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

Is speed reading really possible?

skeptoid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 148 posts

Re: Is speed reading really possible?

#81

Post by maverickmath »

Also note the existence of some already known underlying limiting factors on people's reading speed. E.g. there's a connection between working memory capacity deficits and "processing speed" in ADHDers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21287422

"Abnormalities in working memory and response selection may play an important role in deficits in reading fluency in ADHD, potentially more than posteriorally mediated problems with orienting of attention or perceiving the stimulus."

(Supposedly) the same for other disorders potentially harmful to working memory - e.g. anxiety disorders.

Re: Is speed reading really possible?

#82

Post by thaumasiotes »

Jd wrote: post #75
tokenadult wrote: post #71

Wow. That was well worth a read, at whatever reading speed gives you full comprehension. The author did a good job of reading the previous scientific literature on the subject, and relating important issues to one another. He examined both historical claims (supposed world records of reading speed) and scientific claims (statements about how people read in general). I read quite a few books about speed-reading when I…

"that all writing systems, properly so called, are systems for writing out speech." This is true by definition, at least by the definition of a "writing system" commonly used by DeFrancis and others. For the Chinese system, it is true that the vast majority of written characters are based on sound, but there are also characters that are primarily semantic in construction (e.g. pictographic, at least in origins). The…

Well, come on. It's also true that 100% of the roman alphabet you're using to write with is pictographic in origin, but who cares?

Re: Is speed reading really possible?

#83

Post by ethereal »

tjr wrote: post #73
theanalyst wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, when you read novels/fiction book etc. Skimming texts seems to make no sense, you read novels to get entertained. Most speed reading books etc. recommend skimming or a quick glance say before actually going to attack, while it makes sense for reports and the like, most of short readings,news and the other thing one comes across may not fit in this category

As an anecdotal counterpoint, I tend to read fiction very quickly compared to non-fiction, and enjoy it / retain it well enough for me. When I try to read most non-fiction that quickly, I usually don't get much out of it.

Same thing here. When reading fiction (and some types of non-fiction) I can do away with my internal monologue and absorb the text directly, with full or near-full comprehension. [0] With textbooks etc. I need to actually subvocalize the words for full comprehension.

I'm skeptical of the claim about subvocalization made here as well, but I'm realistic enough to know that I'm not different enough to fall outside the realms of the study referenced.

[0] My reading speed in this `mode', so to speak, ranges from 300-750 WPM, depending on how engaged I am in the material. I measure comprehension by testing myself via asking others (with a copy of the material in question) to quiz me on the content after such a reading session.

Re: Is speed reading really possible?

#84

Post by gnosis »

There's another Ronald Carver book called "Reading rate : a review of research and theory", which comes to the conclusion that speed reading doesn't work.

People can skim at faster rates than they can when reading with full comprehension, but then their comprehension will suffer. You can learn to skim, to take notes, to get quick overviews of whatever you're reading by noting things like chapter and section headings and by reading for the main ideas of sections and paragraphs.

These are all useful skills. But they are a far cry from being to read every single word in the text with full comprehension, and doing that at a significantly faster rate than normal. This latter achievement is something there is little or no evidence of.

Re: Is speed reading really possible?

#85

Post by ax_ »

taeric wrote: post #74

So, whenever I think of the subvocalization debate, I immediately see this video. The basic idea was, do not presume that everyone does the same thing you do in order to achieve the same goal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL273BA8C6E484C988&fe... In other words, I find it hard to believe a claim that subvocalization is required across the board. At least, at an absolute level.

Feynman is not talking about subvocalization in that video.

He's talking about seeing and hearing. According to psychology, humans have two sets of "short-term memorybuffers"; spatio-visual, and auditory. It is perfectly possible to do two tasks at once, as long as you use different "buffers". Like juggling and singing.

But to be able to comprehend text, it needs to go through the linguistic centre. It doesn't matter if it goes through the spatio-visual or auditory sensors. Subvocalization is created by the linguistic centre.

Simple words or numbers do not need to go through the linguistic centre. So it is perfectly possible to comprehend text and at the same time count if you "see"/"hear" text and "hear"/"see" counting. But you cannot comprehend two advanced texts at once.

Re: Is speed reading really possible?

#86

Post by msutherl »

As I was reading this article, I used the SpeakIt! Chrome Extension[1] with the native voice setting to gauge how fast the quoted speeds actually are.

For me, 800 wpm was about the limit of how fast I could read while still understanding most of it. That's the '4x' setting. The '2x' setting is 400 wpm, which based on the article and my experience is a good target reading speed.

It's not entirely perfect because the rhythm imposed by the text-to-speech engine is not optimal for fast reading – it pauses when you don't need a pause and powers through complex sections, but I found it an interesting exercise nonetheless.

Lately I do most of my reading by listening to audiobooks. The last two books I read, I experimented with the 2x speed setting on the iPhone. It took a few minutes to get used to, but now I can't recommend it highly enough. Now I can get through audiobooks in half the time and I've totally adjusted to the butchered sound quality.

[1]: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/speakit/pgeolalili...

Re: Is speed reading really possible?

#88

Post by ax_ »

humanspecies wrote: post #41

The text says it's been proven by NASA and several others that you can't remove subvocalization, yet most speed reader comments here go on to say "yes it works i removed subvocalization". It's obvious all these "speed readers" didn't read a single line of this article.

Maybe they skimmed it :)

Re: Is speed reading really possible?

#89

Post by ryusage »

unavoidable wrote: post #68
bambax wrote: post #47

> You can't read without subvocalization. While this article seems well researched, I find this claim very hard to believe. I can read while singing (not a song with words, but a tune that I know well, without words). I really don't think I "talk to [myself] so quietly, it cannot be heard" and while my "tongue and vocal chords" may "receive speech signals from [my] brain", I'm pretty sure they're not executed and nei…

Proof that you can read without subvocalization are ideographic languages such as Chinese (especially the traditional variety), where the written text and the 'vocalization' are not directly related - it is possible to understand a passage of text based on the relation of the characters to each other and the appearance of characters themselves (e.g. the radicals used and the parts within) without actually knowing how…

My personal experience studying Japanese for a few years makes me skeptical of this claim. Granted, the radicals, etc in the symbols can give you a hint of their meaning, but ultimately a writing system is created to communicate vocalized words.

In fact, many of the "hints" in the written symbols are based on words that sound similar to other words when pronounced (their actual meaning being unrelated), which is fully lost if you cut out the vocalization. As another point, most words are written with multiple symbols, and the meaning of the overall word may be rather different than the words you would get if you read the symbols individually. At that point, I don't see any difference from a word written with an alphabet like English.

Re: Is speed reading really possible?

#90

Post by ryusage »

Arguggi wrote: post #64
bambax wrote: post #47

> You can't read without subvocalization. While this article seems well researched, I find this claim very hard to believe. I can read while singing (not a song with words, but a tune that I know well, without words). I really don't think I "talk to [myself] so quietly, it cannot be heard" and while my "tongue and vocal chords" may "receive speech signals from [my] brain", I'm pretty sure they're not executed and nei…

I had trouble with the "You can't read without subvocalization." part too. I can't understand if by subvocalization he means moving your throat/mouth or simply repeating the words you are reading in your mind without moving any muscles. Wikipedia says "subvocalization is defined as the internal speech made when reading a word"[1], which further confuses me. I don't move any muscles while reading, but my internal mono…

I found it a little confusing too, but my understanding is that it refers to just repeating the words in your mind. When you do this, apparently the signals actually get sent to your tongue and vocal chords as if you were talking out loud, but those signals are so weak that you don't really move the muscles in any noticeable way. You do move the muscles very slightly though, and this can be detected with certain tools.
Post reply on HN