People who are good at reading have different brains: study(theconversation.com)
theconversation.com
People who are good at reading have different brains: study
https://theconversation.com/people-who-are-good-at-reading-have-different-brains-244786
167 comments
I have a younger sister that was hyperlexic. At age 5 we discovered she'd taught herself how to read French literature (it looked interesting) and she'd taught herself how to play piano, and was surprisingly good... She was whisked away to special schools, and I've never gotten to know her. She's as distant as a stranger.
Interesting, but I wonder about the causation implied by your first sentence.
The article you link to seems to show a correlation, but surely a more likely explanation is that the same factors cause both early reading ability and autism.
The article you link to seems to show a correlation, but surely a more likely explanation is that the same factors cause both early reading ability and autism.
When they were surveying readers vs non-readers, does the reading have to occur via books? Does reading text on the internet not count as reading? I've always wondered why this apparent dichotomy exists. I read quite a lot of lengthy texts, but they're often technical documents that exist on the internet. I hardly ever sit down in a quiet place with a book. Am I not a reader?
My take is that different types of reading affect the brain differently. Reading for facts stimulates the learning parts of the brain, reading comments stimulates the social parts. But Reading books, as in novels, is an act of immersing yourself in storytelling. It's not exactly learning or social, but it's own category.
This sounds right from my experience.
I read words all day, everyday on a computer. I have read hundreds if not thousands of non-fiction books but for fiction in the last 30 years, have only read 1984.
It is like a club that I am not dressed for to gain admission. I am just not able to get into the story. 1984 was different though because I think I was half in the story, half comparing things to actual reality.
It really sucks because works like The Brothers Karamazov or War and Peace are just completely impossible for me and I know how much I am missing out.
All the great classic science fiction...tried many times, failed many times, know how much I am missing out.
I read words all day, everyday on a computer. I have read hundreds if not thousands of non-fiction books but for fiction in the last 30 years, have only read 1984.
It is like a club that I am not dressed for to gain admission. I am just not able to get into the story. 1984 was different though because I think I was half in the story, half comparing things to actual reality.
It really sucks because works like The Brothers Karamazov or War and Peace are just completely impossible for me and I know how much I am missing out.
All the great classic science fiction...tried many times, failed many times, know how much I am missing out.
As a frequent reader (I like to do an hour before bed), I will say that most fiction novels are hard work the first 1/3 or so, getting to know all the characters, the situation, etc. But once you "know the world" the middle third is usually very enjoyable, and the last third can be thrilling / addictive. Series books help there, you usually already know the characters / world a bit when you start.
That said it's often just entertainment / mental junk food, not some great virtuous act like it's frequently portrayed by libraries / kids shows / lit majors.
That said it's often just entertainment / mental junk food, not some great virtuous act like it's frequently portrayed by libraries / kids shows / lit majors.
If immersing yourself in longer works of fiction feels challenging, you might consider exploring short stories across different genres. I would particularly suggest something like Asimov. Plays by people like Oscar Wilde (Lady Windermere's Fan comes to mind) could also fill this niche.
Another idea could be poetry. I particularly love romantic poetry (referring to the era and style here, not the genre) which is on the longer side. So, maybe W.B.Yeats[Second Coming], John Keats[Endymion, Hyperion], P.B. Shelly[Hymn to Intellectual Beauty].
These formats are in stark contrast to a novel in that their "plots" are simpler to digest, and these are often shorter, focusing much more on how the reader experiences themes and emotions.
Another idea could be poetry. I particularly love romantic poetry (referring to the era and style here, not the genre) which is on the longer side. So, maybe W.B.Yeats[Second Coming], John Keats[Endymion, Hyperion], P.B. Shelly[Hymn to Intellectual Beauty].
These formats are in stark contrast to a novel in that their "plots" are simpler to digest, and these are often shorter, focusing much more on how the reader experiences themes and emotions.
Fear not, the brain is a muscle and you can develop the strength to beat up the bouncer and force your way in to that club.
Building on the idea, I think movies probably stimulate the same sense, except compared to books they do most of the imagining for you.
Some say audio books are a cop out, but they can really carry you through a story you wouldn't be able to finish otherwise. And as the saying goes, anything worth doing is worth doing poorly.
But really there are no roolz. It comes down to doing what you enjoy. Try to find fiction that plays to your interests and lean into it, see where it goes.
Building on the idea, I think movies probably stimulate the same sense, except compared to books they do most of the imagining for you.
Some say audio books are a cop out, but they can really carry you through a story you wouldn't be able to finish otherwise. And as the saying goes, anything worth doing is worth doing poorly.
But really there are no roolz. It comes down to doing what you enjoy. Try to find fiction that plays to your interests and lean into it, see where it goes.
Vivid hallucination, or dreaming. It is a way to vicariously experience something through the lens of the author's narrative.
Hah, aphantasia enters the arena...
I was a voracious reader of fiction as a child, and in a way immersed myself in books too. But, I never really considered whether other readers are having an accompanying visual experience that isn't just pages and pages of typesetting. I also went through a phase of reading a lot of poetry, and was a bit of an outsider because my experience of it is also as text on a page, not some reconstructed audio performance.
On the reading speed topic, I don't have any performance metrics for myself but it seemed I was pretty fast and comprehensive compared to peers. I definitely lean towards the gestalt parser side of things, taking in phrases or larger blocks of text rather than scanning one word at a time.
As an adult, I've noticed that this ability seems to be more content dependent than I originally understood. If I encounter truly unfamiliar writing styles, or even unfamiliar typesetting conventions, I can find myself getting "disoriented" and having to go back. It's like my visual parsing and lexical parsing pipeline tosses up some kind of "parity" error and I have to go back and try again.
I think this reading stall also happens more often with non-fiction, and wonder if that's because I mostly assimilated fiction idioms. So my brain has more trouble predicting and assembling texts that follow other structures. But also, the non-fiction I encounter is more often written by international authors with English as a second language. So that may also shift grammar and prose conventions...
I was a voracious reader of fiction as a child, and in a way immersed myself in books too. But, I never really considered whether other readers are having an accompanying visual experience that isn't just pages and pages of typesetting. I also went through a phase of reading a lot of poetry, and was a bit of an outsider because my experience of it is also as text on a page, not some reconstructed audio performance.
On the reading speed topic, I don't have any performance metrics for myself but it seemed I was pretty fast and comprehensive compared to peers. I definitely lean towards the gestalt parser side of things, taking in phrases or larger blocks of text rather than scanning one word at a time.
As an adult, I've noticed that this ability seems to be more content dependent than I originally understood. If I encounter truly unfamiliar writing styles, or even unfamiliar typesetting conventions, I can find myself getting "disoriented" and having to go back. It's like my visual parsing and lexical parsing pipeline tosses up some kind of "parity" error and I have to go back and try again.
I think this reading stall also happens more often with non-fiction, and wonder if that's because I mostly assimilated fiction idioms. So my brain has more trouble predicting and assembling texts that follow other structures. But also, the non-fiction I encounter is more often written by international authors with English as a second language. So that may also shift grammar and prose conventions...
Yeah, vivid hallucination or dreaming with open eyes while reading.
It's a hypnotic state. How else can you imagine a world while your eyes rapidly scanning pages of words?
It's a hypnotic state. How else can you imagine a world while your eyes rapidly scanning pages of words?
I used to read books with ease but have had to limit my reading to online texts, both short and long form, mostly technical. I know for sure that I am not a reader anymore, because whenever I pick up a book I can't sit through it. It's an entirely different mode of consuming text, for me, one that I would have to relearn.
I struggled to read books while I was working. When I retired and suddenly stopped getting hundreds of emails every day, my book reading ability--my general ability to focus--came back. I read a lot of books this year, including long novels (1Q84...much longer than it should have been) and histories.
I have this conversation with my wife (who is an avid book reader) at least once per month. I read so many technical documents for work, via my computer, that I often don't want to read a book for pleasure.
Reading technical docs is closer to reading shop names and street signs than it is to the intention to sit down and consume a work of art.
I’m “reading” all day long. Code, chats, news, documentation.
There’s really all the difference in the world if you can sit still and focus on a good engaging long-form work. I think most folk are losing the discipline to do that, as we all communicate in brief spurts of async messaging and anything published for mass consumption is written at a 4th grade level
I try to read novels in chapter length segments. It’s hard to avoid to urge to context switch or get distracted
There’s really all the difference in the world if you can sit still and focus on a good engaging long-form work. I think most folk are losing the discipline to do that, as we all communicate in brief spurts of async messaging and anything published for mass consumption is written at a 4th grade level
I try to read novels in chapter length segments. It’s hard to avoid to urge to context switch or get distracted
I agree that the big difference is between short and long form reading.
i do not think this is discipline so much as inclination. I never had to discipline myself to read a book I enjoyed (whether fiction or non-fiction). Some books grip me so much it takes discipline to but the down.
What this seems to show is that long form reading has significant effects on your brain, developing the ability to read long form. I am not clear on whether they have shown which way the causality runs: maybe having a brain adapted to long form reading just makes you more likely to do it. It could even run both ways?
i do not think this is discipline so much as inclination. I never had to discipline myself to read a book I enjoyed (whether fiction or non-fiction). Some books grip me so much it takes discipline to but the down.
What this seems to show is that long form reading has significant effects on your brain, developing the ability to read long form. I am not clear on whether they have shown which way the causality runs: maybe having a brain adapted to long form reading just makes you more likely to do it. It could even run both ways?
Your wife's right.
maybe listen to audio books instead. i don't read books because i would forget everything else around me, but with audiobooks i can do other mundane activities (like housework, going for a walk) alongside it, and it feels very different from reading.
> Does reading text on the internet not count as reading?
I guess it depends on intent. Reading a fiction epub in an app is different from reading HN threads with 500+ comments.
I guess it depends on intent. Reading a fiction epub in an app is different from reading HN threads with 500+ comments.
for some reason experientially is different, when i read on computer it's mainly grab some piece of data that im looking for. i almost never read books on computer, my desire for reading came after i bought a kindle - the difference is absurd.
even paper books suck compared to kindle, which saves space, access to billions of books in a comfortable way to read. (can't read brother karamazov laying in bed)
even paper books suck compared to kindle, which saves space, access to billions of books in a comfortable way to read. (can't read brother karamazov laying in bed)
[deleted]
The linked article doesn't make this distinction and only talks about reading comprehension in general.
I'm finding this extremely interesting. I'm a reading outlier, I have a stutter which makes it difficult to hold conversations with fast talkers, so I gave up trying during early elementary and started reading novels. I really got into reading, to the point by the end of 4th grade I'd read every single Nobel Literature winner at that time. By the end of middle school I was running out of authors I liked to read. Today, at age 60, I have pretty much finished reading every author I like, and of their better novels and essays I have read them dozens of times.
The result of all this reading is I have, for lack of a better way to describe this to the HN audience, I have a gargantuan context. I can hold a huge amount of information in my head at once, and work with it dynamically. When I imagine a software issue, I see it as parallel implementations in my mind with variations between them, and as I evaluate the variations those that are not possible or no functionally better than the others disappear from the grid in my mind, and when there is only one left I start coding.
However, I find explaining my software development process to others impossible. They say what I'm doing is not possible, or they say I'm lying. I think all this reading gave me an over developed sense of secondary consideration insight. I simply see further the implications of things, of how their combinations are going to affect one another. But as hard as I try, I cannot explain these insights in a convincing manner. It's like being aware a tower is going to collapse, I can tell people how it will happen, and they just deny it, and then it collapses. Sometimes I then get blamed for not insisting against their denials.
Due to all this: I've become a student of effective communications. I'm continually trying to figure out how to explain to those that cannot see these combinations and implications of how in the future this thing is going to fail.
The result of all this reading is I have, for lack of a better way to describe this to the HN audience, I have a gargantuan context. I can hold a huge amount of information in my head at once, and work with it dynamically. When I imagine a software issue, I see it as parallel implementations in my mind with variations between them, and as I evaluate the variations those that are not possible or no functionally better than the others disappear from the grid in my mind, and when there is only one left I start coding.
However, I find explaining my software development process to others impossible. They say what I'm doing is not possible, or they say I'm lying. I think all this reading gave me an over developed sense of secondary consideration insight. I simply see further the implications of things, of how their combinations are going to affect one another. But as hard as I try, I cannot explain these insights in a convincing manner. It's like being aware a tower is going to collapse, I can tell people how it will happen, and they just deny it, and then it collapses. Sometimes I then get blamed for not insisting against their denials.
Due to all this: I've become a student of effective communications. I'm continually trying to figure out how to explain to those that cannot see these combinations and implications of how in the future this thing is going to fail.
We are at the dawn of a new age of AI, where everything is set to change significantly. You read a lot, do you have any insights into what society might look like in the next 5 to 10 years? What kinds of jobs might emerge? What major changes can we expect? Will we even have countries as we know them? Essentially, with your wealth of knowledge, can you tell us what the future might hold?
The drive to perform independent work with AI will fail, too many easy means of triggering backlash, and too easy to create a stagnant rent collecting automation that leaves those automated in an aged rotting infrastructure too complex and too interdependent to replace. The path forward is integrated interactive AI that co-authors, co-works, and is simultaneously verified while collaborating rather independent work requiring verification that will not be performed with integrity after the fact.
What kind of stutter, blocks/valsalva or repetition?
Words that begin with a consonant cause me to repeat that initial "ka". If I try to suppress that, it just gets worse. Due to that, I try to find words that say the same without a starting consonant, resulting in odd word usage that distracts from my points. Something kind of bad, if I'm angry, I do not stutter, so if I really need to express something I generate an anger to say it; not at my audience, but just will an angry state of mind and then I can speak without the stutter. People that know I stutter, but not my angry means of not stuttering, get surprised.
Yeah word replacement is exhausting, and it does feel like the two fluent states for me are extreme relaxation and a very specific amount of localized stress. Lots of... unnatural pauses. Sometimes warmup sounds like "uhhh" that can inject a kind of vowel before a word. Have you tried listening to an AI version of yourself speaking fluently? I have and sent it to some friends – one of their points of feedback was that the cadence isn't like mine. My cadence is built around stuttering avoidance!
After all that reading, got any favorite books / authors you’d like to share? Curious to hear
My favorite book is Herman Hesse's Magister Ludi (the Glass Bead Game), my favorite authors are tied at Mark Twain and Philip K. Dick, and the book that I've read the largest number of times is Clockwork Orange, the UK edition with the added chapter of Alex being a senior politician. I also have an antique copy of Grimm's Fairy Tails that is not the one that got widely published, an earlier version from that 1800's that would be banned today, and that is very interesting, I'd call it psycho-sexual horror. My mother is 88, was a child prodigy, and has quite the antique library. These days I read a lot of memoirs and biographies, not nearly as enjoyable.
What about people who don't just read, but have absurd speed?
My brother and I both read around 900 wpm. My children only read at a normal adult speed, but both love to read. If I had a way to have passed on my reading speed, I would have. But I have no idea how to do so. And no idea how my reading speed is possible.
I've met only one person outside of my family with similar reading speed to my own.
My brother and I both read around 900 wpm. My children only read at a normal adult speed, but both love to read. If I had a way to have passed on my reading speed, I would have. But I have no idea how to do so. And no idea how my reading speed is possible.
I've met only one person outside of my family with similar reading speed to my own.
I'm skeptical of claims like this. How do the claimants define reading? If we mean extracting a subset of information from a particular, arbitrarily defined block of text, well then I can read tens or hundreds of thousands of words per minute: I know how to pick up a typical business paperback, flip to the last chapter (or even just the conclusion), and skim for the 1–3 big ideas.
But try to read a text like a complex SCOTUS majority opinion, or one of the Great Books, at anything close to that speed — good luck! Even trained and very experienced appellate attorneys can study such texts for hours, days, weeks, and still find important intricacies that require not just perception, but ingestion and digestion.
As an exercise, one might grab any text and have one's computer read it aloud at 900 WPM. If one were to glean a single sentence, let alone the important bits, let alone all of it, I'd be shocked.
But try to read a text like a complex SCOTUS majority opinion, or one of the Great Books, at anything close to that speed — good luck! Even trained and very experienced appellate attorneys can study such texts for hours, days, weeks, and still find important intricacies that require not just perception, but ingestion and digestion.
As an exercise, one might grab any text and have one's computer read it aloud at 900 WPM. If one were to glean a single sentence, let alone the important bits, let alone all of it, I'd be shocked.
To me it isn't just about comprehension either. When I read I think about what I'm reading. I'll often stop mid-page or even mid-sentence to think about related subjects or past experiences that have some connection to what I've just read. It takes me longer than other people I know to read something, but I'm far from the slowest at it, and to me, reading is (or at least can be) a deeper experience than just an info dump into my brain.
I'm sure some of it is ADHD or something but to me, reading is about ideas and I can't wait until the end of a book or even the end of a long article without playing around with them. Especially if it's a topic I'm interested in.
Even if speed readers can fully comprehend and retain what they've sped over, I can't help but feel that they're probably missing something.
I'm sure some of it is ADHD or something but to me, reading is about ideas and I can't wait until the end of a book or even the end of a long article without playing around with them. Especially if it's a topic I'm interested in.
Even if speed readers can fully comprehend and retain what they've sped over, I can't help but feel that they're probably missing something.
Here's what's weird. I can read a book faster than I can "digest" it.
I first learned my reading speed by accident after I read Clan of the Cave Bear in a single sitting. Immediately afterwards I could not summarize it, though I could recognize any passage in the book. The next day, I could summarize it.
I describe it as feeling like I have a pipeline. I'm able to fill my brain. Digestion is indeed slower.
I first learned my reading speed by accident after I read Clan of the Cave Bear in a single sitting. Immediately afterwards I could not summarize it, though I could recognize any passage in the book. The next day, I could summarize it.
I describe it as feeling like I have a pipeline. I'm able to fill my brain. Digestion is indeed slower.
Exactly so.
As a kid, at once 2 month period, I only had access to a library for a few hours on Sunday afternoons and no other time. I could not remove books.
So I read as much as I could in that time window.
5, 6, 7 books in 2 or 3 hours.
Then I'd spend the next 6 days going through them in my head and enjoying them.
As a kid, at once 2 month period, I only had access to a library for a few hours on Sunday afternoons and no other time. I could not remove books.
So I read as much as I could in that time window.
5, 6, 7 books in 2 or 3 hours.
Then I'd spend the next 6 days going through them in my head and enjoying them.
Man! I didn't remember it until reading your comment, but I had the same experience in elementary school — obligatory time in the school, with access to books, but only while I was there, after finishing whatever trivial tasks were assigned.
Alas, the selection was quite lacking. So although I voraciously consumed dozens of "Hardy Boys" novels, the subsequent days were filled with irritating thoughts about how stupid they were.... perhaps the inverse of your experience.
Nevertheless, while I was trapped there, it seemed much better than nothing!
I still read books, and to me it seems obvious that most of the "experience" of reading plays out in the background in the days and weeks that follow (unfortunately, even if the book has little to offer — although as an adult I'm free to recogize that and move on to another book).
P.S. Halfway through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ministry_for_the_Future and it's a good one! Much better than reading about Chet Morton's old jalopy breaking down again just as the villains are escaping on bicycles... ;-P
Alas, the selection was quite lacking. So although I voraciously consumed dozens of "Hardy Boys" novels, the subsequent days were filled with irritating thoughts about how stupid they were.... perhaps the inverse of your experience.
Nevertheless, while I was trapped there, it seemed much better than nothing!
I still read books, and to me it seems obvious that most of the "experience" of reading plays out in the background in the days and weeks that follow (unfortunately, even if the book has little to offer — although as an adult I'm free to recogize that and move on to another book).
P.S. Halfway through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ministry_for_the_Future and it's a good one! Much better than reading about Chet Morton's old jalopy breaking down again just as the villains are escaping on bicycles... ;-P
Digesting is part of reading. So you're not reading that fast at all.
Imagine if someone said they could eat super fast because they could shove food in their mouth fast, but still took a long time to chew and swallow.
Same thing.
Imagine if someone said they could eat super fast because they could shove food in their mouth fast, but still took a long time to chew and swallow.
Same thing.
Well I think your analogy would be better if they could also chew and swallow rapidly, but then their digestive tract took inordinate time to process the meal... (^_^);
That wouldn't be a better analog at all since it wouldn't be making the point I wanted to make, it would just be rephrasing what they stated using the same metaphor.
Agreed. Like I can probably read these comments at 900 wpm if I wanted but if you put Kant in front of me I’m reading at like 10 wpm.
Anecdatally, I have two reading modes - full comprehension and skimming. In full comprehension I read and subvocalize each word, often slowing down, pausing, or even re-reading to make sure the meaning sinks in. In skim mode I look at phrases, sometimes whole sentences or even simple paragraphs, and move to the next chunk before consciously comprehending the previous one. Skimming effectiveness highly depends on my alertness level and works best with fiction or other media with low information density. For fiction books I can generally recount the plot and events pretty well.
I have skim mode as well. I could not put a number to it, but I pick up the gist and leave behind some detail.
It is how I got through those middle Wheel of Time books.
It is how I got through those middle Wheel of Time books.
What benefits do you gain from skimming a fiction book?
Mostly find out what happens next faster. But on some level something about it is meditative. A constant progress across the book understanding what you can and letting everything else go. From pragmatic angle it is acquiring new information at a comfortable rate without stressful backtracking.
Reading speed might follow a normal distribution near the middle ranges, but I'd expect non-trivial deviations in the tails due to dyslexia, ADHD on the one side and trained speed readers on the other. Perhaps this individual just falls on the far tail of that distribution?
During my graduate coursework I sometimes read 100-200 pages of technical material in a day while cramming for an exam, and was able to retain it for a day or two. I'd believe it if some people exist who could comprehend and retain all of that long-term. Alas, 'tis not I.
During my graduate coursework I sometimes read 100-200 pages of technical material in a day while cramming for an exam, and was able to retain it for a day or two. I'd believe it if some people exist who could comprehend and retain all of that long-term. Alas, 'tis not I.
I think Dyslexia has a lot of politics attached.
If 25% of people have it then, practically, Dyslexia means you are in the bottom 25% of readers, as much as the Dyslexia industrial complex wants to see it as taxonic and not dimensional. (Sure they say it has two subtypes and sure, maybe there are two reasons that make most bad readers bad readers, there are probably more reasons that are more obscure and too hard to pin down)
Personally I think there are a lot of white collar people who are devastated to have a child who is a poor reader who won't follow in their footsteps (college professors, journalists, people in ethic groups where people will think you're a loser if you're a cop or pro football player, etc.) Labeling it as a disease makes it easier for people in that situation to live with it.
If 25% of people have it then, practically, Dyslexia means you are in the bottom 25% of readers, as much as the Dyslexia industrial complex wants to see it as taxonic and not dimensional. (Sure they say it has two subtypes and sure, maybe there are two reasons that make most bad readers bad readers, there are probably more reasons that are more obscure and too hard to pin down)
Personally I think there are a lot of white collar people who are devastated to have a child who is a poor reader who won't follow in their footsteps (college professors, journalists, people in ethic groups where people will think you're a loser if you're a cop or pro football player, etc.) Labeling it as a disease makes it easier for people in that situation to live with it.
> Personally I think there are a lot of white collar people who are devastated to have a child who is a poor reader who won't follow in their footsteps (college professors, journalists, people in ethic groups where people will think you're a loser if you're a cop or pro football player, etc.) Labeling it as a disease makes it easier for people in that situation to live with it.
Isn't this just how all diseases and indeed all things work? We're the ones who come up with these simple categorizations and labels to describe reality which is vastly more complex. The terms are necessarily underspecified and the boundaries between categories are necessarily fuzzy. This is true even within some medical community that attempts to have more precise definitions of "disease"/"disorder"/"disability"/etc. and it's all the more true for colloquial usage of these terms. But yes, these terms do end up just meaning "any condition that is not normal that causes problems for the person experiencing it."
Isn't this just how all diseases and indeed all things work? We're the ones who come up with these simple categorizations and labels to describe reality which is vastly more complex. The terms are necessarily underspecified and the boundaries between categories are necessarily fuzzy. This is true even within some medical community that attempts to have more precise definitions of "disease"/"disorder"/"disability"/etc. and it's all the more true for colloquial usage of these terms. But yes, these terms do end up just meaning "any condition that is not normal that causes problems for the person experiencing it."
I think "flu", "cancer" and "aortic aneurysm" are well defined concepts.
Trained speed readers trade off speed and comprehension. I've never heard of any of them doing what I do.
> I'm skeptical of claims like this. How do the claimants define reading?
There are many. I just did this one, the first hit on Google:
https://swiftread.com/reading-speed-test
It said:
« Reading speed: 861 Words per Minute (WPM)
Comprehension: 100% of questions answered correctly
How your reading speed compares
Slow 150 WPM Average 250 WPM Fast 400 WPM Speed reader 600 WPM
You can read pretty fast! Remember that reading fast is only valuable if you're able to maintain good enough comprehension for your goals. »
I took my time and paid attention in order to be able to give dates and things.
I can go considerably faster. I read about 1000wpm or so for work, a bit slower if I am taking time for pleasure, and when I was a teenager, about 2-3 times faster than that when under pressure.
For instance, I read Joseph Conrad's _Victory_ -- 432 dense pages -- in 2 hours for homework, then wrote an essay on it and went to bed. I got a B+. :-)
Shorter lighter SF novels I read in half an hour, back then.
There are many. I just did this one, the first hit on Google:
https://swiftread.com/reading-speed-test
It said:
« Reading speed: 861 Words per Minute (WPM)
Comprehension: 100% of questions answered correctly
How your reading speed compares
Slow 150 WPM Average 250 WPM Fast 400 WPM Speed reader 600 WPM
You can read pretty fast! Remember that reading fast is only valuable if you're able to maintain good enough comprehension for your goals. »
I took my time and paid attention in order to be able to give dates and things.
I can go considerably faster. I read about 1000wpm or so for work, a bit slower if I am taking time for pleasure, and when I was a teenager, about 2-3 times faster than that when under pressure.
For instance, I read Joseph Conrad's _Victory_ -- 432 dense pages -- in 2 hours for homework, then wrote an essay on it and went to bed. I got a B+. :-)
Shorter lighter SF novels I read in half an hour, back then.
Are you trolling this thread?
I took that test:
Current Test Results
Reading speed: 1560 Words per Minute (WPM)
Comprehension: 100% of questions answered correctly
Most of my few seconds spent "reading" was actually spent deciding if I even had to read it at all. I correctly concluded that the test was garbage, and then skipped to the questions, and answered the 4(!) questions using only basic common sense.
I took that test:
Current Test Results
Reading speed: 1560 Words per Minute (WPM)
Comprehension: 100% of questions answered correctly
Most of my few seconds spent "reading" was actually spent deciding if I even had to read it at all. I correctly concluded that the test was garbage, and then skipped to the questions, and answered the 4(!) questions using only basic common sense.
Good for you.
No, I am not trolling. If you have a better test, I can try it, no problem.
No, I am not trolling. If you have a better test, I can try it, no problem.
What answer do you wants?
I can answer comprehension questions and get a good score. For example I got a perfect score on the verbal section of the GRE when I took it in the early 1990s, and this is the speed that I did the reading comprehension tests. I can read whole books, and come away able to find any passage after reading just a few paragraphs. For all intents and purposes, it's read.
I can't debug code at this speed though. Doesn't matter how fast I can read, I can't think for myself at the same speed.
I can answer comprehension questions and get a good score. For example I got a perfect score on the verbal section of the GRE when I took it in the early 1990s, and this is the speed that I did the reading comprehension tests. I can read whole books, and come away able to find any passage after reading just a few paragraphs. For all intents and purposes, it's read.
I can't debug code at this speed though. Doesn't matter how fast I can read, I can't think for myself at the same speed.
How long does that memory of the text last?
I'd say you only read to assimilate info and not for entertainment then.
I did a lot of reading for entertainment. Particularly light sci-fi and fantasy.
Me too. Most of it in fact.
But not only.
Back in January, Dave Mills died. I told my boss I'd not heard of him so I didn't think an obit was called for.
The mourning on HN over the weekend persuaded me otherwise.
So, on Monday morning, I read everything I could find about him -- I estimate at least 2000 pages worth and maybe twice that -- and then I wrote this:
https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/23/david_mills_obit/
It gave me a bit of a headache but I can still tear through large amounts of text, retain the info, summarise it, and then if I don't want or need it let it go.
But not only.
Back in January, Dave Mills died. I told my boss I'd not heard of him so I didn't think an obit was called for.
The mourning on HN over the weekend persuaded me otherwise.
So, on Monday morning, I read everything I could find about him -- I estimate at least 2000 pages worth and maybe twice that -- and then I wrote this:
https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/23/david_mills_obit/
It gave me a bit of a headache but I can still tear through large amounts of text, retain the info, summarise it, and then if I don't want or need it let it go.
I've been doing some anti-ADHD training on my own by reading a difficult book -- The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. LeGuin -- slowly.
Sure I could bro down those words in a straight beginning-to-end readthrough and get a sense of what's going on. But I find that going back over the past few paragraphs is rewarding, as subtle turns of phrase reveal details I hadn't noticed.
You could probably be trained to comprehend text electronically read to you at 900 wpm. Blind people using screenreaders, for instance, train themselves to understand text read aloud very fast.
Sure I could bro down those words in a straight beginning-to-end readthrough and get a sense of what's going on. But I find that going back over the past few paragraphs is rewarding, as subtle turns of phrase reveal details I hadn't noticed.
You could probably be trained to comprehend text electronically read to you at 900 wpm. Blind people using screenreaders, for instance, train themselves to understand text read aloud very fast.
You aren't finding it annoying?
She goes to great lengths to show how non-sexist the society is according to then feminist theory. Then, just accidentally, slips in gender divides that should not exist in her society.
Given that I had just read some of that feminist literature, I found it quite jarring.
She goes to great lengths to show how non-sexist the society is according to then feminist theory. Then, just accidentally, slips in gender divides that should not exist in her society.
Given that I had just read some of that feminist literature, I found it quite jarring.
Guess I'm not far along to have reached the bit with the gender divides, yet. What I have read seemed to reflect a rather 2020s-feminist view of gender, in a time when feminism was still in its bra-burning arc. So that was interesting.
If you think of it as a bra burning arc, you won't get the historical context.
The most jarring for me was some of the childhood scenes.
The most jarring for me was some of the childhood scenes.
> a difficult book -- The Left Hand of Darkness
Difficult?! That's a favourite novel of mine. I've read it 3 or 4 times. What is difficult about it? It's short, as well as beautiful. Only 250 pages.
Difficult?! That's a favourite novel of mine. I've read it 3 or 4 times. What is difficult about it? It's short, as well as beautiful. Only 250 pages.
You might find amusing the RA Lafferty short-story "The Primary Education of the Camiroi" (1966).
Summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AXNLUFeplI "A PTA delegation from Earth visit another planet to investigate their educational methods in order to figure out how to improve the school system back home on Earth. But the lessons learned, and the conclusions drawn, are rather… odd and disturbing."
From the story: https://uncabob.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-primary-education-o...
“How rapidly do you read?” Miss Hanks asked a young girl.
“One hundred and twenty words a minute,” the girl said.
“On Earth some of the girl students your age have learned to read at the rate of five hundred words a minute,” Miss Hanks said proudly.
“When I began disciplined reading, I was reading at the rate of four thousands words a minute,” the girl said. “They had quite a time correcting me of it. I had to take remedial reading, and my parents were ashamed of me. Now I’ve learned to read almost slow enough.”
“I don’t understand,” said Miss Hanks.
...
“What is this business about slow reading?” Miss Hanks asked. “I don’t understand it at all.”
“Only the other day there was a child in the third grade who persisted in rapid reading.” Philoxenus said. “He was given an object lesson. He was given a book of medium difficulty, and he read it rapidly. Then he had to put the book away and repeat what he had read. Do you know that in the first thirty pages he missed four words? Midway in the book there was a whole statement which he had understood wrongly, and there were hundreds of pages that he got word-perfect only with difficulty. If he was so unsure on material that he had just read, think how imperfectly he would have recalled it forty years later.”
“You mean that the Camiroi children learn to recall everything that they read?”
“The Camiroi children and adults will recall for life every detail they have ever seen, read or heard. We on Camiroi are only a little more intelligent than you on Earth. We cannot afford to waste time in forgetting or reviewing, or in pursuing anything of a shallowness that lends itself to scanning.”
Summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AXNLUFeplI "A PTA delegation from Earth visit another planet to investigate their educational methods in order to figure out how to improve the school system back home on Earth. But the lessons learned, and the conclusions drawn, are rather… odd and disturbing."
From the story: https://uncabob.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-primary-education-o...
“How rapidly do you read?” Miss Hanks asked a young girl.
“One hundred and twenty words a minute,” the girl said.
“On Earth some of the girl students your age have learned to read at the rate of five hundred words a minute,” Miss Hanks said proudly.
“When I began disciplined reading, I was reading at the rate of four thousands words a minute,” the girl said. “They had quite a time correcting me of it. I had to take remedial reading, and my parents were ashamed of me. Now I’ve learned to read almost slow enough.”
“I don’t understand,” said Miss Hanks.
...
“What is this business about slow reading?” Miss Hanks asked. “I don’t understand it at all.”
“Only the other day there was a child in the third grade who persisted in rapid reading.” Philoxenus said. “He was given an object lesson. He was given a book of medium difficulty, and he read it rapidly. Then he had to put the book away and repeat what he had read. Do you know that in the first thirty pages he missed four words? Midway in the book there was a whole statement which he had understood wrongly, and there were hundreds of pages that he got word-perfect only with difficulty. If he was so unsure on material that he had just read, think how imperfectly he would have recalled it forty years later.”
“You mean that the Camiroi children learn to recall everything that they read?”
“The Camiroi children and adults will recall for life every detail they have ever seen, read or heard. We on Camiroi are only a little more intelligent than you on Earth. We cannot afford to waste time in forgetting or reviewing, or in pursuing anything of a shallowness that lends itself to scanning.”
Amazing story. I enjoyed reading this so much. The sad fact that this was written in 1966 - like the gentleman advocated for gutting the public school system 6 decades ago, and only now we are getting around to the business of defunding the dept of education. The story has foretold everything - the culture wars, the sacred cow/buffalo, utterly divergent visions of the left and right when it comes to what education means…Rafferty seems to be a futuristic mind reader. Amazing.
I'm another "speed reader" skeptic. After significant repeated investigations I came to a stunning conclusion: I'm among some of the fastest actual human readers. My general reading speed 300 to 600 wpm depending on context and medium. For context I was your usual bookworm growing up: reading ahead of level, constantly reading everywhere, always reading while walking, always getting in trouble for reading with other people present like at the breakfast/dinner table, just churning through books non stop. And yes I now read random scientific articles and things for fun.
Anything above that reading speed I've started just allocating to bullshitters, or generally techniques which come back to "not reading" rather than "reading".
That is to say people who choose techniques to try to speed themselves up through strategies like "skimming" (that is to say, not reading parts of the text to try to game metrics) or "extracting key points" (that is to say not reading parts of the text to try to game metrics) or their comprehension drops beyond 100% (that is to say not reading to try to game metrics).
And that's assuming you're not just dealing with the actual frauds trying to talk themselves up in a penis-measuring contest or sell something.
So yeah, I'm in the anything above 400-600 wpm is in the bullshitters club. And technical or difficult text is of course lower and can't be sped up.
No inherent offence intended to "speed readers"... Ok, maybe a little...
Anything above that reading speed I've started just allocating to bullshitters, or generally techniques which come back to "not reading" rather than "reading".
That is to say people who choose techniques to try to speed themselves up through strategies like "skimming" (that is to say, not reading parts of the text to try to game metrics) or "extracting key points" (that is to say not reading parts of the text to try to game metrics) or their comprehension drops beyond 100% (that is to say not reading to try to game metrics).
And that's assuming you're not just dealing with the actual frauds trying to talk themselves up in a penis-measuring contest or sell something.
So yeah, I'm in the anything above 400-600 wpm is in the bullshitters club. And technical or difficult text is of course lower and can't be sped up.
No inherent offence intended to "speed readers"... Ok, maybe a little...
So you have decided anyone who can read faster than you is a fraud? Meaning you think you are in possession of the fastest non-fraudulent human reading abilities possible?
Do you have any evidence of this beyond the fact that if you sped up your own reading you would lose comprehension? The person reading at 150wpm could make the same case against you.
Do you have any evidence of this beyond the fact that if you sped up your own reading you would lose comprehension? The person reading at 150wpm could make the same case against you.
After wasting the better part of a decade on speed reading as a teen and using speed reading tools I can only find myself to agree with them. Remove multiple-choice questions and ask questions about the material and speed readers comprehension crumbles apart to such a degree it is difficult to call what they do to be "reading".
There are quite a number of studies on this, but I'll reference a blog that does all the referencing for me [0] since their experience and thirst for knowledge that led them to later be an advocate against - rather than an advocate for - speed reading is basically a 1:1 match of my own.
500-600 WPM is the upper limits, 99.99% of people claiming otherwise are bullshitting, I always leave that 0.01% because some people are literally just built different and are truly one-of-a-kind (or one-of-maybe-a-dozen people on Earth). Anyone claiming such speeds is going to be under a lot of scrutiny the same way I'd be skeptical of anyone else claiming to be in the top 0.01% of anything. If someone tells me they're a Top 10 Challenger ranked League of Legends player I'm not just going to take their word for it without some solid evidence.
[0] https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2015/01/19/speed-reading-re...
There are quite a number of studies on this, but I'll reference a blog that does all the referencing for me [0] since their experience and thirst for knowledge that led them to later be an advocate against - rather than an advocate for - speed reading is basically a 1:1 match of my own.
500-600 WPM is the upper limits, 99.99% of people claiming otherwise are bullshitting, I always leave that 0.01% because some people are literally just built different and are truly one-of-a-kind (or one-of-maybe-a-dozen people on Earth). Anyone claiming such speeds is going to be under a lot of scrutiny the same way I'd be skeptical of anyone else claiming to be in the top 0.01% of anything. If someone tells me they're a Top 10 Challenger ranked League of Legends player I'm not just going to take their word for it without some solid evidence.
[0] https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2015/01/19/speed-reading-re...
That's a healthy attitude.
All that I have to say about it, is that in a place like Hacker News, you do encounter the top 0.01% on a fairly regular basis. Particularly among those who were here early on. Being too skeptical of it when you see it doesn't sound like that good an idea.
I mean seriously. Why would I lie? And why would I risk the fake reputation on this account on a lie about something stupid, when I have friends who know me here?
All that I have to say about it, is that in a place like Hacker News, you do encounter the top 0.01% on a fairly regular basis. Particularly among those who were here early on. Being too skeptical of it when you see it doesn't sound like that good an idea.
I mean seriously. Why would I lie? And why would I risk the fake reputation on this account on a lie about something stupid, when I have friends who know me here?
It's not that I've decided based on no evidence, it's that I've never met someone in the flesh able to do it where observations are consistent with claims.
Ignoring five minute Reddit or hacker News messages where people say "oh I'm so fast at reading" once you actually have to put them to the test: i.e. oh cool you're a fast reader: so here's a thing we've both not seen but are required to read and we'll discuss and analyse them in the morning. And you can judge how fast they are based on their understanding of the text and how far they've gotten compared to you.
Eventually you start to realise that there's a mysterious absence of observations to the right of what appears imo to be an almost biological barrier.
Then you start to look into their history: well I presume you've read a lot? And you try to talk to them about things... And they're generally not that well-read.
Then you correlate it with other high-performers: PhDs, professors, learned people, people who read all the time and have a history of reading. And you see that these best readers who read a lot also tend to read at a maximum speed of about 300-600 wpm with any comprehension.
So you come to balance these two hypothesese: there's speed readers out there, but they're generally not well read people and don't have a history of reading and they can't discuss much and they don't tend to turn up to discuss things when there's actual reading involved... But they can read really fast I swear!
And you compare them to the people who professionally read, read all the time, are verifiable strong readers... And you clock them between 300-600 wpm.
Beyond the whole "proving a negative" what's a rational person supposed to conclude?
/This is making some minor possible exceptions for people like Kim peek, but aside from having never met him, of such people exist, my understanding is there's also genuine philosophical questions as to whether what those people are doing can neurologically be considered the same act of reading as what the average human being is doing in terms of whether they can then discuss the themes, contents and implications of what they read.
Edit: and this is in context of people like me LOVE reading, so of course we've looked into methods and communities that propose they can increase reading speed, make people read faster, and are filled with fast readers
Ignoring five minute Reddit or hacker News messages where people say "oh I'm so fast at reading" once you actually have to put them to the test: i.e. oh cool you're a fast reader: so here's a thing we've both not seen but are required to read and we'll discuss and analyse them in the morning. And you can judge how fast they are based on their understanding of the text and how far they've gotten compared to you.
Eventually you start to realise that there's a mysterious absence of observations to the right of what appears imo to be an almost biological barrier.
Then you start to look into their history: well I presume you've read a lot? And you try to talk to them about things... And they're generally not that well-read.
Then you correlate it with other high-performers: PhDs, professors, learned people, people who read all the time and have a history of reading. And you see that these best readers who read a lot also tend to read at a maximum speed of about 300-600 wpm with any comprehension.
So you come to balance these two hypothesese: there's speed readers out there, but they're generally not well read people and don't have a history of reading and they can't discuss much and they don't tend to turn up to discuss things when there's actual reading involved... But they can read really fast I swear!
And you compare them to the people who professionally read, read all the time, are verifiable strong readers... And you clock them between 300-600 wpm.
Beyond the whole "proving a negative" what's a rational person supposed to conclude?
/This is making some minor possible exceptions for people like Kim peek, but aside from having never met him, of such people exist, my understanding is there's also genuine philosophical questions as to whether what those people are doing can neurologically be considered the same act of reading as what the average human being is doing in terms of whether they can then discuss the themes, contents and implications of what they read.
Edit: and this is in context of people like me LOVE reading, so of course we've looked into methods and communities that propose they can increase reading speed, make people read faster, and are filled with fast readers
Good write-up. And i completely agree with you.
I had long since come to the conclusion that "speed reading" is a hoax and just another name for "skimming". They are not fooling anybody but their own ego.
The technique of Reading varies widely based on content and our own interest in it.
For example, i have spent hours upon hours reading/re-reading the Sherlock Holmes canon dozens of times because i find the language phrasing/stories/deductions highly appealing and hence want to savour/understand every word of it. On the other hand even though i love Charles Dickens' novels i don't spend as much time on it and skim through large parts which are not appealing to me. The result is that i can literally write essays in my sleep on Sherlock Holmes but can't do it for Oliver Twist/Great Expectations/etc. Thus the meaning of the word "read" is not the same for both.
I have a huge personal library consisting of a large number of "hard copies" and an even larger one in "soft copies" and love skimming/reading them. Skimming to note the larger main points and coming back to Read them if and when i feel like it.
I had long since come to the conclusion that "speed reading" is a hoax and just another name for "skimming". They are not fooling anybody but their own ego.
The technique of Reading varies widely based on content and our own interest in it.
For example, i have spent hours upon hours reading/re-reading the Sherlock Holmes canon dozens of times because i find the language phrasing/stories/deductions highly appealing and hence want to savour/understand every word of it. On the other hand even though i love Charles Dickens' novels i don't spend as much time on it and skim through large parts which are not appealing to me. The result is that i can literally write essays in my sleep on Sherlock Holmes but can't do it for Oliver Twist/Great Expectations/etc. Thus the meaning of the word "read" is not the same for both.
I have a huge personal library consisting of a large number of "hard copies" and an even larger one in "soft copies" and love skimming/reading them. Skimming to note the larger main points and coming back to Read them if and when i feel like it.
I don’t have a good cross-reference for wpm on this, but I can read uncomplicated stuff at about 100-120 pages per hour. Most people don’t believe me until they see it.
My wife reads at roughly double that speed. She’s the only person I have ever met who reads significantly faster than I do. Met a few who are 10% or maybe 20% faster than I am. But she’s in an entirely separate category, and yes, that is with 100% comprehension, not skimming.
When we were dating, and I first saw her do it, I just said oh, you read really fast. She said, so you don’t think I’m faking it? No, I said, you’re just the first person I’ve ever met who is noticeably faster than I am, but it’s obviously real.
Then I asked the question: what color is the number 5? She stared at me for a second before giving her reply (I don’t remember). “How did you know?” Because I’d read about synesthesia and a qualitatively different form of pattern recognition seemed the most obvious conclusion. Someone might be a little faster than me with basic reading skills, but I’ve been around enough fast readers to know that I’m pretty damned fast, and that those who are faster are usually just a bit faster. Not double.
My wife reads at roughly double that speed. She’s the only person I have ever met who reads significantly faster than I do. Met a few who are 10% or maybe 20% faster than I am. But she’s in an entirely separate category, and yes, that is with 100% comprehension, not skimming.
When we were dating, and I first saw her do it, I just said oh, you read really fast. She said, so you don’t think I’m faking it? No, I said, you’re just the first person I’ve ever met who is noticeably faster than I am, but it’s obviously real.
Then I asked the question: what color is the number 5? She stared at me for a second before giving her reply (I don’t remember). “How did you know?” Because I’d read about synesthesia and a qualitatively different form of pattern recognition seemed the most obvious conclusion. Someone might be a little faster than me with basic reading skills, but I’ve been around enough fast readers to know that I’m pretty damned fast, and that those who are faster are usually just a bit faster. Not double.
I have no particular interest in subjecting myself to whatever testing you think is needed. Reading it something that I do for pleasure.
The other person I met with the same speed I discovered by sending her an article, rereading it because I was bored while waiting for her to read, then finding that I was done around when she began commenting on it - having finished at about the same time.
You don't have to believe me. As far as I'm concerned, it's a party trick. But a trick that means that I prefer the written word over other forms of entertainment.
The other person I met with the same speed I discovered by sending her an article, rereading it because I was bored while waiting for her to read, then finding that I was done around when she began commenting on it - having finished at about the same time.
You don't have to believe me. As far as I'm concerned, it's a party trick. But a trick that means that I prefer the written word over other forms of entertainment.
I don't entirely agree, but thank you for elaborating. I see at least where you are coming from.
There are people who sell "speed reading" courses which is not the same as being a fast reader.
> I'm in the anything above 400-600 wpm is in the bullshitters club.
Hi there. I am the walking talking proof you're wrong.
But I don't know how I can prove it to you.
I read this: https://www.amazon.com/Victory-Island-Tale-Penguin-Classics/...
In 2-2.5 hours.
I read this:
https://www.amazon.com/Mission-Gravity-Mesklinite-Book-Maste...
In half an hour, and that was for pleasure.
Hi there. I am the walking talking proof you're wrong.
But I don't know how I can prove it to you.
I read this: https://www.amazon.com/Victory-Island-Tale-Penguin-Classics/...
In 2-2.5 hours.
I read this:
https://www.amazon.com/Mission-Gravity-Mesklinite-Book-Maste...
In half an hour, and that was for pleasure.
When I was still in school I scored over 900 on a reading speed test. For those skeptical how this is possible, I don't read linearly my eyes make saccades and groups of words come piling into my brain like someone dumped a bucket of Scrabble tiles. There seems to be a long "pipeline" wherein the words from different lines and different order in the sentences get reassembled into meaning. After reading something very quickly if I look away the information is sort of still "digesting" for some time.
(I seem to have a good size memory buffer for this which no doubt has to do with enabling the speed reading. I remember in typing class classmates were amazed that the way I transcribed assigned text was to read a half a page or more and type it all out verbatim before going back for another chunk. Until they pointed it out I didn't think that was anything special.)
I will admit that at 900 WPM I wasn't getting 100% of the material (albeit enough to get 90% on the comprehension test - which is less than 90% of the source material, just enough source material to reconstruct 90% of the gist). I was really trying to see how fast I could go, since it was computer graded and I could gamify it. (I did get a different text to read and questions to answer about it each time; I wasn't re-reading the same text.) Through this same exercise I learned my comfortable reading speed was 200 - 300 WPM and speed reading without loss of comprehension (just requiring effortful concentration and/or impatience) was around 500.
As an adult I'm certain my reading speed is NOT that fast anymore, and I often find myself re-reading text I just read.
(I seem to have a good size memory buffer for this which no doubt has to do with enabling the speed reading. I remember in typing class classmates were amazed that the way I transcribed assigned text was to read a half a page or more and type it all out verbatim before going back for another chunk. Until they pointed it out I didn't think that was anything special.)
I will admit that at 900 WPM I wasn't getting 100% of the material (albeit enough to get 90% on the comprehension test - which is less than 90% of the source material, just enough source material to reconstruct 90% of the gist). I was really trying to see how fast I could go, since it was computer graded and I could gamify it. (I did get a different text to read and questions to answer about it each time; I wasn't re-reading the same text.) Through this same exercise I learned my comfortable reading speed was 200 - 300 WPM and speed reading without loss of comprehension (just requiring effortful concentration and/or impatience) was around 500.
As an adult I'm certain my reading speed is NOT that fast anymore, and I often find myself re-reading text I just read.
| my eyes make saccades and groups of words come piling into my brain
That's similar to a tactic speed readers: looking at spaces between words instead of the words themselves, which allows your brain to pull in multiple words at once. There's a pile of approaches and not all are useful, but that one is. Another I've found is quieting my inner voice.
Without doing any practice or any other speed reading methods, just doing those two things boosted my wpm to 500+ at 100% comprehension when I was younger. I was a good reader to begin with but not a particularly fast one. I stuck with those methods because they're effortless and I didn't want to lose comprehension by pushing faster.
And importantly most of what I read is fiction, and a faster speed feels as though it would ruin the feeling of stories that are more ponderous. I prefer the speed of the thoughts on the page to feel like they're real time with the characters thinking them.
That's similar to a tactic speed readers: looking at spaces between words instead of the words themselves, which allows your brain to pull in multiple words at once. There's a pile of approaches and not all are useful, but that one is. Another I've found is quieting my inner voice.
Without doing any practice or any other speed reading methods, just doing those two things boosted my wpm to 500+ at 100% comprehension when I was younger. I was a good reader to begin with but not a particularly fast one. I stuck with those methods because they're effortless and I didn't want to lose comprehension by pushing faster.
And importantly most of what I read is fiction, and a faster speed feels as though it would ruin the feeling of stories that are more ponderous. I prefer the speed of the thoughts on the page to feel like they're real time with the characters thinking them.
This all sounds very familiar, except that my coordination is not enough for typing quickly. That's because of an unrelated neurological problem though.
I'm limited to something like 40-45 WPM.
And the 900 wpm minute is simply about what I find comfortable for a story where I want to know what happens next.
I'm limited to something like 40-45 WPM.
And the 900 wpm minute is simply about what I find comfortable for a story where I want to know what happens next.
I think there are a lot of parts to the fast reading pipeline.
I know someone who had undiagnosed vision problems when young which harmed the ability to read fast/fluently.
I suspect that vision is pretty critical. To read fast you have to be able to visually capture quickly, chunk things together and feed them to further stages of the comprehension pipeline.
I suspect poor vision, poor lighting and contrast, bad fonts, flickering displays, distractions from other senses all slow you down. I also think there might be an age window to learning reading fluency that could be missed.
I read fairly fast (haven't tested it in a while) but I learned reading books, which have good contrast, a large high-resolution font and reflective lighting. I wonder if this makes my visual pipeline attuned to reading different than new readers who have learned on glowy screens, with small pixelated fonts, and competing with other non-reading distractions.
Might be interesting to give your kids physical books or reflective e-ink/e-paper readers to read in a well-lit environment and see if it helps.
I know someone who had undiagnosed vision problems when young which harmed the ability to read fast/fluently.
I suspect that vision is pretty critical. To read fast you have to be able to visually capture quickly, chunk things together and feed them to further stages of the comprehension pipeline.
I suspect poor vision, poor lighting and contrast, bad fonts, flickering displays, distractions from other senses all slow you down. I also think there might be an age window to learning reading fluency that could be missed.
I read fairly fast (haven't tested it in a while) but I learned reading books, which have good contrast, a large high-resolution font and reflective lighting. I wonder if this makes my visual pipeline attuned to reading different than new readers who have learned on glowy screens, with small pixelated fonts, and competing with other non-reading distractions.
Might be interesting to give your kids physical books or reflective e-ink/e-paper readers to read in a well-lit environment and see if it helps.
Speed reading is a skill you can learn; it just takes practice. I can't imagine doing this with any book I'm trying to enjoy, though—successfully interpreting the semantics correctly isn't the same as letting it "hit you", if that makes sense. For highly dense texts (think e.g. Kant) I can't imagine actually understanding anything at that kind of speed—at best maybe you could memorize it and process it later.
How do you go about practicing? Do you just try to push yourself faster?
I notice that my error rate (reading words that aren't there) goes way up if I push myself to go faster. If I'm reading something that is easy to guess at then it might feel like I'm blazing through it with good retention, but if the words aren't what I expect then it ends up being quite counter-productive
I notice that my error rate (reading words that aren't there) goes way up if I push myself to go faster. If I'm reading something that is easy to guess at then it might feel like I'm blazing through it with good retention, but if the words aren't what I expect then it ends up being quite counter-productive
Not quite faster, but skipping more.
Speed reading works well on texts that are highly redundant with internal "error correction".
Try reading a YA novel quickly (the content motivates you to go faster :) ) and then try to read a physics paper at the same speed.
Speed reading works well on texts that are highly redundant with internal "error correction".
Try reading a YA novel quickly (the content motivates you to go faster :) ) and then try to read a physics paper at the same speed.
I suspect you can lose the skill too.
I used to be a fast reader.
I tried improving my Spanish by reading Spanish books and I would subvocalize the words.
After that I lost my fast reading skill in English.
I used to be a fast reader.
I tried improving my Spanish by reading Spanish books and I would subvocalize the words.
After that I lost my fast reading skill in English.
Do you find that your comprehension is as high at this rate as at a lower rate?
For everything except looking for debugging errors, yes.
Can you read technical text at that speed and understand it?
Another faster-than-average reader here, I don't remember what my result was when I calculated reading speed.
Anyways, I do slow down dramatically when it's technical. I'm learning then, and limited by my learning speed.
When I'm reading fiction, I forget that I'm reading, and don't even know what speed I'm reading. I'm completely in the flow and the story is playing out in my head.
Anyways, I do slow down dramatically when it's technical. I'm learning then, and limited by my learning speed.
When I'm reading fiction, I forget that I'm reading, and don't even know what speed I'm reading. I'm completely in the flow and the story is playing out in my head.
> Anyways, I do slow down dramatically when it's technical. I'm learning then, and limited by my learning speed.
Do you also find that this happens with different types of fiction, or are they all basically the same?
Personally, if I'm reading someone like Toni Morrison or Marquez, I find that I like to slow down and savor what's going on. It's like ready poetry. If it's something I can read fast, I tend to find it's not something I'm drawn to spending the time with.
Do you also find that this happens with different types of fiction, or are they all basically the same?
Personally, if I'm reading someone like Toni Morrison or Marquez, I find that I like to slow down and savor what's going on. It's like ready poetry. If it's something I can read fast, I tend to find it's not something I'm drawn to spending the time with.
I’m the same - I slow down dramatically with technical topics unless I’m very comfortable with the material.
There’s no pleasure in speed reading through literature. It’s like a gourmet meal - you don’t enjoy the food if you wolf it down in 10 minutes.
There’s no pleasure in speed reading through literature. It’s like a gourmet meal - you don’t enjoy the food if you wolf it down in 10 minutes.
[deleted]
Not on a consistent level. For example when I do a lot of programming, or when I'm studying advanced math, my reading speed will slow down. Just knowing what was intended is not enough - a single letter can really matter.
But if I'm just reading an average programming book, then basically yes. 700+ WPM is comfortable, and I don't try to measure exactly how much + it is.
But if I'm just reading an average programming book, then basically yes. 700+ WPM is comfortable, and I don't try to measure exactly how much + it is.
i my case yes, but i experience severe slowdowns when reading anything written in verse or legalese.
r/speedreading on reddit is where you'll find people at that level.
It's a skill that can be learned, but likely you self-taught and simply don't remember learning it.
It's a skill that can be learned, but likely you self-taught and simply don't remember learning it.
No.
Speed reading is explicitly trading off speed and comprehension. It takes advantage of the fact that we need to see a lot less of the text to pull out certain ideas than we think we do.
I'm simply reading. In full.
Speed reading is explicitly trading off speed and comprehension. It takes advantage of the fact that we need to see a lot less of the text to pull out certain ideas than we think we do.
I'm simply reading. In full.
Not exactly. Speed reading has a lot of tactics that don't trade comprehension for speed. You said below that you pull in groups of words at once. Speed readers do that by looking at the spaces, which allows our brain to group words together. I started doing this when I was younger and got an immediate significant boost without practice and with no loss of comprehension.
What does your comprehension test at? It's not uncommon for speed readers to test at high comprehension with your reading rate.
What does your comprehension test at? It's not uncommon for speed readers to test at high comprehension with your reading rate.
I generally don't test comprehension directly. And the kinds of questions that I've seen for it on speed reading tests didn't impress me.
Except for above where you say you 'read' but don't 'digest'.
Reading implies digestion, if you're not digesting you're not reading 'in full'.
Reading implies digestion, if you're not digesting you're not reading 'in full'.
Except that I do digest.
Just not necessarily while my eyes are occupied with the book.
Just not necessarily while my eyes are occupied with the book.
So...not as you read.
It sounds like you claim to read fast, but then have to take extra time to digest, so if we add your digesting time to your reading time and count that total as reading time period, it's not actually that fast at all.
It sounds like you claim to read fast, but then have to take extra time to digest, so if we add your digesting time to your reading time and count that total as reading time period, it's not actually that fast at all.
mostly, but comprehension speeds are something that is built into the brain and can only be improved but serious effort.
Do you read a lot? I mean, do you read the book quickly then rest, or do you use your extra time to read three books? There's the old story of how some taxi drivers will drive longer hours during busy rainfall periods to make extra money, whereas other drivers just hit their quota early then stop.
I do.
For example I'm currently following around 50 actively updating stories on Royal Roads.
For example I'm currently following around 50 actively updating stories on Royal Roads.
> My brother and I both read around 900 wpm.
That's a great speed. I'll never reach because I have to read some paragraphs several times before I understand the article. Some times using pen a paper...
Anyway, you can still improve you speed with the same level of understanding by asking chatgpt for summary.
That's a great speed. I'll never reach because I have to read some paragraphs several times before I understand the article. Some times using pen a paper...
Anyway, you can still improve you speed with the same level of understanding by asking chatgpt for summary.
I've been wondering if my own speedreading is a beneficial form of dyslexia.
Do you think it could be a mutation that allows your eye muscles to move faster?
My reading speed is limited by how fast I can move my eyes, if I use one of those apps that just flashes the words in the same spot my reading speed at least increases by at least 4x
My reading speed is limited by how fast I can move my eyes, if I use one of those apps that just flashes the words in the same spot my reading speed at least increases by at least 4x
I'm a normal to slow reader so take this with a grain of salt, but I've noticed that speed readers tend to turn their heads, whereas normal speed readers just move their eyes and not their head. Would be interesting to hear if you try moving your head if it helps your speed.
Hey you're right, moving my head and less my eyes is way faster
No. My eyes pull in several words at a glance, and I just have a series of glances per line.
I've seen advice about continuous eye movement for fast reading. That is BS in my experience.
I've seen advice about continuous eye movement for fast reading. That is BS in my experience.
Then I can glance at words in succession at 900+ wpm.
JFK allegedly read at 1200 wpm.
Citation:
[0]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K7y2xPucnAo
[0]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K7y2xPucnAo
What he did is classic speed reading - trading off speed for comprehension.
I just realized that I immediately close a site when a popup comes - doesnt matter when that happens. Popup > cmd w done.
I do this at an absurd speed so maybe evolumutation is in play
Do we know if this difference is present at birth, or something that shows up as a result of doing more reading, like how the brains of London taxi drivers changed when they studied for the taxi-driving exam, which meant they had to memorize lots of routes.
The part where it talked about how the brain changes when people practice reading more made the title and first paragraphs seem like they have the causation exactly backward. It sounded like they were saying "people are good at reading because they have different brains," implying some sort of unfair advantage, rather than that people who read a lot develop different regions of their brains than people who don't.
I'm surprised by the number of adults I've worked with who had graduate degrees and yet could not read a paragraph out loud on the spot and sound natural. I found out most of the reason I was having so much trouble communicating with them was because almost all our communication was in writing, and they couldn't read fluently.
It's hard for me to imagine completing, like, 5th grade without being able to read well, so it's a testament to their fierce determination that they'd been working around that challenge at such high levels!
I'm surprised by the number of adults I've worked with who had graduate degrees and yet could not read a paragraph out loud on the spot and sound natural. I found out most of the reason I was having so much trouble communicating with them was because almost all our communication was in writing, and they couldn't read fluently.
It's hard for me to imagine completing, like, 5th grade without being able to read well, so it's a testament to their fierce determination that they'd been working around that challenge at such high levels!
> read a paragraph out loud on the spot and sound natural
As someone who reads aloud a lot, I contend that this is a subtly different process than simply reading quietly on your own, and something that must be practiced. You need to set up a "reading system" and a "speaking system" and have them operate independently, like a drummer doing a polyrhythm or like patting your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time. You also have to throttle your "reading system" to a slower pace than is natural to fluent readers reading silently. They say that poorer readers "sub-vocalize" which limits their reading speed -- well, fully vocalizing does too. All this to say that you can't conclude someone is a poor reader just because they can't read aloud naturally; nor even can you conclude that someone good at reading aloud is a particularly great silent reader.
As someone who reads aloud a lot, I contend that this is a subtly different process than simply reading quietly on your own, and something that must be practiced. You need to set up a "reading system" and a "speaking system" and have them operate independently, like a drummer doing a polyrhythm or like patting your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time. You also have to throttle your "reading system" to a slower pace than is natural to fluent readers reading silently. They say that poorer readers "sub-vocalize" which limits their reading speed -- well, fully vocalizing does too. All this to say that you can't conclude someone is a poor reader just because they can't read aloud naturally; nor even can you conclude that someone good at reading aloud is a particularly great silent reader.
In grade school when we read aloud (taking turns in class), I would be able to read my section out loud, but have no idea what it said until I went back and "really" read it.
When I started reading out loud to my son, decades later, I finally learned how to "really" read at the same time as reading out loud. I also learned how to read ahead to see who was going to talk next so that I could do the voices properly. (Discworld books are great for this, because his writing really helps you know how to pronounce the dialog.)
When I started reading out loud to my son, decades later, I finally learned how to "really" read at the same time as reading out loud. I also learned how to read ahead to see who was going to talk next so that I could do the voices properly. (Discworld books are great for this, because his writing really helps you know how to pronounce the dialog.)
>I'm surprised by the number of adults I've worked with who had graduate degrees and yet could not read a paragraph out loud on the spot and sound natural
It's hard to shift gears like that. I can read vastly faster than I can speak so it can be difficult to coordinate the two on the spot. Most reading people do is silent reading, so this shouldn't necessarily be that surprising.
It's hard to shift gears like that. I can read vastly faster than I can speak so it can be difficult to coordinate the two on the spot. Most reading people do is silent reading, so this shouldn't necessarily be that surprising.
I also read silently vastly faster than I can speak (~1100 vs 150 wpm), but I can as easily read slowly enough to speak what I'm reading fluently.
When I would hop on a call with these people and ask them to summarize what they thought my message said, they weren't close on that either, so I'm pretty sure these people actually were not reading fluently.
When I would hop on a call with these people and ask them to summarize what they thought my message said, they weren't close on that either, so I'm pretty sure these people actually were not reading fluently.
I was thinking of the same example for this article. Nature vs nurture arguments often need much more evidence than many can provide.
Nature vs Nurture arguments always suffer from a reductionism problem by assuming there's a dichotomy between the two, which owes its origin to a feeling of exceptionalism that separates anything Human from anything Natural. In fact, nurture is a subcategory of nature, and there is a complex intertwined relationship between genetic and cultural heredity. Trying to reduce it to a debate between one or the other will poison one's understanding before even getting started.
I know that 4 years of college rewired my brain.
I am left wondering if the differences in brain anatomy happen because these people read more and thus become good at reading, i.e., the brain is plastic, or these people have a proclivity to be better at reading because their brain is structured differently.
Unless I missed it, there isn’t much mentioned on plasticity in the original paper.
Unless I missed it, there isn’t much mentioned on plasticity in the original paper.
Aren’t people who are good at anything in possession of different brains?
I know a guy that plays chess around the 2000 level, but cannot read. I have a cousin who can memorize a deck of cards, in any order, in just a few minutes. Everybody has different talents, but who gets to decide which brains are worth understanding?
We should be trying to combine and analyze all of the different ways that different brains have capacity for incredible feats of human accomplishment.
I know a guy that plays chess around the 2000 level, but cannot read. I have a cousin who can memorize a deck of cards, in any order, in just a few minutes. Everybody has different talents, but who gets to decide which brains are worth understanding?
We should be trying to combine and analyze all of the different ways that different brains have capacity for incredible feats of human accomplishment.
I couldn't agree with your last sentence more. I'm, I guess, "quite obviously neurodivergent" (so I'm told), I have all these comobribities, like apparently I'm brilliant and xyz, but literally cannot do these other things other humans can do (read at 0.25wph, but audio books can't go fast enough). We'd really be great at building "society teams" if we could figure this stuff out at a more philosophical AND scientific level.
I dont think anyone is suggesting otherwise. The quest is to understand how brains work- full stop. This means what you said is true, as well as the exact inverse. There is interest in knowing why people cant do things. Why are some people face blind, suffer from amnesia, or incapable of complex thought.
It all boils down to understanding a complex system.
It all boils down to understanding a complex system.
It’s something so complex and yet so simple, the brain is just an FPGA. it creates the wiring for a task and the more you do said task the more it optimizes it, perhaps the difference for some people is just the ability to create or optimize the connections in a faster or easier way.
I think the thing is there is weird stuff about how stuff manifests no? like I can't do math to save myself, but maybe I can "imagine math" (I've heard some people do math this way) - so just pair me with a math person and use my particular connection configuration to solve or invent new math, you know? That would be truly interdisciplinary teaming, you gotta wonder how far on the spectrum of "dysfunction" there is actually incredible function poorly implemented from a society perspective.
[deleted]
The article mentions brain plasticity, but I wonder how much of this is also genetic. Using myself as an example, I started reading novels relatively early, mostly skipping the entire YA genre. I clearly remember reading "Jaws", which is definitely not meant for children, when I was eight years old.
Does precocious reading mean the left anterior part of the temporal lobe and the Heschl's gyrus are already larger/thicker to begin with in some people? Or do they develop rapidly in response to reading as a stimulus?
Does precocious reading mean the left anterior part of the temporal lobe and the Heschl's gyrus are already larger/thicker to begin with in some people? Or do they develop rapidly in response to reading as a stimulus?
>I took a course in speed reading, learning to read straight down the middle of the page, and I was able to go through War and Peace in 20 minutes. It's about Russia.
—Woody Allen
—Woody Allen
Like all great humor, it's hilarious because it's true and points out an absurdity
I have pretty damn sever dyslexia and dyscalculia, I've followed the research over the years because of how very clearly "different" my brain is from the typical, my thinking style is all audio/visual (funny because spelling is linked to phonics yet I think heavily in voice). I've read everything from cortical thickness to neuroplasticity to processing regions, but I believe the best correlation they found so far is around the depth of mini columns (interestingly also associated with autism research).
My father once referenced the “voice in your head” and I had to clearly articulate that I don’t hear a voice, and such insinuations are sort of weird.
I see words, as if written gliding through my mind as I think my internal thoughts.
My father didn’t believe me, and probably still doesn’t; but it is interesting to me how our brains can be so different as to not even be able to understand another persons easy to define alternative internal experiences.
I also always wondered if we all perceive colours the same or if colours are different to us but we just give them the same words- since colour could, in theory, be completely subjective.
I see words, as if written gliding through my mind as I think my internal thoughts.
My father didn’t believe me, and probably still doesn’t; but it is interesting to me how our brains can be so different as to not even be able to understand another persons easy to define alternative internal experiences.
I also always wondered if we all perceive colours the same or if colours are different to us but we just give them the same words- since colour could, in theory, be completely subjective.
Yah what you described is really interesting to me, when I'm "in thought" I am for sure looking at movies and pictures, but the idea of thinking that way is super weird, me typing this right now is basically just commanding my fingers to punch out the words the voice in my head is telling me to punch out, half the time I just close my eyes to do it because I'm jut touching typing anyway (I actually like to keep my eyes closed generally when thinking), reading it looking at the word, making my brain remember what the word sounds like, making the word sound using the voice in my mind, thinking about the voice in my mind, reading is VERY inefficient. On colour, my degree is in digital imaging technology and I have studied colour from the perspective of gamuts and profiles etc. Certainly we all experience colour differently. I suspect much like a real colour profile, there is approximation done between (real world light frequencies/real "colour") them and mixing them, it would make sense there is some compression and "fixing" in the "brain gamut" as well. Blue is between about 450 and 495 nanometers, never mind the neurology, the physiological difference between us alone to account for that, nature is magic but I'm not sure it's perfect? My totally unsintific just from hours of doing colour correction with various humans, is maybe a 1%ish difference in shade, and somthing about where in the colour range it falls also has a variance/tipping point (dress colour thing?) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide-gamut_RGB_color_space)
> me typing this right now is basically just commanding my fingers to punch out the words the voice in my head is telling me to punch out.
That sounds really annoying, but I would assume that you could transcribe what someone is saying out loud while continuing to listen? I would find that extremely difficult.
In my mind when I’m typing out letters its a little similar to those typing games[0] where you see a word and punch it down letter by letter. In my head it goes bolder when I wrote a letter of a word I’m putting down. This makes it very easy to transcribe documents - an unnecessary skill in the age of OCR. I doubt there is any other advantage of this quirk, other than it seems that spelling seems to be easier for me than others on the internet.
If I had to listen to someone I would have to pause while my brain processed it into text and only then could I continue.
[0]: https://zty.pe/
That sounds really annoying, but I would assume that you could transcribe what someone is saying out loud while continuing to listen? I would find that extremely difficult.
In my mind when I’m typing out letters its a little similar to those typing games[0] where you see a word and punch it down letter by letter. In my head it goes bolder when I wrote a letter of a word I’m putting down. This makes it very easy to transcribe documents - an unnecessary skill in the age of OCR. I doubt there is any other advantage of this quirk, other than it seems that spelling seems to be easier for me than others on the internet.
If I had to listen to someone I would have to pause while my brain processed it into text and only then could I continue.
[0]: https://zty.pe/
I never thought about that but yeah, I can transcribe what someone is saying and listening at the same time I think I could do a good job of being a "dumb pipe" too just taking what they say and very quickly saying it out loud. I also sometimes watch the news while listening to music my wife finds that totally bonkers.
Your thing seems cool but yeah, I can't imagine it and trying to imagine it is, annoying. You would have made a good lawyer, if you're not one already. The lawyers I know who are world class can both do what you can do + are also just intelligent/smart/fast. Oh I guess maybe you're a SWE? I guess a "10x" SWE is probably doing this too, it's why I never made it in comp sci.
Your thing seems cool but yeah, I can't imagine it and trying to imagine it is, annoying. You would have made a good lawyer, if you're not one already. The lawyers I know who are world class can both do what you can do + are also just intelligent/smart/fast. Oh I guess maybe you're a SWE? I guess a "10x" SWE is probably doing this too, it's why I never made it in comp sci.
I struggle with reading speed, and concentration in general when reading. No idea why. However, I love listening to podcasts, audiobooks, videos etc. at 3x speed.
Using text to speech has also helped. No longer do I delay reading long messages from coworkers, or dread reading boring documentation. I just use text to speech. It works really well on Windows (my current work laptop), but unfortunately not so much on Linux (personal laptop) or mobile (too fiddly).
Using text to speech has also helped. No longer do I delay reading long messages from coworkers, or dread reading boring documentation. I just use text to speech. It works really well on Windows (my current work laptop), but unfortunately not so much on Linux (personal laptop) or mobile (too fiddly).
But what about someone like myself who is good at reading but doesn't get the same pleasure from it anymore and can no longer finish books?
I was wondering something similar from a different perspective. I love to read, but I'm actually terrible at it. My eyes don't track well and I jump lines constantly, get confused about where I am, and have to start whole pages over sometimes. My mind also wanders, and I can go several pages before realizing I haven't really been reading. It takes me twice as long to finish a book as it does my friends, but I still enjoy reading and love books.
> I can go several pages before realizing I haven't really been reading.
You're not alone there.
You're not alone there.
Oh wow, i thought you were describing me for a moment there!
> My mind also wanders, and I can go several pages before realizing I haven't really been reading.
I think this is an under-rated benefit of reading. Would you feel like you failed if your mind wandered during a guided meditation? Can reading serve a similar function?
This is one reason why I gave up trying to significantly increase my reading speed. Blazing through a nonfiction book at 700 WPM might make you feel like you've learned a lot, but you probably haven't really digested anything. Do you really want to uncritically ingest a nonfiction book? I've listened to enough episodes of If Books Could Kill (amazing podcast, btw) to no longer have any desire to quickly "absorb knowledge" from a book, with how likely it is that that "knowledge" is flawed in myriad ways. I now think it's much better to go slowly, ponder what you read, take time to let your mind wander (it's connecting the rest of your life to what you've just read), and be critical and questioning of everything you read. If a book isn't worth taking this time on, it's not worth reading.
And for novels or reading for fun, why would you want to rush through it? It's for pleasure: go at whatever speed gives you the most pleasure. It's not a contest.
I think this is an under-rated benefit of reading. Would you feel like you failed if your mind wandered during a guided meditation? Can reading serve a similar function?
This is one reason why I gave up trying to significantly increase my reading speed. Blazing through a nonfiction book at 700 WPM might make you feel like you've learned a lot, but you probably haven't really digested anything. Do you really want to uncritically ingest a nonfiction book? I've listened to enough episodes of If Books Could Kill (amazing podcast, btw) to no longer have any desire to quickly "absorb knowledge" from a book, with how likely it is that that "knowledge" is flawed in myriad ways. I now think it's much better to go slowly, ponder what you read, take time to let your mind wander (it's connecting the rest of your life to what you've just read), and be critical and questioning of everything you read. If a book isn't worth taking this time on, it's not worth reading.
And for novels or reading for fun, why would you want to rush through it? It's for pleasure: go at whatever speed gives you the most pleasure. It's not a contest.
Could this be a case of modern screen-based dopamine delivery systems affecting your attention span?
From personal experience, I find it much easier to get absorbed reading books like I used to when I'm on a detox from the tyranny of the screen. It doesn't take long at all; a day or two and I start to feel some recovery.
Taking even that much time away feels increasingly difficult... But like going to the gym, you rarely regret it afterwards.
From personal experience, I find it much easier to get absorbed reading books like I used to when I'm on a detox from the tyranny of the screen. It doesn't take long at all; a day or two and I start to feel some recovery.
Taking even that much time away feels increasingly difficult... But like going to the gym, you rarely regret it afterwards.
Some years ago, I noticed that I read less and less, and it troubled me. Then one day I tried on a pair of reading glasses over my regular glasses.
I was amazed.
The trouble turned out to be it simply got harder and harder for me to read, and so I enjoyed it less, so read less. Getting progressive lenses fixed that.
I was amazed.
The trouble turned out to be it simply got harder and harder for me to read, and so I enjoyed it less, so read less. Getting progressive lenses fixed that.
My case exactly, except I'm still in denial.
Very similar with me - I've never been a huge reader (actually, I wonder in the opening stats how many are people like me humbly saying they 'don't read regularly' because although they absolutely do read a lot more than others it's not as much as they would like) but I noticed it was very fatiguing, I'd often barely read anything before I was yawning or closing/stretching my eyes, wanting to look away.
Earlier this year I went to the opticians (it'd been a few years) and lo and behold I had a prescription for the first time. A very mild one, and I suspect it's the astigmatism that affects reading more, since it makes smaller fonts sort of 'fuzzy' around the edges, even though everything seems perfectly fine at that distance (or any other) without the direct comparison.
Earlier this year I went to the opticians (it'd been a few years) and lo and behold I had a prescription for the first time. A very mild one, and I suspect it's the astigmatism that affects reading more, since it makes smaller fonts sort of 'fuzzy' around the edges, even though everything seems perfectly fine at that distance (or any other) without the direct comparison.
Reading is still the most efficient and quickest ways of obtaining a deep understanding of a subject. The emphasis on visual cues (namely movies and videos) in the new generations are quite alarming. I wouldn't be surprised if a partial reason why America ranks relatively low for standardized testing in younger children is the decline in reading
It is embarrassing how bad my younger colleagues are at reading; they have to have audio/video for everything and get it spoon fed otherwise they 'don't get it'. And it is fairly universal; what used to be managers and sales guys 'jumping on a call' is now everyone about everything.
Is that because people who enjoy reading develop brains that are adapted to it?
I always wondered if there's a link between handedness and reading comprehension. E.g. Left handers tend to use more of the right hemisphere for language processing. Does this mean reading ability is diminished?
I myself struggle with reading and am left handed. It sort of feels like I'm forcing a muscle instead of using a muscle and strengthening it. I also have poor reading comprehension. I do read a lot but no matter how much more I read my comprehension and reading ability always stays the same.
I also wonder if left-to-right languages are better suited for right handed people. Often my eyes will jump around the text in a way that feels like it'd be easier to read text right-to-left.
I myself struggle with reading and am left handed. It sort of feels like I'm forcing a muscle instead of using a muscle and strengthening it. I also have poor reading comprehension. I do read a lot but no matter how much more I read my comprehension and reading ability always stays the same.
I also wonder if left-to-right languages are better suited for right handed people. Often my eyes will jump around the text in a way that feels like it'd be easier to read text right-to-left.
There could be a link, but n=1 I'm left handed and read more/faster then all in my social circle (that I'm aware of).
> I myself struggle with reading and am left handed.
I am a natural speedreader -- I never studied it -- and I have read accounts of several other natural speedreaders in this thread and agree with them.
I'm left-handed too.
I doubt there's any correlation, TBH.
I am a natural speedreader -- I never studied it -- and I have read accounts of several other natural speedreaders in this thread and agree with them.
I'm left-handed too.
I doubt there's any correlation, TBH.
I'm left handed myself and have always loved and excelled at reading (according to various tests or programs in school anyway), not that anecdata is much good but there it is
Does this brain difference somehow translate to other aspects of life than reading?
Exactly my question. As somebody who reads a book every two weeks... I wouldn't say I have a particularly "better" brain...
Speaking of reading, if we simulate a theoretical person (who hasn't read a book in their life and has poor reading comprehension and speed) and that person has the goal of reaching a 700 score on the SAT verbal, how many hundreds of hours of passive reading (opinion pieces, fiction, nonfiction) would the person need to develop the necessary reading speed and comprehension base before progressing to the next stage which is actively practicing SAT verbal questions?
I don't know that the latter is even necessary, save to simply familiarize oneself with the format. A good verbal score probably just requires being rather an*l about grammar, logical argument, and the retention of information from the question passages and sentences. My 800 came well after I'd transitioned from filling my spare time with reading YA novels (Dune and Shogun would have been the top end of my experience, and I didn't even finish the latter) to filling it with sketching, and I believe that I took the test around the same time that I was copping Bs and Cs in English because I couldn't keep up with the class' pace on Huckleberry Finn. Lawyers in the family (and the many, many arguments with them) was probably my advantage.
0 hours of "passive reading". If you want to get better at the SAT verbal, you should start practicing SAT verbal questions immediately.
If I want to get better at the piano, how many hours of music should I passively listen to before I start practicing the piano? None: start right now.
If I want to get better at the piano, how many hours of music should I passively listen to before I start practicing the piano? None: start right now.
I'm not sure this is quite what GP is fishing for.
While I haven't taken a modern SAT test, I'm pretty sure the ~verbal score covers a fair amount of comprehension and ~usage that isn't as easy to cram/prep. Since the GP is setting aside vocabulary prep as a separate phase, I think they're specifically wondering about how to build up those more nebulous skills.
(Is your hypothesis here that just running over a lot of these questions is sufficient to develop reading comprehension at a level necessary to handle novel questions at exam time? Is it that just reading enough of these questions will teach you the comprehension? Is it that these questions aren't a great proxy for comprehension in the first place and hence it's easier to game them than to develop comprehension? Some of these might tick the GP's boxes, but others probably won't.
To get really to the point: one of the GP's concerns is reading speed, and I suspect it's going to be really hard to crack 700 under pressure if you're having trouble even reading all of the questions/answers in the allotted time.)
While I haven't taken a modern SAT test, I'm pretty sure the ~verbal score covers a fair amount of comprehension and ~usage that isn't as easy to cram/prep. Since the GP is setting aside vocabulary prep as a separate phase, I think they're specifically wondering about how to build up those more nebulous skills.
(Is your hypothesis here that just running over a lot of these questions is sufficient to develop reading comprehension at a level necessary to handle novel questions at exam time? Is it that just reading enough of these questions will teach you the comprehension? Is it that these questions aren't a great proxy for comprehension in the first place and hence it's easier to game them than to develop comprehension? Some of these might tick the GP's boxes, but others probably won't.
To get really to the point: one of the GP's concerns is reading speed, and I suspect it's going to be really hard to crack 700 under pressure if you're having trouble even reading all of the questions/answers in the allotted time.)
Tastier brains?
[deleted](1)
I was hyperlexic, and I always found it very bizarre when people said they had a voice in their heads while they were reading (subvocalization.) I think I read so much as a very small child that I was exposed to much more written than spoken language, and I never needed subvocalization (or left it behind at some point.) After learning a second language with very different pronunciation rules, I realized that I was not only subvocalizing in that language, but was also now subvocalizing while reading English.
It struck me when I was reading a book on the operations of the House of Commons, and I realized I was reading "clerk" as "clark." The word "clerk" is spelled identically and has exactly the same meaning in both American and British English, but I was distinguishing them because I was reading in a UK context.
I actually wrote about it yesterday; using a database metaphor, I think I turned the natural primary key of the visual appearance of words into a composite key that now included the sound in order to distinguish between the meanings of very similar Romance language words from their English counterparts. I had to read in an accent. I'm considering blaming how impossibly hard it was for me to pick up a second language on the disability of not previously subvocalizing.