Yes, I’m familiar with that comment, as I was before you made your first reply, and your point still isn’t any clearer. Why don’t you try again, and this time, say it explicitly, so I can either appreciate your insight, see your error, or confirm your rudeness.
My point is simply that what you are doing is not touch typing; if you transcribe slower than you can type from your brain then you are not touch typing. People who touch type find transcription a lot faster since they do not need to think at all. I find your narrative an elaborate excuse for not simply learning to type properly.
Okay, thanks for stating your point—this should have been your first comment.
Now, could you provide a source for your claim about “people who touch type find transcribing easier”? Your reasoning doesn’t make sense: when I transcribe, having to learn what I’m supposed to type is the bottleneck, which is why typing what’s already in my head is faster for me—I skip the stage of reading. I also don’t think about each individual letter as you seem to be implying, and I type as fast as the OP touch-typist claims.
I can even type fast enough to transcribe people talking. (The accuracy isn’t good, but it’s high enough to reconstruct it afterward.)
I use 10 fingers, I base 8 of them on the home row, I type a touch-typing speeds, I use a keyboard optmized for touch typing, I use the keyboard in preference to the mouse; what exactly would “learning to type” include, and how would it be an improvement?
Maybe I misunderstood you; I guess I leapt to the conclusion that when transcribing your eyes moved between the source and the keyboard. If that were the case then “learning to type” would mean learning to type without ever looking at the keys. It sounds like you do that. If you didn’t do that, then its a safe bet that while your 90 WPM is “good enough” you could almost certainly transcribe faster if you could keep your eyes on the source all the time.
I don’t ever look at the keyboard when transcribing, or typing in general (except maybe on the occasional symbol). The slowdown in transcription is not from having to look back at the keyboard.
I can concur with the reporter’s comments in that transcribing is faster for me (as a touch-typist), and more accurate. I can disconnect my brain when transcribing and just let the text flow from my visual center straight to my fingers. When transcribing properly you’re not actually “reading”—I, at least, retain very little of texts that I transcribe.
This is why learning to speed read is so difficult for me.
If I look at a word I’ve read and subvocalized it. I can’t not read a word that I look at. I can try to ignore parsing full sentences and their relation to each other, with limited success, but not at the scale of individual words or letters.
From the post that you replied to:
Yes, I’m familiar with that comment, as I was before you made your first reply, and your point still isn’t any clearer. Why don’t you try again, and this time, say it explicitly, so I can either appreciate your insight, see your error, or confirm your rudeness.
My point is simply that what you are doing is not touch typing; if you transcribe slower than you can type from your brain then you are not touch typing. People who touch type find transcription a lot faster since they do not need to think at all. I find your narrative an elaborate excuse for not simply learning to type properly.
Okay, thanks for stating your point—this should have been your first comment.
Now, could you provide a source for your claim about “people who touch type find transcribing easier”? Your reasoning doesn’t make sense: when I transcribe, having to learn what I’m supposed to type is the bottleneck, which is why typing what’s already in my head is faster for me—I skip the stage of reading. I also don’t think about each individual letter as you seem to be implying, and I type as fast as the OP touch-typist claims.
I can even type fast enough to transcribe people talking. (The accuracy isn’t good, but it’s high enough to reconstruct it afterward.)
I use 10 fingers, I base 8 of them on the home row, I type a touch-typing speeds, I use a keyboard optmized for touch typing, I use the keyboard in preference to the mouse; what exactly would “learning to type” include, and how would it be an improvement?
Maybe I misunderstood you; I guess I leapt to the conclusion that when transcribing your eyes moved between the source and the keyboard. If that were the case then “learning to type” would mean learning to type without ever looking at the keys. It sounds like you do that. If you didn’t do that, then its a safe bet that while your 90 WPM is “good enough” you could almost certainly transcribe faster if you could keep your eyes on the source all the time.
I don’t ever look at the keyboard when transcribing, or typing in general (except maybe on the occasional symbol). The slowdown in transcription is not from having to look back at the keyboard.
I can concur with the reporter’s comments in that transcribing is faster for me (as a touch-typist), and more accurate. I can disconnect my brain when transcribing and just let the text flow from my visual center straight to my fingers. When transcribing properly you’re not actually “reading”—I, at least, retain very little of texts that I transcribe.
This is why learning to speed read is so difficult for me.
If I look at a word I’ve read and subvocalized it. I can’t not read a word that I look at. I can try to ignore parsing full sentences and their relation to each other, with limited success, but not at the scale of individual words or letters.