When you read these words, you’re probably hearing a little voice inside your head that’s reading them to you aloud, so to speak. Your relationship to this imaginary voice (aka “subvocalization” or “inner speech”) may be quite a bit more intimate than you realize.
I am one of those who do not subvocalize at all. In fact, it takes me some effort to start subvocalizing what I read. I had to work to create a clear and discernable train of thought, sometimes accompanied by “subvocalization”, when working on my PhD, so that I can write the arguments down. It is still an effort, and deliberately doing that at bedtime is a reliable way to fall asleep for me, probably because it’s so taxing.
I agree with the general importance of attending to one’s thought process, of course, however it is done.
Interesting! You’re the first person I’ve heard of who never used inner speech while reading in the first place. I know people who believe they’ve learned to stop, but there’s also evidence that their vocal chords continue moving when they read just like everyone else’s so something fishy is going on. On the other hand, I really doubt Eliezer’s vocal chords are doing that, because he reads at least three times more quickly than I could possibly speak no matter how many times I’d rehearsed the words, yet he does claim to hear a little voice in his head as he reads. (How he parses it I have no idea. It’s frightening how quickly his mind can move.) I was about to say, “I wish we could know by third-person science rather than mere reporting on phenomenology whether vocal chord movement reliably tracks inner speech,” but if we could do that then vocal chord movement wouldn’t matter since what I’m really interested is knowing whether inner speech is happening.
On the other hand, I really doubt Eliezer’s vocal chords are doing that, because he reads at least three times more quickly than I could possibly speak no matter how many times I’d rehearsed the words
I bet most people read much faster than they could possibly speak, and most of them subvocalize. One possible reason is they skip all the filler that doesn’t help comprehension. I don’t think I subvocalize whole words, and I skip many. Then there’s skimming which is a completely different matter.
You’re the first person I’ve heard of who never used inner speech while reading in the first place.
Or maybe I don’t notice it somehow.
he reads at least three times more quickly than I could possibly speak
I naturally (without learning to speed-read) read non-taxing fiction at slightly over a page a minute, which is not very fast, but still faster than I could possibly subvocalize it. I thought this rate is pretty average, but maybe others can subvocalize faster. I do notice that I subvocalize when writing or when formulating my thoughts into words for further expression, just not when reading or listening.
.… There’s something that’s confusing me here. I notice that I am confused and am pointing this out to remind me to get back to it.
It’s to do with the fact that, while whenever I consciously read I subvocalize, when I really get entranced by a book my subjective experience looks more like watching a movie, and I hear things only when people speak them.
It’s also to do with the fact that I’m not sure what reading without subvocalization would look like; no matter how you take in an input string you’re going to have a temporary variable with bits of the string lying around somewhere.
I am one of those who does not subvocalize at all.
Is there any ‘sensory’ process which seems to take its place, like a stream of imaginary images instead, or does it seem like other people have this extra thing going on which you don’t?
When I read a fiction book or listen to a sound recording it feels like there is a direct connection between the words and my brain, with relevant images, sounds, feelings and ideas popping up inside. This flow tends to be interrupted when something in the story or in its delivery stops making sense, syntactically, semantically or logically. Then I have to disengage the default direct access method and go through the delivery medium to make sense of it. I don’t know how common this is.
Non-fiction is completely different, there the medium is never transparent. Except for that one time when I first read an intro linear algebra text and it just made sense, with the images of lines, planes, rotations and intersections just showing up in the right places for many theorems, lemmas and calculations. I take it that this is a much more common feeling for those with aptitude for math, if not totally in the Will Hunting way.
Sounds familiar, it used to feel like that when I read a lot of fiction. These days I read maybe one or two fiction books per year, and my imagination is a lot bleaker.
That’s probably good for you, I seem to recall that one the sub-goals in speed reading is to stop the subvocalization as it slows you down considerably.
I am one of those who do not subvocalize at all. In fact, it takes me some effort to start subvocalizing what I read. I had to work to create a clear and discernable train of thought, sometimes accompanied by “subvocalization”, when working on my PhD, so that I can write the arguments down. It is still an effort, and deliberately doing that at bedtime is a reliable way to fall asleep for me, probably because it’s so taxing.
I agree with the general importance of attending to one’s thought process, of course, however it is done.
Interesting! You’re the first person I’ve heard of who never used inner speech while reading in the first place. I know people who believe they’ve learned to stop, but there’s also evidence that their vocal chords continue moving when they read just like everyone else’s so something fishy is going on. On the other hand, I really doubt Eliezer’s vocal chords are doing that, because he reads at least three times more quickly than I could possibly speak no matter how many times I’d rehearsed the words, yet he does claim to hear a little voice in his head as he reads. (How he parses it I have no idea. It’s frightening how quickly his mind can move.) I was about to say, “I wish we could know by third-person science rather than mere reporting on phenomenology whether vocal chord movement reliably tracks inner speech,” but if we could do that then vocal chord movement wouldn’t matter since what I’m really interested is knowing whether inner speech is happening.
Edit: Not the study I had in mind, but evidence that subvocalization can be detected via electrical signals sent to vocal muscles. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~binsted/papers/BinstedJorgensenHICSS2006.pdf
I bet most people read much faster than they could possibly speak, and most of them subvocalize. One possible reason is they skip all the filler that doesn’t help comprehension. I don’t think I subvocalize whole words, and I skip many. Then there’s skimming which is a completely different matter.
Or maybe I don’t notice it somehow.
I naturally (without learning to speed-read) read non-taxing fiction at slightly over a page a minute, which is not very fast, but still faster than I could possibly subvocalize it. I thought this rate is pretty average, but maybe others can subvocalize faster. I do notice that I subvocalize when writing or when formulating my thoughts into words for further expression, just not when reading or listening.
Yes, this is exactly why I want to be able to directly test for inner speech without having to go through the vocal muscles.
.… There’s something that’s confusing me here. I notice that I am confused and am pointing this out to remind me to get back to it.
It’s to do with the fact that, while whenever I consciously read I subvocalize, when I really get entranced by a book my subjective experience looks more like watching a movie, and I hear things only when people speak them.
It’s also to do with the fact that I’m not sure what reading without subvocalization would look like; no matter how you take in an input string you’re going to have a temporary variable with bits of the string lying around somewhere.
Is there any ‘sensory’ process which seems to take its place, like a stream of imaginary images instead, or does it seem like other people have this extra thing going on which you don’t?
When I read a fiction book or listen to a sound recording it feels like there is a direct connection between the words and my brain, with relevant images, sounds, feelings and ideas popping up inside. This flow tends to be interrupted when something in the story or in its delivery stops making sense, syntactically, semantically or logically. Then I have to disengage the default direct access method and go through the delivery medium to make sense of it. I don’t know how common this is.
Non-fiction is completely different, there the medium is never transparent. Except for that one time when I first read an intro linear algebra text and it just made sense, with the images of lines, planes, rotations and intersections just showing up in the right places for many theorems, lemmas and calculations. I take it that this is a much more common feeling for those with aptitude for math, if not totally in the Will Hunting way.
Sounds familiar, it used to feel like that when I read a lot of fiction. These days I read maybe one or two fiction books per year, and my imagination is a lot bleaker.
How much fiction do you read?
Are you a particularly fast reader? Speed readers claim to unlearn subvocalization.
That’s probably good for you, I seem to recall that one the sub-goals in speed reading is to stop the subvocalization as it slows you down considerably.