if you change nothing else. The first read is rapid and haphazard (sometimes just to figure out if it's worth using the book as a source of information). The second read will be honed for specific information (and third and fourth).

That serves two points in favor of retention. By being able to get through a massive text in a weekend with multiple reads (versus a single read over a few weeks), that information hasn't become foggy from multiple long breaks/distractions--it's fresh. My second read is cover-to-cover, but focused with note-taking and doing exercises. Subsequent reads are surgically focused on areas where I am weak and are done more slowly.

Before, my learning was single-pass (with some section/chapter review). Because of the reduced time/effort it takes me read, I can do so in a multi-pass manner with careful focus on learning the material rather than on the act of reading.

Post reply on HN