The average person’s reading speed is slower than commonly thought(digest.bps.org.uk)
digest.bps.org.uk
The average person’s reading speed is slower than commonly thought
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2019/06/13/most-comprehensive-review-to-date-suggests-the-average-persons-reading-speed-is-slower-than-commonly-thought/
68 comments
I think words per minutes seems like a highly problematic metric, for a variety of statistical logics reasons.
Instead, I think we should try to measure multi-word expressions (MWEs) per second, and consider special characters (including spaces!) as words.
Why? Well, to start with, due to us already knowing about the Auerbach-Estoup-Yule-Zipf-Pareto-Mandelbrot-Simon-Price Law(s) only holding for multi-word expressions, not for phonemes, words, characters or syllables. Can't dig up the papers on that right now, tho.
(Personally however, I suspect that MWEs per second ain't the be all, end all, of reading speed, either. It ignores concepts like Paronomasia & Polysemy, as well as even more obscure things, like Polyphonemes. I just so far lack sufficient knowing of any possibly plausible hyperparameterizations which'd generally let one compile some metric for further complexity reductions.)
I'd elaborate on /how/ that (partially) answers the "why", but I lack the time to do so at the moment.
Instead, I think we should try to measure multi-word expressions (MWEs) per second, and consider special characters (including spaces!) as words.
Why? Well, to start with, due to us already knowing about the Auerbach-Estoup-Yule-Zipf-Pareto-Mandelbrot-Simon-Price Law(s) only holding for multi-word expressions, not for phonemes, words, characters or syllables. Can't dig up the papers on that right now, tho.
(Personally however, I suspect that MWEs per second ain't the be all, end all, of reading speed, either. It ignores concepts like Paronomasia & Polysemy, as well as even more obscure things, like Polyphonemes. I just so far lack sufficient knowing of any possibly plausible hyperparameterizations which'd generally let one compile some metric for further complexity reductions.)
I'd elaborate on /how/ that (partially) answers the "why", but I lack the time to do so at the moment.
"You should take just under two-and-a-half minutes to finish reading this blog post."
Does that include the time taken up by dismissing the "subscribe!" pop-up, and figuring out where you were when you got distracted by that?
Does that include the time taken up by dismissing the "subscribe!" pop-up, and figuring out where you were when you got distracted by that?
Didn't see that at all (I'm a user of the NoScript browser extension that allows JS only from explicitly whitelisted sites).
I went through the content in about 30 seconds. What I remember:
1. "People read at closer to 240 wpm rather than 300 as was previously thought."
2. This was from a meta-study gathered over various studies spanning the twentieth century, in various languages based on the Roman alphabet.
3. There appears to be some variation in reading speed dependent on language.
I went through the content in about 30 seconds. What I remember:
1. "People read at closer to 240 wpm rather than 300 as was previously thought."
2. This was from a meta-study gathered over various studies spanning the twentieth century, in various languages based on the Roman alphabet.
3. There appears to be some variation in reading speed dependent on language.
I was just under two minutes and I'd have added the following by memory:
- Spanish readers are faster than English
- A key reason for the discrepancy between previously measured reading speeds and the new results is recreational vs test-style assessment. Basically it sounds like people read faster when they are being assessed on their reading.
- It should take about 2 minutes and 30 seconds to finish reading the article.
And then doing a 30 second skim a second time I would have added the following:
- Reading speed depends on if the text is long or short. Shorter text can be much slower.
- Reading speed declines with age.
A third skim and I'd add:
- this is important for assessors, who shouldn't expect everyone to read at 300wpm.
Looking back and comparing my notes across the three reads I actually remember recognizing each one of those points the first time through, but I didn't reliably remember them all after each run. I almost think this might have more to do with the way that memory works than the way reading works.
- Spanish readers are faster than English
- A key reason for the discrepancy between previously measured reading speeds and the new results is recreational vs test-style assessment. Basically it sounds like people read faster when they are being assessed on their reading.
- It should take about 2 minutes and 30 seconds to finish reading the article.
And then doing a 30 second skim a second time I would have added the following:
- Reading speed depends on if the text is long or short. Shorter text can be much slower.
- Reading speed declines with age.
A third skim and I'd add:
- this is important for assessors, who shouldn't expect everyone to read at 300wpm.
Looking back and comparing my notes across the three reads I actually remember recognizing each one of those points the first time through, but I didn't reliably remember them all after each run. I almost think this might have more to do with the way that memory works than the way reading works.
[deleted]
I can read blazingly fast. I used to read sometimes two books in a day, and I destroyed the fiction section in the library of every school I went to.
But now I mostly read non-fiction, and in light of the fact that I remember maybe 8% in detail of the thousands of books I've read, I like to take things very slowly. I'll read a paragraph, stop, think about what I just read, and sometimes read it again just to help things stick.
I break up long articles into multiple sessions, and after each session I try to recall in detail what I just read, and try to form insights and draw connections which help to cement the data into my brain.
If I'm skimming for information, sure, I'll just churn over the text as fast as possible-- But these days I'm reading for knowledge's sake and not escapism. And even when I read fiction, I like to exercise my visual memory and try to imagine every last detail while I read at a leisurely pace.
I see nothing wrong with this approach and thusly I think WPM outside of a desk job is meaningless and not some number corresponding to intelligence that we should be trying to maximize.
But now I mostly read non-fiction, and in light of the fact that I remember maybe 8% in detail of the thousands of books I've read, I like to take things very slowly. I'll read a paragraph, stop, think about what I just read, and sometimes read it again just to help things stick.
I break up long articles into multiple sessions, and after each session I try to recall in detail what I just read, and try to form insights and draw connections which help to cement the data into my brain.
If I'm skimming for information, sure, I'll just churn over the text as fast as possible-- But these days I'm reading for knowledge's sake and not escapism. And even when I read fiction, I like to exercise my visual memory and try to imagine every last detail while I read at a leisurely pace.
I see nothing wrong with this approach and thusly I think WPM outside of a desk job is meaningless and not some number corresponding to intelligence that we should be trying to maximize.
>And even when I read fiction, I like to exercise my visual memory and try to imagine every last detail while I read at a leisurely pace.
You just made me realize that people can and do read fiction without visualizing the majority of things that happen in a story. That suddenly explains so much as to how some people read fiction so quickly.
You just made me realize that people can and do read fiction without visualizing the majority of things that happen in a story. That suddenly explains so much as to how some people read fiction so quickly.
I used to visualize basic whisps of the scenes, what each character looked and sounded like, I guess I've always liked to visualize while reading... in fact I can still very lucidly recall tons of visualizations from more than a decade and a half ago as if they were scenes in a movie, a real testament to the storytelling ability of those authors.
But now I try to spend more time than before. I try to really soak in every paragraph. Whereas in school I took pride in being the most prolific reader around, there isn't much room in my adult life for such competitive, external motivations. Now the stimulation I receive from art and literature stems from my appreciation of the artist's prowess.
But now I try to spend more time than before. I try to really soak in every paragraph. Whereas in school I took pride in being the most prolific reader around, there isn't much room in my adult life for such competitive, external motivations. Now the stimulation I receive from art and literature stems from my appreciation of the artist's prowess.
I read quickly and have the same retention rate (or better) than most people I've interacted with.
I don't do any of the tricky stuff that 'speed readers' do.
The only thing I'm aware is different is I don't hear the words in my head when I read as I'm often 'reading' a chunk of 3-4 words at once.
I thought this was completely normal til I spoke to an ex about it when she commented I demolished books.
I don't do any of the tricky stuff that 'speed readers' do.
The only thing I'm aware is different is I don't hear the words in my head when I read as I'm often 'reading' a chunk of 3-4 words at once.
I thought this was completely normal til I spoke to an ex about it when she commented I demolished books.
I often hear people boasting about their "speed reading" skills and then I ask them what sort of books they read, turns out speed reading and having "good retention rate" is easy if you're reading crap. I could also speed read Clive Cussler, Stephen King, and JK Rowling.
I love Philosophy and classic literature and I've yet to meet anyone that's managed to speed read Proust's "In Search of Lost Time", and then tell give me a detailed description of the plot, themes, artistic merit, and so on. Similarly with books like Ulysses. There's no possible way to speed read that book because it's so rich with allusions, references to religion, art, mythology, and philosophy. If you tried to "speed read" it, you would be missing half the point of reading it in the first place.
Reading great books isn't about numbers, you don't get rewarded for how many classics you read in a year. Reading great books is about slowly absorbing all the riches inside, something that just cannot happen if you're rushing. I've read The Brothers Karamazov and The Magic Mountain 4 or 5 times and each time I learn something new and gain a deeper understanding of psychology and life. I find it more rewarding to read and re-read the classics slowly, writing notes, using a critical guide (or book of companion essays), than smashing through as many crappy novels or modern popular non-fiction books (The Power of Now of any of Malcom Gladwells books are typical fodder for todays readers).
I love Philosophy and classic literature and I've yet to meet anyone that's managed to speed read Proust's "In Search of Lost Time", and then tell give me a detailed description of the plot, themes, artistic merit, and so on. Similarly with books like Ulysses. There's no possible way to speed read that book because it's so rich with allusions, references to religion, art, mythology, and philosophy. If you tried to "speed read" it, you would be missing half the point of reading it in the first place.
Reading great books isn't about numbers, you don't get rewarded for how many classics you read in a year. Reading great books is about slowly absorbing all the riches inside, something that just cannot happen if you're rushing. I've read The Brothers Karamazov and The Magic Mountain 4 or 5 times and each time I learn something new and gain a deeper understanding of psychology and life. I find it more rewarding to read and re-read the classics slowly, writing notes, using a critical guide (or book of companion essays), than smashing through as many crappy novels or modern popular non-fiction books (The Power of Now of any of Malcom Gladwells books are typical fodder for todays readers).
This is legitimately the most pretentious HN comment I've ever read, and that's a very high bar.
I too dismiss things that people enjoy as "crap" because I have such a gigantic brain from reading philosophy and looking down everyone else, and belittle them for believing that they read and understand fast in the wrong type of book.
I too dismiss things that people enjoy as "crap" because I have such a gigantic brain from reading philosophy and looking down everyone else, and belittle them for believing that they read and understand fast in the wrong type of book.
I actually read and enjoy Stephen King and JK Rowling, but I don't tell myself it's fine art and I'm super "smart" for speed reading it. I don't try and speed read anything because I don't think it's useful or meaningful.
I'm trying to rally against the crowd you always find in any thread on speed-reading who love to talk about how great they are for reading 10 books a day and gaining nothing from it.
I'm trying to rally against the crowd you always find in any thread on speed-reading who love to talk about how great they are for reading 10 books a day and gaining nothing from it.
One can legitimately spend 20 minutes reading a single page...sometimes it depends on the thought, craft and skill of the author but relies on the reader to actually give a damn - enjoying reading for the sake of reading...
One authors view - https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/07/howard-jacobso...
One authors view - https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/07/howard-jacobso...
>This is legitimately the most pretentious HN comment I've ever read, and that's a very high bar.
Or just one that tells it like it is.
Not everything is of the same level (e.g. Bach and Nicky Minaj or Coltrane and Vanilla Ice), and not everything is equally "subjective". The same that goes for music, goes for literature, cinema, and so on.
Sure, USA was founded on a populist ideology, where no individual's tastes and cultural development is lesser than another's. Well, not all cultures agree with that.
>I too dismiss things that people enjoy as "crap" because I have such a gigantic brain from reading philosophy and looking down everyone else, and belittle them for believing that they read and understand fast in the wrong type of book.
Well, at some point someone has to belittle if not the people, surely the wrong type of book -- in other words, put it in perspective, not everything is a diamond -- else there's no art and no culture, just an indistinguishable blob of different works.
Or just one that tells it like it is.
Not everything is of the same level (e.g. Bach and Nicky Minaj or Coltrane and Vanilla Ice), and not everything is equally "subjective". The same that goes for music, goes for literature, cinema, and so on.
Sure, USA was founded on a populist ideology, where no individual's tastes and cultural development is lesser than another's. Well, not all cultures agree with that.
>I too dismiss things that people enjoy as "crap" because I have such a gigantic brain from reading philosophy and looking down everyone else, and belittle them for believing that they read and understand fast in the wrong type of book.
Well, at some point someone has to belittle if not the people, surely the wrong type of book -- in other words, put it in perspective, not everything is a diamond -- else there's no art and no culture, just an indistinguishable blob of different works.
The post could have been written with a different tone, but I think it makes a good point that can't be purely dismissed as simple snobbery or belittling.
I think the reason some folks get defensive on this topic is that it's somewhat common for someone to claim to be an incredibly fast reader, but on closer inspection it is (almost always) revealed that they are reading very straightforward and simple fiction that is about as close to being designed for speed reading as possible. This makes the claim of speed reading feel disingenuous. There can be truly dramatic differences between novels in terms of the complexity of the language used and the nuance of characters and events. I don't think one should expect a particularly celebratory response if one is making other folks feel like slow readers when they actually have been reading far more complicated material.
I think the reason some folks get defensive on this topic is that it's somewhat common for someone to claim to be an incredibly fast reader, but on closer inspection it is (almost always) revealed that they are reading very straightforward and simple fiction that is about as close to being designed for speed reading as possible. This makes the claim of speed reading feel disingenuous. There can be truly dramatic differences between novels in terms of the complexity of the language used and the nuance of characters and events. I don't think one should expect a particularly celebratory response if one is making other folks feel like slow readers when they actually have been reading far more complicated material.
I like King and can confirm that I can read it much faster then books he mentions.
Some books are quick to read, others slow. Ulysses was intentionally written to be difficult and Stephen King put great effort in making his books easy to read.
Some books are quick to read, others slow. Ulysses was intentionally written to be difficult and Stephen King put great effort in making his books easy to read.
It's not really up for debate that it takes more concentration and time to read Ulysses or Hegel than it does to read the Dark Tower or Harry Potter series.
Edit: And I like all of the above books/authors
Edit: And I like all of the above books/authors
Ever read a Tom Clancy book? Absolute crap. In about 3 dimensions. But, entertaining. Have read them all. Quickly.
Being difficult to read definitely isn't a mark of quality, but all books aren't written at the same difficulty (vocabulary, ideas, information density) level, even if the idea that some things are harder than others strikes you as elitist.
I completely agree. I can read incredibly fast however I've attenuated my reading speed over time to appreciate richness of text and think deeply about the ideas that are being communicated. At some point the actual technical part of reading becomes trivial and the ideas become what's important.
Speed reading seems have become a point of pride for many people. I think they see it as a proxy for intelligence rather than a learned ability that is very useful in some (not all) contexts.
I have a similar attitude toward audio books. When someone claims that listening to an audio book is largely the same as reading it, it strikes me that this could only be true of books which aren't especially demanding in terms of comprehension. The idea of listening to audio book of Hegel or using an audio book in lieu of textbooks to study for school seems crazy to me.
I read words aloud in my head. However, I remember reading words as fast as possible almost like an auctioneer when we would break up into reading groups in elementary school. My classmates thought it was hilarious but when the teacher came by, she would tell me not to read so fast.
So I switched the extra processing power to making context-appropriate inflections, dramatizations, and intonations instead of the monotone my classmates were doing, which the teachers seemed to tolerate.
So I switched the extra processing power to making context-appropriate inflections, dramatizations, and intonations instead of the monotone my classmates were doing, which the teachers seemed to tolerate.
> context-appropriate inflections, dramatizations, and intonations
I do this too, and other people often comment on how well I read out loud.
I often find myself buffering words into vocalization while I read ahead a line or so and prepare the next sentence. I can insert pauses (or intone a clause as an aside) to make it easier for the listener to parse.
What tricks do you have?
I do this too, and other people often comment on how well I read out loud.
I often find myself buffering words into vocalization while I read ahead a line or so and prepare the next sentence. I can insert pauses (or intone a clause as an aside) to make it easier for the listener to parse.
What tricks do you have?
I have been reading kids books aloud for maybe 2 hours per day for the past 2 years (to an almost-3 year old), and at this point I can do a pretty decent read-aloud including voices etc. while also considering some unrelated technical problem in my head.
The catch is that if I am thinking about something else simultaneously then what I am reading aloud doesn’t make it into memory; I can read for 20 minutes and then suddenly realize that I have no idea what happened in the story. The reading is on autopilot.
The catch is that if I am thinking about something else simultaneously then what I am reading aloud doesn’t make it into memory; I can read for 20 minutes and then suddenly realize that I have no idea what happened in the story. The reading is on autopilot.
You comment seems a bit defensive about your teacher inspiring you to improve your reading performance skills.
Your teacher probably tolerated monotone because your classmates were working hard just to get the words out, and they weren't ready to add inflection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjtPMiumixA Don't Read Like a Robot - Blazer Fresh | GoNoodle
Your teacher probably tolerated monotone because your classmates were working hard just to get the words out, and they weren't ready to add inflection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjtPMiumixA Don't Read Like a Robot - Blazer Fresh | GoNoodle
>You comment seems a bit defensive about your teacher inspiring you to improve your reading performance skills.
It was stated that the only thing she inspired me to do was slow down my expression of reading speed. Reading faster than my peers and entertaining them is not something people get embarrassed about.
Her telling me to slow down was not a magical way to get me to add inflection out of the void. Being scolded for deviating from normal speed only reinforced the standard school mentality that any deviation = bad. It would have only discouraged me from adding inflections without first being instructed to do so.
>(other classmates) weren't ready to add inflection.
I don't recall my classmates even adding inflection by high school or beyond, let alone by the end of the trimester. At least where I'm from, elementary teachers do not try to add inflection in their students. I'd imagine being able to read itself is more than sufficient to send them on to the next class.
Teachers focusing attention on illiterate students probably took precedence over tinkering with subjective inflections in kids who were not only going to pass their K-5 standardized tests but were already reading at a high school level.
It was stated that the only thing she inspired me to do was slow down my expression of reading speed. Reading faster than my peers and entertaining them is not something people get embarrassed about.
Her telling me to slow down was not a magical way to get me to add inflection out of the void. Being scolded for deviating from normal speed only reinforced the standard school mentality that any deviation = bad. It would have only discouraged me from adding inflections without first being instructed to do so.
>(other classmates) weren't ready to add inflection.
I don't recall my classmates even adding inflection by high school or beyond, let alone by the end of the trimester. At least where I'm from, elementary teachers do not try to add inflection in their students. I'd imagine being able to read itself is more than sufficient to send them on to the next class.
Teachers focusing attention on illiterate students probably took precedence over tinkering with subjective inflections in kids who were not only going to pass their K-5 standardized tests but were already reading at a high school level.
> being able to read itself is more than sufficient to send them on to the next class
This is why my kids go to private school and I support school choice: when students are treated like widgets that only have to meet some minimum quality standard, that necessarily results in teachers doing exactly as you describe: tolerating mediocrity because mediocrity is the standard. It’s not the teachers’ fault, it’s the way public schools are designed: to output students at a minimum level of competency. Until parents start demanding something beyond the minimum and voting accordingly, just “passing,” is all that we can expect.
This is why my kids go to private school and I support school choice: when students are treated like widgets that only have to meet some minimum quality standard, that necessarily results in teachers doing exactly as you describe: tolerating mediocrity because mediocrity is the standard. It’s not the teachers’ fault, it’s the way public schools are designed: to output students at a minimum level of competency. Until parents start demanding something beyond the minimum and voting accordingly, just “passing,” is all that we can expect.
Yeah, based on a very informal survey I’ve seen on some reading-related subreddits, the biggest difference between fast and slow readers was whether they subvocalized or not.
I fall in the “not” category (the average-sized book is a 3-4 hour length for me), but I will occasionally intentionally subvocalize, just to slow myself down a bit.
I fall in the “not” category (the average-sized book is a 3-4 hour length for me), but I will occasionally intentionally subvocalize, just to slow myself down a bit.
I'm an extremely slow reader. I read probably most books about this subject, but am unable to absorb material if I don't subvocalize.i see words, chunk of words, but they don't connect to each other and I get no meaning.
I've wondered if this is one of those thing that if you have not learned how to do it before a certain age, your brain can no longer learn it, like seeing in stereo etc...
I've wondered if this is one of those thing that if you have not learned how to do it before a certain age, your brain can no longer learn it, like seeing in stereo etc...
It could be, I was really slow to learn to read (and I mean slow, I nearly ended up in remedial classes) until I got exceptionally lucky in having a teacher who realised my issue wasn't capability it was boredom and who was willing to give up her lunch time to introduce me to books that were engaging (I still remember the first 'proper' book I read, 'Goodnight Mister Tom' by Michelle Magorian - The critical point was when I wanted to know what happened next and began (laboriously) reading it at home so I could find out) - at 7 I had the reading ability of a slow 5 year old by 8 I was reading books typically read in school by 16 year olds.
Once I found books and authors I liked I became a voracious reader, from eight to adulthood it wasn't unusual for me to have 3-4 books on the go at once and to read 3-4 books in a week all the classic works of sci-fi, books on science, computers, geography, history, politics, biology I was a sponge, I'd read almost anything - I used to read while walking to and from school, I walked into surprisingly few lamp posts.
The more I read the less I vocalised the words in my head, I started with pointing at each word (as most kids do) and then I stopped doing that, then I started looking at the word shape rather than the word and not vocalising it at all, it wasn't anything conscious just a natural progression.
In a very profound sense that teacher and my mum altered the scope of my life for the next 30 years, the teacher by realising I just needed the time and the right material and my mum for scouring charity shops/2nd hand book shops to keep me fed with books as money was tight (bless her, she used to keep a list in her purse of all the authors I liked, what books they had written and which I'd read).
Once I found books and authors I liked I became a voracious reader, from eight to adulthood it wasn't unusual for me to have 3-4 books on the go at once and to read 3-4 books in a week all the classic works of sci-fi, books on science, computers, geography, history, politics, biology I was a sponge, I'd read almost anything - I used to read while walking to and from school, I walked into surprisingly few lamp posts.
The more I read the less I vocalised the words in my head, I started with pointing at each word (as most kids do) and then I stopped doing that, then I started looking at the word shape rather than the word and not vocalising it at all, it wasn't anything conscious just a natural progression.
In a very profound sense that teacher and my mum altered the scope of my life for the next 30 years, the teacher by realising I just needed the time and the right material and my mum for scouring charity shops/2nd hand book shops to keep me fed with books as money was tight (bless her, she used to keep a list in her purse of all the authors I liked, what books they had written and which I'd read).
It's also possible that people who don't subvocalize aren't absorbing as much.
> I fall in the “not” category (the average-sized book is a 3-4 hour length for me), but I will occasionally intentionally subvocalize, just to slow myself down a bit.
This is what I do, though sometimes it's a second pass over a passage that I want to savor or really focus deeply on.
This is what I do, though sometimes it's a second pass over a passage that I want to savor or really focus deeply on.
Similar to re-reading a passage I go back and re-read books I really like 3-4 times (and a few many more than that).
I've read all of the Discworld novels at least 3 times and a few like Hogfather more than a dozen (I re-read it ever Christmas).
Reading is one of lives truly great pleasures and it's one of lifes most democratic.
I've read all of the Discworld novels at least 3 times and a few like Hogfather more than a dozen (I re-read it ever Christmas).
Reading is one of lives truly great pleasures and it's one of lifes most democratic.
Is this categorization (subvocalizers vs others) backed up by research?
Can on learn not to subvocalize?
Can on learn not to subvocalize?
I would consider whether you really want to. I'm someone who seems to have naturally not sub-vocalized for most of my life or at least if I did it was like a robotic voice fast talking in my head, I guess I would actually sound the words in my head but much faster than a person talking and in a way that did not help me develop a feel for inflection, etc. I have always been able to read faster than an average person but the last couple years has opened my eyes to a lot of communication issues I have had, basically my default has been that when I talked to people it would always seem very low energy and without much emotion or inflection and it has had a very negative impact on my social life, among other things. In the last couple years I've started learning a second language, in which I find it much easier to read if I do sub-vocalize at a normal human pace and I've also started pushing myself to record myself talking about various topics in English and to work on my communication skills overall. I've now started sub-vocalizing when I read in English as well and I'm noticing overall improvements in my life like being able to have more expressive and natural conversations with people. I'm sure reading without it has its places when you really need to speed read but I'm not sure a goal of never sub vocalizing is ideal.
I suspect so, as almost everyone starts off as an out-loud vocalizer when they're first learning to read.
This is a _fantastic_ example of sampling bias. You simply have no idea when small children are reading silently. You assume they aren't reading until they vocalize, and then when they stop vocalizing you change your assumption to assume they are still reading even though you can't hear it.
I never knew that anyone subvocalized until I ran into theories that subvocalization was required for reading.
> I don't do any of the tricky stuff that 'speed readers' do.
The only thing I'm aware is different is I don't hear the words in my head when I read as I'm often 'reading' a chunk of 3-4 words at once.
That IS the tricky stuff speed readers do.
That IS the tricky stuff speed readers do.
A family member is deaf and does exactly the same thing. He never learned to read aloud so never got into the habit. He reads ridiculously fast.
I think it's highly correlated with IQ. It happens that people with higher IQs read faster and and have better comprehension as demonstrated, for example, = by verbal score on the SAT.
IQ is a highly outdated concept and making wild assumptions about correlation unscientific. Reading becomes more effortless with practice.
In my experience (which isn't data) the correlation is weak at best, I know people I consider much smarter than me who read slower (my boss for example, he has advanced degrees in industrial chemistry and is ridiculously smart)
That and people over-estimate my intelligence because I know about lots of random things, they think I'm smart because of that but they could have done exactly the same thing if they'd chosen to which feeds nicely into nature vs nurture I guess.
I got hooked on books and my mum fed that addiction, that they didn't is the only difference.
It helps that the perception of computer programmers is that we are geeky but do something that is incredibly difficult (when I know the reality is except for certain domains, you really don't need much math beyond arithmetic and the rest is conscientious attention to detail and explaining the problem simply to a really high speed idiot).
That and people over-estimate my intelligence because I know about lots of random things, they think I'm smart because of that but they could have done exactly the same thing if they'd chosen to which feeds nicely into nature vs nurture I guess.
I got hooked on books and my mum fed that addiction, that they didn't is the only difference.
It helps that the perception of computer programmers is that we are geeky but do something that is incredibly difficult (when I know the reality is except for certain domains, you really don't need much math beyond arithmetic and the rest is conscientious attention to detail and explaining the problem simply to a really high speed idiot).
I never took a speed reading class, but I do know how to recognize when a author -- of any book -- starts blathering on or tries to motivate. I can read whole pages in an instant in those circumstances.
In fiction when an author has an entire page of technobabble I just subconsciously skip the entire thing and only go back to read if the rest doesn't make sense.
There worst scifi books are the post famous price ones.
The author has a contract, all competition has been eternally removed from his mindset. He made it. Finally he can, drone on and on about some obscure infodump he found.
Or even worser, show it to those upper class snobs & critic, who claimed that writing good characters and prose is as far out of the league for sciFi, as if it where burried at a rainbows end.
The author has a contract, all competition has been eternally removed from his mindset. He made it. Finally he can, drone on and on about some obscure infodump he found.
Or even worser, show it to those upper class snobs & critic, who claimed that writing good characters and prose is as far out of the league for sciFi, as if it where burried at a rainbows end.
I have always been a slow reader. My younger siblings would often finish books or articles a lot faster than me. Turns out, I'm a more careful reader than them - I would spot spelling mistakes in text where they would miss them. They'd also misinterpret texts due to speed, where I wouldn't. Not sure what's better, but I do personally prefer the slow and considered approach to reading.
Reading speed is highly correlated with the difficulty of the material. And even this factor varies from person to person because of different backgrounds and interests. For me reading speed and a quiz on the material afterwards are useless indicators of someone's overall speed. Every person should read as fast or as slow to full grasp the material.
Kind of a tangent, but I've had fun experimenting with Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP), a technique where words are displayed one-at-a-time at the same location and you don't move your eyes.
With a little practice I got to the point where the reading material was entering my brain faster than I can normally think.
Apologies for the link, wikipedia article on RSVP is garbage (rare, but it happens.)
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/these-apps-could-t...
With a little practice I got to the point where the reading material was entering my brain faster than I can normally think.
Apologies for the link, wikipedia article on RSVP is garbage (rare, but it happens.)
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/these-apps-could-t...
> Although the number of studies involving non-English languages was too small to draw any firm conclusions, there seemed to be a hint of differences between languages. For example, reading rate in the five Spanish studies was considerably faster than the average, at 278 wpm, while the average rate for the 144 English-only studies was 236 wpm.
It really doesn't make sense to compare wpm across languages.
It really doesn't make sense to compare wpm across languages.
My issue is concentration. Once an article looses my interest I find it very difficult to keep reading without skipping chunks. Do others find it easy to read things that they aren't interested in but have to read for work etc.? As someone who used to have to read a lot of academic papers for my PhD I found my mind wandering a lot and often impossible to make it through some content.
I think everyone experiences this to some degree, especially when reading technical stuff, you kinda take in what you are interested in/ think will be useful and skim over the rest.
I wonder if reading rates have simply been declining in recent years because of phones, computers, TV, etc.
Alternatively, they could be increasing it. Computers have been exposing people to a lot more text in the modern technological era than they would've seen prior to it.
yes but how many people read whole articles rather than short bursts of text like comments, tweets, statuses, emails etc...
I read a lot on my computer and phone. I could see the point with TV, but I think saying that reading speed is declining and that computers are to blame is ridiculous.
Anecdotally, I've found computer literacy or usage skill to strongly correlate with the speed of reading and skimming. While it takes me or another computer enthusiast seconds to find an option in a busy menu, it may take some others a minute, which is a clear disadvantage.
Anecdotally, I've found computer literacy or usage skill to strongly correlate with the speed of reading and skimming. While it takes me or another computer enthusiast seconds to find an option in a busy menu, it may take some others a minute, which is a clear disadvantage.
I spend a fair amount of time walking users through new-to-them tools. These are all people who use computers for their 9-5. Some people are able to find a named option in seconds, and others struggle. I witness people moving the mouse down the menu like they are reading each entry in order, sometimes even going past the one they're looking for, at which point I usually point it out.
I (and I assume maybe you) have a way of taking in the whole menu at once and pattern matching to the visual image of the word in my head. I don't read the words, I look for a visual match. The target word jumps off the page as quickly as if they were color coded.
I (and I assume maybe you) have a way of taking in the whole menu at once and pattern matching to the visual image of the word in my head. I don't read the words, I look for a visual match. The target word jumps off the page as quickly as if they were color coded.
I kinda read slowly but once i've read something i'll remember the important parts for a long time. When i read, my mind converts the words into a sort of movie, maybe this process isn't conducive to speed reading.
article: normal was thought to be 300wpm, meta analysis of new study says it's 238wpm, also speed varies between languages.
Never got tested for reading speed in school like the article says some schools do. That's good for me as I would have failed the 300wpm mark.
Tried speed reading software in high school and college, my normal speed is around 150-200wpm. Even with faster skimming sessions it never got over 450wpm and reverts back to my normal range when not using software. Learned to be okay with it as it seems my comprehension / memory were optimal at my normal range.
Never got tested for reading speed in school like the article says some schools do. That's good for me as I would have failed the 300wpm mark.
Tried speed reading software in high school and college, my normal speed is around 150-200wpm. Even with faster skimming sessions it never got over 450wpm and reverts back to my normal range when not using software. Learned to be okay with it as it seems my comprehension / memory were optimal at my normal range.
It's not a race.
Most people read VERY slowly, because they were taught to do so (at school)!
That's something that makes me angry, because reading fast is a HUGE advantage in every setting (even taking into account the speed variability, depending on the topic).
I'm a very fast reader. To give you an example, I can (easily) read the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings in english during during the weekend (2 days), and english is not my first language. In comparison, my brother, who has a LOT in common with me (including education level, and going to the same school as a child), reads pretty slowly and would never be able to do that. My dad and others members of the family are also very fast. BUT, we all learnt by ourselves: basically, we -somehow- managed to NOT learn the WRONG way that the teachers were teaching us (mostly: by "talking in our head when reading"). My mom told me that as soon as I started reading I was very fast.
To me, french lessons (middle-school, early 80s) were _torture_ because of that: the teacher assumed that we read slowly, and we would spend hours while a student was reading out loud; myself I was already 3 chapters later (because I was reading silent during his/her loud reading, I simply COULD NOT read that slow!). When we were assigned a new book (usually a couple hundred of pages), I read it in an hour. But the teacher did NOT understand that there were such huge differences between students. It was painful! In the end, my conclusion is that (because of stupidity) reading fast was de facto discouraged. :-((
I forgot to mention that I'm NOT talking about skimming (reading in diagonal with a severe -and acceptable- loss of understanding), when I skim I'm up to 10 times faster. I'm talking reading with almost total comprehension (barring remembering unimportant details like "the color of the cape of Frodo when he left the Shire", or whatnot).
Of course, it must be said that reading speed is a _meaningless_ concept by itself.
Your speed will (obviously) vary A LOT depending on the _context_: are your studying? Trying to memorize? Reading for leisure? Reading in a foreign language? Tired? What is the text's complexity/level? What is your education level? Etc.
Average speed does NOT exist without context. And most articles on the subject fail to put that context into account, it's even worse in the comments...
=> Of course, this article (and the study) detail the importance of that context.
So, every time I read an article about "reading speed", I know that it's going to be painful in the comments, because people who comment -almost- NEVER take the context into account.
BTW, one of the most infuriating things EVER is that in comments, you ALWAYS have a few people with an elitist attitude who raise the "but you are not appreciating the text if you read too fast", they fail to understand that I don't read poetry like a technical book like a children book, etc. Then you have the "you CANNOT understand if you read fast" crowd, because they don't know what is possible, they assume that their speed is "normal", when it's NOT, they cannot understand that they have been taught to read slowly...
Yep, that topic is one of my pet peeves ^^
That's something that makes me angry, because reading fast is a HUGE advantage in every setting (even taking into account the speed variability, depending on the topic).
I'm a very fast reader. To give you an example, I can (easily) read the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings in english during during the weekend (2 days), and english is not my first language. In comparison, my brother, who has a LOT in common with me (including education level, and going to the same school as a child), reads pretty slowly and would never be able to do that. My dad and others members of the family are also very fast. BUT, we all learnt by ourselves: basically, we -somehow- managed to NOT learn the WRONG way that the teachers were teaching us (mostly: by "talking in our head when reading"). My mom told me that as soon as I started reading I was very fast.
To me, french lessons (middle-school, early 80s) were _torture_ because of that: the teacher assumed that we read slowly, and we would spend hours while a student was reading out loud; myself I was already 3 chapters later (because I was reading silent during his/her loud reading, I simply COULD NOT read that slow!). When we were assigned a new book (usually a couple hundred of pages), I read it in an hour. But the teacher did NOT understand that there were such huge differences between students. It was painful! In the end, my conclusion is that (because of stupidity) reading fast was de facto discouraged. :-((
I forgot to mention that I'm NOT talking about skimming (reading in diagonal with a severe -and acceptable- loss of understanding), when I skim I'm up to 10 times faster. I'm talking reading with almost total comprehension (barring remembering unimportant details like "the color of the cape of Frodo when he left the Shire", or whatnot).
Of course, it must be said that reading speed is a _meaningless_ concept by itself.
Your speed will (obviously) vary A LOT depending on the _context_: are your studying? Trying to memorize? Reading for leisure? Reading in a foreign language? Tired? What is the text's complexity/level? What is your education level? Etc.
Average speed does NOT exist without context. And most articles on the subject fail to put that context into account, it's even worse in the comments...
=> Of course, this article (and the study) detail the importance of that context.
So, every time I read an article about "reading speed", I know that it's going to be painful in the comments, because people who comment -almost- NEVER take the context into account.
BTW, one of the most infuriating things EVER is that in comments, you ALWAYS have a few people with an elitist attitude who raise the "but you are not appreciating the text if you read too fast", they fail to understand that I don't read poetry like a technical book like a children book, etc. Then you have the "you CANNOT understand if you read fast" crowd, because they don't know what is possible, they assume that their speed is "normal", when it's NOT, they cannot understand that they have been taught to read slowly...
Yep, that topic is one of my pet peeves ^^
Assuming the LotR audio book is 45 hours you must be reading twice as fast to finish it in two long days at the weekend. Sure, I could read it that fast - meaning that mechanically I could probably decode the text as if the tape was double speed - but it would be a miserable experience because I would have no time to contemplate what was going on, to visualize events, to think back to previous passages, and so forth. It would be like watching a movie at double speed - we can all do it, and legitimately say we "watched" the movie, but it wouldn't give most of us pleasure.
I think this is exactly the point of people having different reading speeds, though. What is uncomfortably fast for one person is normal speed for someone else, including considering all of the implications of each sentence they're reading. I don't know that I could read the LoTR in two days, but I do know that the pace of audio books is painfully slow for me. My natural speed would be substantially faster than the audio book and I wouldn't be racing through at an unpleasant pace.
And I believe what the parent was trying to say was that we've been conditioned to believe that a certain speed is normal, when perhaps most of us are capable of reading (and fully comprehending) at a much higher speed, though I don't know enough to have an opinion on that.
And I believe what the parent was trying to say was that we've been conditioned to believe that a certain speed is normal, when perhaps most of us are capable of reading (and fully comprehending) at a much higher speed, though I don't know enough to have an opinion on that.
As an independent data point, consider the pace that someone might tell you a story that they know by heart (ie, which they aren't reading from text). Perhaps a storyteller or a actors monologue. In my experience that speed would be much the same speed as if they were reading the book to you, or reading it to themselves. That suggests to me that there is a natural speed to fully absorb a narrative.
Non fiction may be different. Most times I read that to absorb the content rather then for pleasure, and often it doesn't require deep introspection during the process. It is limited only by the physical process and the intellectual decoding speed. In those cases I read very fast. I typically am continually and quickly scrolling a newspaper story on my phone, reading at least twice as fast as fiction.
Non fiction may be different. Most times I read that to absorb the content rather then for pleasure, and often it doesn't require deep introspection during the process. It is limited only by the physical process and the intellectual decoding speed. In those cases I read very fast. I typically am continually and quickly scrolling a newspaper story on my phone, reading at least twice as fast as fiction.
Yeah I can definitely see that. I may just be weird. A lot of people in the comments here are talking about not subvocalizing to read faster, and I have never really worked on doing that, but according to the couple possibly unreliable reading speed tests I’ve taken, I read really fast, despite subvocalizing. So perhaps as long as I subvocalize, I can fully absorb the narrative? I also know that I can read slightly faster when I try not to subvocalize, but I’m not very good at it and I would never try to read a novel that way because I feel like THAT would destroy the narrative, at least for me.
Abstract:
> Based on the analysis of 190 studies (17,887 participants), we estimate that the average silent reading rate for adults in English is 238 word per minute (wpm) for non-fiction and 260 wpm for fiction. The difference can be predicted by the length of the words, with longer words in non-fiction than in fiction. The estimates are lower than the numbers often cited in scientific and popular writings. The reasons for the overestimates are reviewed. Reading rates are lower for children, old adults, and readers with English as second language. The reading rates are in line with maximum listening speed and do not require the assumption of reading-specific language processing. The average oral reading rate (based on 77 studies and 5,965 participants) is 183 wpm. Within each group/task there are reliable individual differences, which are not yet fully understood. For silent reading of English fiction most adults fall in the range of 175 to 300 wpm; for fiction the range is 200 to 320 wpm. Reading rates in other languages can be predicted reasonably well be taking into account the number of words these languages require to convey the same message as in English.