Speed Reading

Another question: How about emotions? Do your emotions (laugh, cry) speed up too? Or you might be physically laughing at the first joke but you are already reading the 4th???
 
If you just read for PLEASURE to kill time, does speedreading give you the same pleasure and enjoyment?
As far as I'm concerned I'm not speed reading: it's my normal pace.

So can you slow down if you want to???
If I read more slowly (deliberately) I tend to lose track...

P.S.: Or like sex, if one needs another example when you might don't want to hurry too much... :)
Er, when I'm reading it's a case of "more, harder, faster!" Is that sufficiently like sex? :eek:

Another question: How about emotions? Do your emotions (laugh, cry) speed up too? Or you might be physically laughing at the first joke but you are already reading the 4th???
I never checked on that. Possibly because the speed I read at is, for me, normal. It's the way I've always done it. (Well presumably not always, I assume I was relatively slow when I was four years old... But it's hard to remember what things were like all that time ago).
 
As far as I'm concerned I'm not speed reading: it's my normal pace.

Well, when I enjoy a book I might reread certain passages or stop and think about what was going on or such. Just like cherising the moment with sex and icecream.

Er, when I'm reading it's a case of "more, harder, faster!" Is that sufficiently like sex? :eek:

I would say 90% of women would say, slower is the better. But I will put you down as speedfucker. :)

I never checked on that.

Can you? Get a jokebook and start to read it and see how you react, comparing to the funniness of jokes. I mean if you have time to react to them or you already passed the joke by 2 more jokes when you finished the laughing part...
 
I think speed reading is useless, when I read for work, I have to fully comprehend what I'm reading, when I read for leisure, I want to fully enjoy it. I never saw a reason for rushing through any type of reading.
 
I think speed reading is useless, when I read for work, I have to fully comprehend what I'm reading, when I read for leisure, I want to fully enjoy it. I never saw a reason for rushing through any type of reading.

I agree. If you read too fast you may not fully comprehend what you are reading.
 
I am a speed reader. I can read a full page of 9-12pt print in a around 30 seconds, but admittedly it is kind of cheating. However, i can relay the basic message.

Sub-vocalization is where you internally pronounce all the words you read.

I thought everyone did this. Every word i type or read is read back to myself, otherwise i am just looking at the word. How can you not?
 
. . . . some (very) slow readers I know seem to look at one letter at a time and have to construct the word in their head before they can understand it.
That's the way most people read a foreign language until they become quite fluent. But most anglophones read English in whole words. (I would imagine it's the same with most languages that are written with phonetic symbols--alphabets and abjads anyway, I'm not so sure about abugidas and syllabaries.) They take in the letters as a group and most of the time all that matters is that the first and last letter are in the right place. That's why it's so hard to catch transpositions in proofreading.

Reading one letter at a time probably slows you down by an order of magnitude. I can carry on a conversation in Spanish with only a little stumbling, but I can't read Spanish fast enough to bother doing it. I'd never get through a novel. And for a language that doesn't use the Latin alphabet, like Russian or Yiddish, it's yet another order of magnitude.
Again, I'd say it was familiarity: accomplished readers recognise words by their shape as much as anything . . . .
I don't think so, based upon this new discovery that we don't care too much about the sequence of the internal letters. Apparently we see all of the letters and do sort of a data warehouse hypercube lookup on all of them at once. The same studies show consistently that one missing, extra or incorrect letter, even if it doesn't affect the phonetics, slows us back down to one letter at a time, whereas transposed letters are not noticed except in long words that can't be taken in holistically.

A year or two ago one member reported a study indicating that people read Chinese logograms faster than phonetic alphabets.
. . . . which probably explains my problems with Russian: all the letters are more or less the same size.
But the same is true of the Roman alphabet. In uppercase they're all the same height, and only a few are wider or narrower than the others. In lowercase the same is more-or-less true for width, and both alphabets have some that are full height and some that are only half. We have five letters that drop below the line and Cyrillic has only two, but I can't imagine that's a deal breaker.
. . . . If you just read for PLEASURE to kill time . . . .
Since when is pleasure the same as killing time???

When reading fiction I often go back over a sentence or a paragraph or a whole page just because I enjoyed it and want to savor the writing again. Or probably just as often because I couldn't figure out what I just read and had to take a second pass through it to get it right. I can read news and technical manuals quickly, but not history or fiction.
 
>>>Since when is pleasure the same as killing time???

Anytime when I am on Sciforums....
 
Moving beyond the sarcasm, I found the Reading Genius course to teach not only expanding vision and using its periphery but also mental training, physical, emotional, mental and spirtual methods to optimize intelligence and align it towards what you read.

That may sound complex but its really pretty simply. I now can read a book over lunch and enjoy it. My 9 yr old uses the kids version and just loves it .. She is the top reader in her class.
 
I don't think it's peripheral vision as such, but I do tend to see three words or so at a time, whereas some (very) slow readers I know seem to look at one letter at a time and have to construct the word in their head before they can understand it.
Again, I'd say it was familiarity: accomplished readers recognise words by their shape as much as anything - which probably explains my problems with Russian: all the letters are more or less the same size.


i rambled about this sometime back

ja
i do snapshots of a para or chunks of words. i suppose there is a pattern recognition of common phrases, standard conjunctions of concepts that is further represented by an additional conceptualization

hmm
an enve fuckin lope?

hard to describe but i feel am skilled. when mistaken in encapsulation of chunk or para, it is usually egregious and embarrassing

umm
the overriding tenor/tone/concept and then a semantical deconstruction

/dear god
 
Back
Top