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

101–110 of 148 posts

Re: Is speed reading really possible?

#101

Post by theanalyst »

ethereal wrote: post #83
tjr wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

Strangely enough, I find that retention is always better (for me atleast) in casual reading of novels etc; I'm ok there with ~400-500 wpm. I do skim through reports actually, well mostly that happens when you approximately know the content so there just may be higher speeds may be achieved as you know what to expect. I think for me it is mostly prior knowledge that maybe makes a difference of 100-200 wpm

Re: Is speed reading really possible?

#102

Post by jpdoctor »

dudurocha wrote: post #94
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…

If anybody is deaf, how can he read?

That is a great response.

The next thing that entered my head is: How does the reading speed of deaf-from-birth compare to those who learned to read and then became deaf?

Re: Is speed reading really possible?

#103

Post by pixl97 »

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.

Me too. What varies my speed in fiction reading (beyond plain badly written fiction) is the level of detail the story forces my mind to create to envision it. In a fiction book I really enjoy I'll spend more time 'dreaming' it then reading.

I think another way to test to see how well someone speed reads is to have them pick out a concept out of non-indexed data. If someone speed reads beyond their ability they will skip over it, if they are not a speed reader it will take some time for them to find it.

Re: Is speed reading really possible?

#104

Post by pixl97 »

Anderkent wrote: post #55
joe5150 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"(Of course, this was all in the 1970s, when what one read was black text in a familiar font in neat rows on white paper, all at least somewhat thoughtfully arranged. Things are different now ...)" Different how?

Nowadays one mostly reads online. Adds, adds everywhere.

I'll assume you meant ads :p

As an avid user of Firefox+Adblock I don't know what you are talking about, I don't see any ads at all.

I do see a lot of terrible fonts, colors, and typesetting though.

Re: Is speed reading really possible?

#105

Post by taeric »

ax_ wrote: post #85
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…

Hmm... I can obviously not claim you are wrong. But I do find the difference between internally hearing something and "subvocalization" tough to distinguish.

And, my entire point was that reading is different to different people. So... it may well be that many folks can not speed read. Might even be the case that most speed readers are not as good as they believe. Still, to see the numbers in this, 600wpm with 75% retention sounds ridiculously fast and not too shabby on the retention. So... yeah?

Re: Is speed reading really possible?

#106

Post by taeric »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #82
Jd wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

I think the point is that there is nothing phonetic about an emoticon or similar items. Doesn't mean you can not "read" it. Similarly, consider the reading of a map. If you are like I am, you convert the map you are looking at into the words you'd use to describe the path you want to take. Does not mean the map is at all based on those words.

Re: Is speed reading really possible?

#107

Post by felideon »

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…

> (While reading in English there are some words I don't even know how to pronounce, so how could I "subvocalize" them...?)

Easy, you just mispronounce it. You either break up the syllables that you can pronounce, hoping it forms the correct word, or you just read it as it would sound in your mother language.

Re: Is speed reading really possible?

#108

Post by Raz0rblade »

I also use spead reading once in a while. I can read realy fast going through large documents To be able to find something quickly I once got a huge document on my desk 3400 pages, and i had to decide if we would do that project, please try to read it. To their surprice i fineshed reading and pointed them on the hard parts of it, they never thought anyone would be able to read the entire doc in just a few hours for the deadline.

Re: Is speed reading really possible?

#109

Post by eru »

Jd wrote: post #79
cecilpl wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have exactly the same problem. I learned to read extremely early (before the age of 2), and read Lord of the Rings for the first time when I was 7. I devoured everything I could get my hands on. I never took a speed reading course or lesson, but I cannot recall ever having subvocalized. I find myself hitting 750 wpm on speed reading tests with decent comprehension. Not great, but decent. To use a computing metaphor…

I'm in the exact same place. I devoured fiction (especially science fiction and fantasy) in my youth (ages 7-17, including 6 full LOTR readings), but the appeal has been destroyed as I've moved into hypersonic reading speed, in which my consciousness of individual characters and ability to emotionally relate to the plot line has been decreased to the point of near non-existence. I've recently been contemplating a re-…

Have you tried listening to Audio books?

Re: Is speed reading really possible?

#110

Post by Jd »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #82
Jd wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

In the case of Chinese, the pictographic properties are often retained in the construction. For example, a common radical is that of the roof, which appears at the top of this character: 安 an1 meaning peace The perception (correctly or incorrectly) that the meaning of the word is to some degree derived from its parts affects the consumption of the language in a way that differs substantially from other languages with the roman alphabet. In the particular example, all sorts of people talk about how "peace" is a woman under a roof.
Post reply on HN