I have had a few workshops on speed reading at my university, and what those guys said about subvocalization was something along the lines of:
We learn to read when we are about 6 years old, how do we learn this? By sitting in a classroom and reading out aloud a simple text, with the entire class at once. In this stage we start to connect reading with subvocalization, when we learn to read better the teacher tells us to 'read in our heads'. Meaning that you are still sub vocalizing. This is a limiting factor as one can (presumably) only speak around a maximum of 500-600 words per minute. Coincidentally, this is the maximum speed for which we can read with a high comprehension according to skeptoid.
I personally never thought much of the guys giving the speedreading workshops, they seemed to be acting and came across like secondhand car dealers. Their claims of comprehension with over 1500 words / minute just sound insane. The techniques however are not all nonsense, and I do believe that I have learned to increase my reading speed from +/- 300 to around 500 words per minute.
The most important lesson they thought was 'guiding your eyes'. Our eyes are not that good in following a straight line by themselves, just try to stare straightforward, and make a perfect circle with your eyes: it will more likely be a pentagon or something. When we let our eyes follow our finger drawing a circle however, it is a lot easier. Applying this to reading, simply means using your finger or pen to follow each sentence on the paper. I find it a lot faster to read that way, but I still let myself subvocalize the sentences, for comprehension. Doing this on a 500-600 words/minute rate is a lot more exhausting though, and I only use it for academic articles or textbooks.
there are plenty of books around this topic. In short there are a at least 4 ways speed reading that you use for different materials. As the other comment pointed out the 1st thing you have to do is stop vocalizing what you read, then you need to learn vocabulary so you would know all of the words without putting much thought to it.
speed reading can really be a game changer, I used to get bored of books myself, but when I can read faster the experience seem to be way more enjoyable!
I can read pretty quickly (I've never really measured, but it takes me about a minute to read a page, which I guess is around 500 words). Depending on the text, though, there's a lot of slowing down or re-reading. I read Harry Potter pretty quickly, but "Thinking: Fast and Slow" is nowhere near at the same pace.
Yes, a lot of times speeds keep on varying. It depends a lot on the type of book that you're reading. For the rest, it's inherent abilities that assist.
I did a speed reading course in high school and often wondered if it was a scam.
Not a scam, scam more a motivational speaker/Eat less exercise more style scam. If you followed it through it would work but almost no one follows through hence the course/advice becomes bunk.
For instance one thing we were taught was to first skim the book/chapter really quick then read it 'properly'
Makes sense to me, but I never do it.
People do have different reading speed levels and I don't think it's all innate so I don't think it a crap idea.
I would agree that maybe the teaching is currently more based around customers and less about pedagogy though.
I read this at 800 wpm (adjust this down @ 10-20% if a test I did a while back still stands) fairly comfortably using http://www.spreeder.com/app.php. I find it very much easier to stay "in the zone" using it.
Yeah I should probably add, I've only used it intermittently. For whatever reason I don't find it comfortable enough to replace regular reading. It works best for articles and the like where I want to actively extract information or quickly ascertain quality.
In so far as I have had "success" with speed reading it has been to force myself to run over the words more quickly and so interpret the commonly seen structures as single units. This means that if a piece is written in a very formulaic style then I can get through it fast because most of the stock sentences read like single words with only the unique modifiers jumping out of the page.
Think about when you look at code and automatically chunk the bits you have seen a million times before but are somehow magically able pick out the needle in the haystack which tells you what is special in this instance. The layout of code helps enormously for us, but I find the effect is the same with reading if I go quickly and with specific purpose to reformulate the information as it is scanned. And the more you do it the better you get because you have more data to draw from when identifying structures. It gets to the point where often I want an author to be formulaic rather than stylish and idiosyncratic because it makes it much quicker to reorganise and internalise.
> It gets to the point where often I want an author to be formulaic rather than stylish and idiosyncratic because it makes it much quicker to reorganise and internalise.
Hence legalese, and bureaucratese, and any number of other things that get laughed at and railed against in equal measure.
Excellent point. I rarely think of those as standardised structural conventions for clearly and efficiently conveying meaning to those acquainted with the terms and, to my shame, usually write them off as obfuscating functions to mislead or confuse. Not so!
> Think about when you look at code and automatically chunk the bits you have seen a million times before but are somehow magically able pick out the needle in the haystack which tells you what is special in this instance.
I guess the real solution is to use a denser language?
At around 7 or 8 years old, my reading level was several grades ahead of schedule. I was consuming large (for my age) novels with no sweat.
My parents noticed this and gave me a speed reading book. I incorporated each an every item on that book including the removal of subvocalization. It certainly gave returns right away, allowing me to consume books at a faster rate, but a huge cost.
Years later, I entered college as an engineering student. I noticed that when reading highly technical textbooks, and classes that required deep comprehension of text, I was much much slower that my classmates, or my comprehension level was much lower. Turns out, it was taking almost double the time for me to get through a section.
Really wished I didnt read the speed reading book now. I dont blame my parents at all, it was unfortunate that at nearly 40, i'm still trying to unlearn what that speed reading book taught me. I'm trying to re-learn subvocalication but its very very hard to 'slow' myself down. I've actually installed screen readers to replace subvocalization with some positive effect.
Depends on poetry, but definitely anything other than sing-song poetry is lost on me. Not sure about the link with subvocalication though, since I've never enjoyed that kind of poetry (causality?!?!)
Funny thing, it was at english class that I actually started noticing it. The exercise was to read against the grain and find the hidden meaning. I didnt get it until I physically read out loud.
I just tried reading a number of articles on the front page using www.spreeder.com that another commenter here mentioned. I got up to 800wpm with chunk size of 3 before my suspicion was confirmed: while I had no problem following the story, it felt like I had a mental buffer that was constantly filling up and skipping over interesting questions or thoughts based on what I was reading.
Fundamentally, speed reading through something is at odds with processing that information in a useful way. And therein lies the rub: I don't read something merely for the sake of reading it.
When I read novels, I enjoy losing myself daydreaming in another world, and savouring the emotions of the characters while thinking about how I would react in their shoes. When I read technical documentation I'm attemping to create or update mental models of technical concepts. When I read a friend's Facebook post I think about what, if any, response I will offer or how I would deal with their situation. When I read a message from my girlfriend I have to take time to understand and plan for whatever she's discussing or asking.
I'm honestly struggling to see the value in speed reading. I cannot think of why I would be reading something simply for the sake of reading it without further processing. More valuable would be learning ways to process information more efficiently, i.e. accurately and quickly.
Exactly what I found. I tried reading Les Miserables using a speedreading app (Fastr) and while I was reading more quickly, it left me wondering what the point of reading it was at all.
When I read it in a normal app (Kindle), I appreciated the beauty of the language, the depth of the characters, and the intricate storyline so much more.
For business stuff, a similar problem occurred - I missed out on key points in emails, and was less creative in solutions. I'm not saying that this applies to everyone, but for me, reading slowly is more efficient.
The key is reading the right stuff more slowly, and not reading the wrong stuff at all.
I think speed reading, as skimming, would be good in cases where you are trying to skip through data rather than process it. I do something very similar with lectures on topics which I'm already familiar with -- I speed them up to 2x or 3x speed in VLC, then slow them down when I reach a topic which requires extra thinking and comprehension.
There is also a tremendous value to watching an important lecture twice: the first time on fast-forward so that you understand the structure of the talk and the gist of the subject, and the second time on normal speed so that you can really get into the details. A lot of writing tries to give you an "overview" or "table of contents" to accomplish the same task, but when it's not there, skimming can be extremely useful.
I'm honestly struggling to see the value in speed reading. I cannot think of why I would be reading something simply for the sake of reading it without further processing
Sometimes you don't need to fully process a text, just know where in it you can find answers for any questions you might have later. For example when reading technical documentation. Speed reading is great for that.
I just realized that same thing happened to me, I attributed it to ADHD. Helps me when I am skimming through news but reading manuals or technical textsbooks is a disaster.
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 feel like I'm reading with two threads - one to take in all the words as quickly as possible, and a second one to pick the important ones out of the stream. The first thread is completely unconscious, to the point where if you ask me to find a specific word on a page of text, I can always pick it out within 2-3 seconds.
But I feel like a greyhound, itching to run at top speed. Reading fiction is a constant struggle to keep myself chained, forcing myself to imagine the scene playing out, when all I want to do is speed ahead to find out what happens next. It's like an internal war, and it gets worse at the climatic moments.
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-reading of LOTR, but feel so far away from the potential to immerse myself in the universe that I have not even given it a serious try. Virtually all of my consumption is rapid reading of relatively light fare that I can consume in a one or two sittings.
The introduction of digital means has not helped me (i.e. Kindle, Kindle App), as this increases my propensity for speed, and virtually the only novels which conform to my expectations are overly long novels (i.e. Neal Stephenson) which provide enough change of pace without any particularly deep or moving characters.
Frankly, I have no idea what to do either. I also feel like a greyhound on steroids, incapable of fictional engagement if it does not come at breakneck speed.
Sub vocalizing is the fact or reading syllables instead of entire words at once.
Deaf could find very useful to vocalize words as they could read peoples lips and faces based on those units.
Everybody read lips and faces subconsciously, there are famous illusions in witch people hear different sounds with the same sound file depending of the video of a mouth they watch:
Studies have suggested that some do, some don't. The more deaf you are, the less likely you are to subvocalise.
Totally not an expert in this area, but I think everybody associates more than just the sound of the word - movement of lips, memories, and other senses are also involved. Deaf people can obviously acquire those 'subvocalisations' instead.
Obviously, you get your best speeds when you're just accepting the text uncriticially. If you stop to think about it, you won't hit top speeds.
Beyond that, you can certainly train for optimal eye movement, local or global optimum as the case may be. After I took speed-reading, I knew not to look directly at the very ends of lines, and I found it more comfortable to center my eyes on white space than on actual text.
IIRC, I tested up to 800 WPM, but that was on grade-appropriate material in a high school I found easy.
(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 ...)
My best real-life estimates of my reading speed was in the 400 words a minute range, with sub-vocalization. E.g., I have a few times read 3 novels the same day, most memorably 2 days before my PhD qualifying exams. (One day beforehand, I crammed like mad. :D One hour beforehand, I led my fellow students in the most awkward game of frisbee ever.)
But it all depends on the material, and the approach to reading it. E.g., there are certain chapter subsections of Hormander's book on Analysis of Several Complex Variables that famously take a week or more each to "read".
"(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 ...)"
I thought CurtMonash was referring to books nowadays, and I must disagree with him if he's suggesting that typesetting, book design and the quality of book production was better in the 1970s than it is today.
Yes, it is possible, I do it, but not as good as I would like. You could read a book in twenty minutes as if it was a video with better comprehension that reading it slowly(as most of the brain disconnects with such a low bandwidth).
When you speed read you train your eyes to look over a wide area and you are able to read several lines at the same time and train the brain to make sense of it(use the subconscious to store-order the lines automatically).
So the best thing you could do is to control the formatting, so text is always the same size and always organized the same way, so if you force your brain to make sense of it, it does after time.
The best structure is newspaper-like text, lots of columns, small lines so your brain could make sense of entire sentences with just an eye shot.
It does not work with Hacker News, or most of the web by the way as each format is different and content is scrolled, with wide lines, not paginated.
It works really well when you could control the formatting, aka non DRM text you could interpret with your own software, but if you try to sell this software you will have problems when even blind people are not permitted to modify copyrighted text.
It's really up to the text. When I read math or comuputer science papers, I have to read slowly, and a few times over, to get any comprehension, even from the non-formula prose.
Around 5th-7th grade, I was in advanced reading and part of a speed reading training class/experiment. It still all seems a bit odd to me. A woman came in a couple times a week with a special projector that projected a book on the screen, but using a rapidly moving light, only showed a few words at a time on the screen. Each week the light moved faster. This was followed by comprehension tests.
I read about 30% faster than most people, but I have no idea if this is really why. Was anyone else a guinea pig? This was in Central NY in the 80's.
I think speed reading is most useful when you are reading some text where only parts are relevant or new to you. By quickly reading those, you can focus on the important pieces and spend more time to think about them.
Interestingly, the faster I read, the less I'm able to "filter" the information I read about, it seems almost as if my brain absorbs it directly. That means that I'd never speed read content that might contain bad memes or false information: political propaganda, religious texts, etc.
Does anyone know a good test for reading speed (including comprehension)?
This book did in fact double my reading speed in 1 hour and there are 2 nice tests in the back which can help calculate you reading speed and also comprehension
I did a speed reading course when I started uni and yes it does work. A lot of stuff is bad habits - some others have mentioned, sub vocalisation, keeping your eye in the middle of the page and read with your peripheral vision, obvious stuff - don't slide your finger along the page, don't use a ruler (some do) and so on. I improved my reading and comprehension quite a lot, but find I turn it off when reading for pleasure versus reading to extract facts. It's well worth doing - even if it only increases your reading speed 10 or 20%.
[edit: How to skim read was another useful tool]
Around the point in the article describing the eye movements required for reading, I experienced a weird anxiety as I attempted to both perceive my own eye movements and consume more of the text. After a few sentences it actually became uncomfortable. Gave me the impression that implementing speed reading strategies would be dubious for me, personally.
I have this sort of problem all the time, and I wonder if it is due to a Problem. For example, if I become aware of my blinking (like if someone does the "manual blinking" trick on me ... ... damn it), then I become anxious and uncomfortable until I can be sufficiently distracted from thinking about it.
Another one is eye contact; I generally don't have a problem making eye contact during conversation, but if I start thinking about it, I become aware that I can only look at one eye at a time and, I get a similar feeling of anxiety and discomfort. I can't decide whether to focus on one eye, switch between them (and at what rate?), or stare past the person, "magic eye" style so they look like a triclops.
Hah, the triclops comment made me chuckle. And don't read too much into this, as I doubt it is at all an appropriate indicator, but I should disclose that I actually have an anxiety disorder. Particularly in conversation I will sort through conversational trees and actively analyze the dialog I am having, as it is happening.
It can be both maddening and very useful. But more than anything it makes you realize how comfortable you are with those closest to you, because all that overlaid mapping and planning fades away into actual casual conversation.
Interesting. I also have an anxiety disorder, so maybe there is some relationship there. We just need someone neurotypical to chime in and tell us whether it happens to them too.
I worry more about the quality of my comprehension than the speed at which I read. I"d rather take ages and get a good understanding than speed up the pace at which I read. Depth over breadth any time. In product features, in overall understanding, in capability, in testing, art, in all things life. This is akin to a get rich quick scheme, do things on the cheap, doing more with less. You can only do less with less.
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.
depends what you mean by sub vocalisation - some people move their lips when they read - this slows things down. You still read the words in your head - so you could call that sub vocalisation - but don't move anything physical (throat, mouth, tongue) - that slows you down.
Even skimmers subvocalize key words. This is detectable, even among speed readers who think they don't do it, by the placement of electromagnetic sensors on the throat which pick up the faint nerve impulses sent to the muscles. Our brains just don't seem to be able to completely divorce reading from speaking. NASA has even built systems to pick up these impulses, using them to browse the web or potentially even control a spacecraft. Chuck Jorgensen, who ran a team at NASA in 2004 developing this system, said:
"Biological signals arise when reading or speaking to oneself with or without actual lip or facial movement. A person using the subvocal system thinks of phrases and talks to himself so quietly, it cannot be heard, but the tongue and vocal chords do receive speech signals from the brain."
I agree with the conclusion that improving reading comprehension is the best way to improve reading speed, at least for me. There are two things I learned from my stuttered attempts at speed reading: (1) The best way to increase reading speed for me is to simply stop re-reading sentences that I already read. I do this unconsciously usually because I didn't fully understand the sentence the first time. Better reading comprehension reduces this. (2) Attempting to speed read is probably a waste of time for me because most of the material I read is technical, so comprehension is usually the bottleneck to getting through the material, anyway.
Good speed reading courses and books not only teach you how to skim faster and not to subvocalize but how to comprehend and learn better.
For example in Paul R. Scheele's book he teaches you how to start on a book:
read the table of contents,
then read the headlines through the book,
then speed read the book and then try to probe your comprehension, ask questions etc.
The table of contents and the probing is the most important. Teaches you recursive learning, when you first build a foundation then you fill out the details.
Anecdotal personal stuff: I learned to stop subvocalizing in grad school. I had no idea it was a canonical speed reading strategy. I can read really fast now, with unimpeded comprehension.
Common sense stuff: The author says that scientists say that reading without subvocalization is impossible. The fact that deaf people can read is extremely inconvenient for this theory. Seriously, man?
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 neither my tongue or my vocal chords move in any way.
(While reading in English there are some words I don't even know how to pronounce, so how could I "subvocalize" them...?)
- - -
The other point I have issues with is the fact that one should retain everything they read while speed reading. While I'm unfamiliar with speed reading classes' claims, I would argue that it's useful to be able to skim a big wall of text to
1- get a rough idea of what it's about
2- determine if it's worth a further, more thorough examination
That may not be called "speed reading", but it's certainly a helpful skill.
I tried to learn speed reading and got pretty decent at it, I can still do it to an extent. In all honesty, I remembered more about texts that I speed read than texts I would read normally.
The only real difference was that when speed reading I didn't have the feeling that I know the full text, but when tested the knowledge would just magically appear out of nowhere; knowledge I didn't know I had.
Eventually I stopped speed reading because it's too much effort. Usually when I'm reading it's to relax the mind, give it a low effort activity to keep itself busy while I rest. Speed reading seemed counter productive for that sort of thing.
Also, speed reading is rubbish for fiction books. You get none of the pleasant pictures in your head and watching the book like an imaginative movie, but all of the feeling of consuming information at a breakneck pace without much time to take pleasure in it.
PS: my main issue with normal reading is that it isn't taxing enough. Especially when I'm trying to study something. Then my mind starts looking for a distraction and I suddenly realise I have no idea what I'm reading. Or simply get bored of it. Speed reading very effectivelyf orces you to focus on what you're reading (probably why I have a higher retention rate when speed reading)
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.
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
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.
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 monologue repeats the words I read, does this mean i subvocalize?
From your Wikipedia article: "Subvocalization involves actual movements of the tongue and vocal cords that can be interpreted by electromagnetic sensors."
Apparently the signals are very weak, but they do exist and can be detected.
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.
I would be fascinated to hear if subvocalization (either motor signals or internal monologue) has ever been studied in the context of reading code or mathematics, if anyone happens to know.
I know I basically need to translate mathematical statements to English in my head to comprehend them -- at least the first time I see them. But I'm also not a mathematician. As a programmer, I know I sometimes do it with code -- but I'm not sure how often -- I don't know if I've ever really thought about it. I suspect I'll become a little bit more self-conscious about it now, until I find out.
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 each character is pronounced.
That was my first thought too. I learned a few kanji, and it seemed magical how meaning could just appear in my head. But there is a comment[1] on Wikipedia, citing a book saying that the process is still there in full effect for native users.
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.
You and the poster below mention Japanese as an example. I counter by saying that Japanese use of Kanji is very different than the Chinese use. I am a native Chinese speaker and have taken Japanese classes, and their vocalization in the language are very different. Japanese places a heavy emphasis on how the characters are pronounced because their language is not purely ideographic; rather they use a hybrid phonetic and ideographic system which forces the reader to vocalize sentences including the Kanji characters.
I posit that if you were a native Chinese speaker, you could skim (or speed read as claimed in the article) without any subvocalization and still understand the given passage.
Hm...fair enough. I'm still skeptical, honestly, but I don't know enough about Chinese specifically to argue with that. I do see your point about Japanese being a mixture of systems.
Apparently those who learn a sign language as their first language think (and I would assume read) in that sign language. Rather than "saying" the words in their head, apparently it's more like feeling the motions their hands would make if they were actually signing.
It is actually exceedingly rare for someone who is "profoundly deaf" (cannot hear at all) to learn to read. Most of the deaf people with high levels of schooling completion are people who began life hearing, or who had moderate deafness and considerable support from a family who were capable in sign language.
Having gone to RIT in New York, which contains the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, that seems a dubious claim. I lived with and went to school with a lot of deaf people, many completely, utterly deaf (no hear aids of any kind), and even took classes taught by people who were completely deaf. While reading and writing English was difficult for some (due to learning it after American Sign Language and a frequent de-emphasis of English at many primary and secondary schools that admit deaf students), being unable to hear at all was not an insurmountable obstacle to reading and writing proficiency.
> (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.
i think this comes down to how different people perceive the world in very different ways... ways much more different than we realize.
for example, here[1] Feynman talks about being able to count verbally in his mind while reading, but being unable to speak (since he is using his 'speaking' to count). and his acquaintance is able to count visually in his mind while speaking, but isn't able to read (since he is using his 'eyes' to count).
These sorts of quirks are fascinating; I tried it and I can count while reading, but can't talk and count at the same time. I can listen to music with words while reading, or while writing, but not while doing math or non-trivial programming, which seem to place greater demands on my parsing center.
When I am reading aloud, I typically read a few words ahead of what I'm speaking -- and sometimes as much as a sentence or two! It's really necessary to get the emphasis right; I like to comprehend a whole sentence (or at least a clause!) before trying to verbally reproduce it.
I find it hard to imagine that I'm trying to 'say' two things at once. Certainly, I wouldn't know how to do that on purpose.
147 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 152 ms ] threadI personally never thought much of the guys giving the speedreading workshops, they seemed to be acting and came across like secondhand car dealers. Their claims of comprehension with over 1500 words / minute just sound insane. The techniques however are not all nonsense, and I do believe that I have learned to increase my reading speed from +/- 300 to around 500 words per minute.
The most important lesson they thought was 'guiding your eyes'. Our eyes are not that good in following a straight line by themselves, just try to stare straightforward, and make a perfect circle with your eyes: it will more likely be a pentagon or something. When we let our eyes follow our finger drawing a circle however, it is a lot easier. Applying this to reading, simply means using your finger or pen to follow each sentence on the paper. I find it a lot faster to read that way, but I still let myself subvocalize the sentences, for comprehension. Doing this on a 500-600 words/minute rate is a lot more exhausting though, and I only use it for academic articles or textbooks.
speed reading can really be a game changer, I used to get bored of books myself, but when I can read faster the experience seem to be way more enjoyable!
Not a scam, scam more a motivational speaker/Eat less exercise more style scam. If you followed it through it would work but almost no one follows through hence the course/advice becomes bunk.
For instance one thing we were taught was to first skim the book/chapter really quick then read it 'properly'
Makes sense to me, but I never do it.
People do have different reading speed levels and I don't think it's all innate so I don't think it a crap idea.
I would agree that maybe the teaching is currently more based around customers and less about pedagogy though.
Think about when you look at code and automatically chunk the bits you have seen a million times before but are somehow magically able pick out the needle in the haystack which tells you what is special in this instance. The layout of code helps enormously for us, but I find the effect is the same with reading if I go quickly and with specific purpose to reformulate the information as it is scanned. And the more you do it the better you get because you have more data to draw from when identifying structures. It gets to the point where often I want an author to be formulaic rather than stylish and idiosyncratic because it makes it much quicker to reorganise and internalise.
Hence legalese, and bureaucratese, and any number of other things that get laughed at and railed against in equal measure.
I guess the real solution is to use a denser language?
My parents noticed this and gave me a speed reading book. I incorporated each an every item on that book including the removal of subvocalization. It certainly gave returns right away, allowing me to consume books at a faster rate, but a huge cost.
Years later, I entered college as an engineering student. I noticed that when reading highly technical textbooks, and classes that required deep comprehension of text, I was much much slower that my classmates, or my comprehension level was much lower. Turns out, it was taking almost double the time for me to get through a section.
Really wished I didnt read the speed reading book now. I dont blame my parents at all, it was unfortunate that at nearly 40, i'm still trying to unlearn what that speed reading book taught me. I'm trying to re-learn subvocalication but its very very hard to 'slow' myself down. I've actually installed screen readers to replace subvocalization with some positive effect.
Funny thing, it was at english class that I actually started noticing it. The exercise was to read against the grain and find the hidden meaning. I didnt get it until I physically read out loud.
Fundamentally, speed reading through something is at odds with processing that information in a useful way. And therein lies the rub: I don't read something merely for the sake of reading it.
When I read novels, I enjoy losing myself daydreaming in another world, and savouring the emotions of the characters while thinking about how I would react in their shoes. When I read technical documentation I'm attemping to create or update mental models of technical concepts. When I read a friend's Facebook post I think about what, if any, response I will offer or how I would deal with their situation. When I read a message from my girlfriend I have to take time to understand and plan for whatever she's discussing or asking.
I'm honestly struggling to see the value in speed reading. I cannot think of why I would be reading something simply for the sake of reading it without further processing. More valuable would be learning ways to process information more efficiently, i.e. accurately and quickly.
When I read it in a normal app (Kindle), I appreciated the beauty of the language, the depth of the characters, and the intricate storyline so much more.
For business stuff, a similar problem occurred - I missed out on key points in emails, and was less creative in solutions. I'm not saying that this applies to everyone, but for me, reading slowly is more efficient.
The key is reading the right stuff more slowly, and not reading the wrong stuff at all.
There is also a tremendous value to watching an important lecture twice: the first time on fast-forward so that you understand the structure of the talk and the gist of the subject, and the second time on normal speed so that you can really get into the details. A lot of writing tries to give you an "overview" or "table of contents" to accomplish the same task, but when it's not there, skimming can be extremely useful.
Sometimes you don't need to fully process a text, just know where in it you can find answers for any questions you might have later. For example when reading technical documentation. Speed reading is great for that.
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 feel like I'm reading with two threads - one to take in all the words as quickly as possible, and a second one to pick the important ones out of the stream. The first thread is completely unconscious, to the point where if you ask me to find a specific word on a page of text, I can always pick it out within 2-3 seconds.
But I feel like a greyhound, itching to run at top speed. Reading fiction is a constant struggle to keep myself chained, forcing myself to imagine the scene playing out, when all I want to do is speed ahead to find out what happens next. It's like an internal war, and it gets worse at the climatic moments.
I've recently been contemplating a re-reading of LOTR, but feel so far away from the potential to immerse myself in the universe that I have not even given it a serious try. Virtually all of my consumption is rapid reading of relatively light fare that I can consume in a one or two sittings.
The introduction of digital means has not helped me (i.e. Kindle, Kindle App), as this increases my propensity for speed, and virtually the only novels which conform to my expectations are overly long novels (i.e. Neal Stephenson) which provide enough change of pace without any particularly deep or moving characters.
Frankly, I have no idea what to do either. I also feel like a greyhound on steroids, incapable of fictional engagement if it does not come at breakneck speed.
Deaf could find very useful to vocalize words as they could read peoples lips and faces based on those units.
Everybody read lips and faces subconsciously, there are famous illusions in witch people hear different sounds with the same sound file depending of the video of a mouth they watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
Totally not an expert in this area, but I think everybody associates more than just the sound of the word - movement of lips, memories, and other senses are also involved. Deaf people can obviously acquire those 'subvocalisations' instead.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8PhwXf9uj1IC&pg=PA114...
It's not possible for actually _reading_ stuff.
Which reminds me of the Woody Allen quote:
― "I speed-read "War and Peace". It's about Russia, right?".
Beyond that, you can certainly train for optimal eye movement, local or global optimum as the case may be. After I took speed-reading, I knew not to look directly at the very ends of lines, and I found it more comfortable to center my eyes on white space than on actual text.
IIRC, I tested up to 800 WPM, but that was on grade-appropriate material in a high school I found easy.
(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 ...)
My best real-life estimates of my reading speed was in the 400 words a minute range, with sub-vocalization. E.g., I have a few times read 3 novels the same day, most memorably 2 days before my PhD qualifying exams. (One day beforehand, I crammed like mad. :D One hour beforehand, I led my fellow students in the most awkward game of frisbee ever.)
But it all depends on the material, and the approach to reading it. E.g., there are certain chapter subsections of Hormander's book on Analysis of Several Complex Variables that famously take a week or more each to "read".
And yes -- I subvocalize.
Different how?
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.
-Woody Allen
When you speed read you train your eyes to look over a wide area and you are able to read several lines at the same time and train the brain to make sense of it(use the subconscious to store-order the lines automatically).
So the best thing you could do is to control the formatting, so text is always the same size and always organized the same way, so if you force your brain to make sense of it, it does after time.
The best structure is newspaper-like text, lots of columns, small lines so your brain could make sense of entire sentences with just an eye shot.
It does not work with Hacker News, or most of the web by the way as each format is different and content is scrolled, with wide lines, not paginated.
It works really well when you could control the formatting, aka non DRM text you could interpret with your own software, but if you try to sell this software you will have problems when even blind people are not permitted to modify copyrighted text.
I read about 30% faster than most people, but I have no idea if this is really why. Was anyone else a guinea pig? This was in Central NY in the 80's.
Interestingly, the faster I read, the less I'm able to "filter" the information I read about, it seems almost as if my brain absorbs it directly. That means that I'd never speed read content that might contain bad memes or false information: political propaganda, religious texts, etc.
Does anyone know a good test for reading speed (including comprehension)?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Speed-Reading-Double-Triple-ebook/dp...
Interesting, most speed reading techniques teach the opposite and condition you to move your fingers along the page.
Another one is eye contact; I generally don't have a problem making eye contact during conversation, but if I start thinking about it, I become aware that I can only look at one eye at a time and, I get a similar feeling of anxiety and discomfort. I can't decide whether to focus on one eye, switch between them (and at what rate?), or stare past the person, "magic eye" style so they look like a triclops.
It can be both maddening and very useful. But more than anything it makes you realize how comfortable you are with those closest to you, because all that overlaid mapping and planning fades away into actual casual conversation.
Veering far off topic now though!
Even skimmers subvocalize key words. This is detectable, even among speed readers who think they don't do it, by the placement of electromagnetic sensors on the throat which pick up the faint nerve impulses sent to the muscles. Our brains just don't seem to be able to completely divorce reading from speaking. NASA has even built systems to pick up these impulses, using them to browse the web or potentially even control a spacecraft. Chuck Jorgensen, who ran a team at NASA in 2004 developing this system, said:
"Biological signals arise when reading or speaking to oneself with or without actual lip or facial movement. A person using the subvocal system thinks of phrases and talks to himself so quietly, it cannot be heard, but the tongue and vocal chords do receive speech signals from the brain."
Is reducing subvocalization beneficial? Is every single phrase and word important to subvocalize? Relevant questions completely ignored here.
read the table of contents,
then read the headlines through the book,
then speed read the book and then try to probe your comprehension, ask questions etc.
The table of contents and the probing is the most important. Teaches you recursive learning, when you first build a foundation then you fill out the details.
Common sense stuff: The author says that scientists say that reading without subvocalization is impossible. The fact that deaf people can read is extremely inconvenient for this theory. Seriously, man?
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 neither my tongue or my vocal chords move in any way.
(While reading in English there are some words I don't even know how to pronounce, so how could I "subvocalize" them...?)
- - -
The other point I have issues with is the fact that one should retain everything they read while speed reading. While I'm unfamiliar with speed reading classes' claims, I would argue that it's useful to be able to skim a big wall of text to
1- get a rough idea of what it's about
2- determine if it's worth a further, more thorough examination
That may not be called "speed reading", but it's certainly a helpful skill.
I tried to learn speed reading and got pretty decent at it, I can still do it to an extent. In all honesty, I remembered more about texts that I speed read than texts I would read normally.
The only real difference was that when speed reading I didn't have the feeling that I know the full text, but when tested the knowledge would just magically appear out of nowhere; knowledge I didn't know I had.
Eventually I stopped speed reading because it's too much effort. Usually when I'm reading it's to relax the mind, give it a low effort activity to keep itself busy while I rest. Speed reading seemed counter productive for that sort of thing.
Also, speed reading is rubbish for fiction books. You get none of the pleasant pictures in your head and watching the book like an imaginative movie, but all of the feeling of consuming information at a breakneck pace without much time to take pleasure in it.
PS: my main issue with normal reading is that it isn't taxing enough. Especially when I'm trying to study something. Then my mind starts looking for a distraction and I suddenly realise I have no idea what I'm reading. Or simply get bored of it. Speed reading very effectivelyf orces you to focus on what you're reading (probably why I have a higher retention rate when speed reading)
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.
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.
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 monologue repeats the words I read, does this mean i subvocalize?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvocalization
Apparently the signals are very weak, but they do exist and can be detected.
I know I basically need to translate mathematical statements to English in my head to comprehend them -- at least the first time I see them. But I'm also not a mathematician. As a programmer, I know I sometimes do it with code -- but I'm not sure how often -- I don't know if I've ever really thought about it. I suspect I'll become a little bit more self-conscious about it now, until I find out.
Come back when you've hooked up NASA's subvocalization detector to a Chinese man and seen it register nothing while s/he reads.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Subvocalization#Subvocaliz...
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.
I posit that if you were a native Chinese speaker, you could skim (or speed read as claimed in the article) without any subvocalization and still understand the given passage.
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?
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.
for example, here[1] Feynman talks about being able to count verbally in his mind while reading, but being unable to speak (since he is using his 'speaking' to count). and his acquaintance is able to count visually in his mind while speaking, but isn't able to read (since he is using his 'eyes' to count).
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj4y0EUlU-Y
When I am reading aloud, I typically read a few words ahead of what I'm speaking -- and sometimes as much as a sentence or two! It's really necessary to get the emphasis right; I like to comprehend a whole sentence (or at least a clause!) before trying to verbally reproduce it.
I find it hard to imagine that I'm trying to 'say' two things at once. Certainly, I wouldn't know how to do that on purpose.