Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I Was Wrong About Speed Reading (2015)

scotthyoung.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 170 posts

Re: I Was Wrong About Speed Reading (2015)

#31

Post by Reedx »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #14
Reedx wrote: post #11

Reading speed strikes me similarly to typing speed when it comes to programming. It's fun to read/type fast, but it's not really the bottleneck.

The best way to speed read is if the writer reduces the number of words required to communicate and educate. Of course this takes extra effort, and is also goes against human perception of value. E.g. if you reduced Tim Ferris's book to a single sheet of A4 you could get the point across, but who's going to pay $20 or so for a sheet of A4? Well some execs might pay $2000 - but you won't sell millions of copies like t…

That's something I've been wondering about. How many non-fiction books could be reduced by 90% and still communicate 90% of the ideas?

I feel like we're losing a lot of time and potential due to filler pages.

Re: I Was Wrong About Speed Reading (2015)

#32

Post by Swizec »

Reedx wrote: post #31
quickthrower2 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best way to speed read is if the writer reduces the number of words required to communicate and educate. Of course this takes extra effort, and is also goes against human perception of value. E.g. if you reduced Tim Ferris's book to a single sheet of A4 you could get the point across, but who's going to pay $20 or so for a sheet of A4? Well some execs might pay $2000 - but you won't sell millions of copies like t…

That's something I've been wondering about. How many non-fiction books could be reduced by 90% and still communicate 90% of the ideas? I feel like we're losing a lot of time and potential due to filler pages.

Business books (most good writing actually) are frontloaded. The first paragraph tells you the gist, the first page the important ideas, the first chapter most of what the book has to offer. The rest is there to go into detail and support that first chapter with facts arguments and anecdotes.

But here’s the kicker: you often won’t fully grok the first chapter if you don’t read the rest. (or don’t already know it from other sources)

Re: I Was Wrong About Speed Reading (2015)

#33

Post by meekstro »

meekstro wrote: post #30

Mind map the book starting with the conclusion then toc. If a book takes more than 4 hours to mind map it's either a good book or poorly organised. The reading speed isn't the constraint. It's placing the knowledge in your knowledge tree without tiring yourself out. Only read the key parts of the knowledge tree slowly in depth. Use A3 paper and a click pencil. Speeds the reading right up. When the books mapped, expla…

And map Technical books that build on concepts backwards. Your brain wrestles away and it clicks into place by the time you are explaining the mindmap.

Re: I Was Wrong About Speed Reading (2015)

#34

Post by meekstro »

pmoriarty wrote: post #10

I practice what could be called "speed listening" -- listening to audiobooks and podcasts (and watching videos) at 2x to 3x speed. It saves a lot of time, and I only wish I'd started sooner.

I find this also works great with instructional videos like pluralsight and lynda. It's easier on your working memory and concentration and if you relisten to tricky bits as you are going through you have a much deeper understanding that is more richly connected to your knowledge tree than plodding through at normal speed.

Re: I Was Wrong About Speed Reading (2015)

#35

Post by missingrib »

Terretta wrote: post #15

On “subvocalization” ... > It’s simply not possible to comprehend what you’re reading and avoid using that inner voice. So reading faster means being able to use this inner voice faster, not eliminating it. To further that, expert speed readers who were studied also subvocalized, they just did it faster. I’ve seen this argued elsewhere, and am not convinced they’ve found readers who do not subvocalize to study. Most…

I just wanted to chime in. I used to read solely visually (from what I remember) but now I cannot stop subvocalizing. I was already a neurotic person but I genuinely think about this every time I read now and it's kind of distressing.

It's also very hard to focus on what I'm reading because I'm constantly thinking on a meta level about how I'm reading. I find this is less intense if I'm reading something online and not in book form. Anyway my point was just that I think you are 100% correct in that there are people who do not subvocalize, but if you try to test it they will probably subvocalize.

Re: I Was Wrong About Speed Reading (2015)

#36

Post by dredmorbius »

sitkack wrote: post #8
dredmorbius wrote: post #2

The recommendations for more effective reading largely match those in Mortimer Adler's How to Read a Book , particularly chapters 2 (The Second Level of Reading: Inspectional Reading) and 7 (How to X-Ray a Book). Both address how to rapidly determine a book's structure . More generally, Adler suggests approaching reading with intent , that is, what are your goals in reading a book, often corresponding to the type of…

I am a huge Mortimer Adler fan, do you have any other recommendations in the same vein? You might also like the books by https://cs.adelaide.edu.au/~zbyszek/

Adler seems to stand pretty well by himself, and is the best I've found. There's plenty of subtandard works, and avoiding wasting time with those is its own reward.

Philosophy generally offers high mileage, and Peter Adamson's "History of Philosophy" podcast delivers much of this, as well as a suprising amount of historiography addressing how documents came to be made, lost, rediscovered, and reconstructed.

Edmund Burke Huey's The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading has just turned up -- it looks possibly interesting though I've yet to give it a good look.

Jean Piaget's general work on intellectual development as well. And paced repetition.

Re: I Was Wrong About Speed Reading (2015)

#37

Post by baddox »

Reedx wrote: post #31
quickthrower2 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best way to speed read is if the writer reduces the number of words required to communicate and educate. Of course this takes extra effort, and is also goes against human perception of value. E.g. if you reduced Tim Ferris's book to a single sheet of A4 you could get the point across, but who's going to pay $20 or so for a sheet of A4? Well some execs might pay $2000 - but you won't sell millions of copies like t…

That's something I've been wondering about. How many non-fiction books could be reduced by 90% and still communicate 90% of the ideas? I feel like we're losing a lot of time and potential due to filler pages.

It’s interesting that you specify non-fiction, presumably since part of the point of reading fiction is the process of reading itself rather than simply the plot that unfolds. But of course, that’s also true of non-fiction books. Many people probably enjoy the process of reading Tim Ferris’ books.

Re: I Was Wrong About Speed Reading (2015)

#38

Post by cecilpl2 »

zelly wrote: post #22
Terretta wrote: post #15

On “subvocalization” ... > It’s simply not possible to comprehend what you’re reading and avoid using that inner voice. So reading faster means being able to use this inner voice faster, not eliminating it. To further that, expert speed readers who were studied also subvocalized, they just did it faster. I’ve seen this argued elsewhere, and am not convinced they’ve found readers who do not subvocalize to study. Most…

It's impossible to get into the flow state of reading (when you are not aware you are reading) without subvocalizing. I've tried forever. It's impossible and anyone who claims to is lying or is just constantly skimming ("speed reading").

Just because it's impossible for you doesn't mean it's impossible for everyone.

I never subvocalize, and can't remember ever having done so, except perhaps when I was very young. I devour fiction books in flow without it.

Re: I Was Wrong About Speed Reading (2015)

#39

Post by StavrosK »

Reedx wrote: post #31
quickthrower2 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best way to speed read is if the writer reduces the number of words required to communicate and educate. Of course this takes extra effort, and is also goes against human perception of value. E.g. if you reduced Tim Ferris's book to a single sheet of A4 you could get the point across, but who's going to pay $20 or so for a sheet of A4? Well some execs might pay $2000 - but you won't sell millions of copies like t…

That's something I've been wondering about. How many non-fiction books could be reduced by 90% and still communicate 90% of the ideas? I feel like we're losing a lot of time and potential due to filler pages.

I read a book that could literally be summed up in a sentence (it was called "the asshole rule" or something similar, and the gist was "don't hire assholes"). There was nothing at all in addition to that, except for a bunch of feel-good anecdotes and specious data that misrepresented correlation for causation.

I hated it so much that I made a (now defunct) website where I would post summaries of these books so people wouldn't have to be subjected to all the filler.

Re: I Was Wrong About Speed Reading (2015)

#40

Post by StavrosK »

Terr_ wrote: post #27
GolDDranks wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, as a non-native English speaker who mainly interface English through written language and rarely via spoken language, find this fascinating. I am able to read articles and blog posts in English rapidly and with full comprehension, but I'm totally NOT able to speak out loud most of the words. I find that it's mostly through visual medium the words "come" to me.

I wonder if there's anyone out there who can read a non-alphabetic language (e.g. Chinese) but doesn't even know how to pronounce what they're reading. Maybe an experiment could involve a fictional ideogram language, and compare peoples subvocalizing (or lack thereof) versus their native one.

Why not? I didn't know how to pronounce many of the words when learning English, yet I knew what they meant.

I did make up my own pronunciation, if that's what you mean.

Post reply on HN