Whole my life I hated reading. Now I have a better understanding why and what to do with that.
I read slow because I am pronouncing things, I pronounce things because I want to have emotions from intonations, I need that because I don’t imagine a lot. And as a bonus I am pronouncing things, not just perceiving audibly, so reading for me is an effort, in comparison with listening.
Unfortunately pronouncing also is a very stable habit, it’s really hard to not pronounce things. I will try to use rhythms for speed reading.
The key problem here are your epistemics. My reading speed doesn’t really matter for this discussion. You are dealing with a topic that has an existing discourse and instead of familarizing yourself with that discourse, you are reasoning with anecdotal data.
Here the evidence is clear: subvocalization is necessary to read well. Even expert speed readers do it, they just do it a bit faster than untrained people do. We can check this because that inner voice sends faint communication signals to the vocal cords, as a residue of your internal monolog, and those signals can be measured objectively.
It might be that Scott is wrong here, I don’t think the kind of observation that you use to support your belief that subvocalization is bad are strong enough to doubt Scott here.
Even expert speed readers do it, they just do it a bit faster than untrained people do. We can check this because that inner voice sends faint communication signals to the vocal cords, as a residue of your internal monolog, and those signals can be measured objectively.
I’ve heard about that and that looked like an evidence that you are able to untrain only things which are introspectively visible, not that it is somewhat important. Again, what about deaf-mute, what do they subvocalize? And “a bit faster”? 5000 phonemes/min, ~100/s, more looks like 1 phoneme per neuron activation. I doubt you can properly understand speech on 1000wpm.
But in general, when I started, I failed to find existing discourse and decided that it will be quicker to just check. And than it just looked too clear than I actually can at least think just visually and much, much faster than speak.
I’ll check the link though. (It’s existence explains why not more people checking this)
PS Edit: okay, I’ve read and I didn’t find anything new in this article. I will try to read link on “evidence”
And also just to check, will you also say that it’s impossible for ordinary human to read text and speak at the same time?
PPS Edit: and no, second article also hasn’t had any evidence. But still thanks, I’ve found some techniques of speed reading I’ve never heard before, only thought about by myself, so probably my ideas aren’t new even if it’s not something like math. And people converge in such topics, and end up having almost fully overlapping ideas, and I’m not exception.
And the reason why such ideas aren’t widely used probably isn’t that no one discovered that, but because people are sceptical. Like I was. 1000wpm? 20000wpm? Looks like fake for credulous.
But now I’m less sceptical even about such results because I was wrongly sceptical about such things like training of imagination, attention, intelligence, memory and willpower. And was clearly wrong. Btw, what you will say about these things?
Also I was sceptical about thinking multiple thoughts in parallel, but that was mostly because of Feynman’s and EY’s claim, and now I’m just more doubt them, after I understood it’s easily possible.
You are failing to distinguish the claim “It’s possible to read faster” with “There’s is single easy trick of removing subvocalization that will make you read faster without.”
A big aspect of why the article from Scott is noteworthy is because Scott used to make money with promoting speed reading (it was one of his top blog posts) and later changed his mind. He’s not someone who started out skeptic.
Today, we do have the ability to speed up podcast we hear by 4X and it’s people can still process the audio. While following a podcast along at 4x isn’t easy, it’s possible.
Googling finds me: “The provided book at the 2021 championship consisted of total 15,823 words which Emma Alam read in 20 minutes and 4 seconds at 789 words per minute with the extraordinary comprehension of 97%”
Given the way the human eye works 20000wpm seems implausible. That number suggests that people can read without being able to use the eye to focus to see individual letters.
Some apriori reasoning like: pronoucing goes a consequences, one token at time, but brain is 200Hz is consequence, brain is better in being parallel with all these 80M neurons, and also words have meaning as a whole, so most of step by step letters don’t even contain meaning.
And next evidence from experience to this apriori reasoning: when I succeed to stop pronouncing I can see and understand three words at a moment. Also I wrote whole shortpost here about my experience with trying to replace usual speech into visual thinking. (you need “visual thinking” section)
Whole my life I hated reading. Now I have a better understanding why and what to do with that.
I read slow because I am pronouncing things, I pronounce things because I want to have emotions from intonations, I need that because I don’t imagine a lot. And as a bonus I am pronouncing things, not just perceiving audibly, so reading for me is an effort, in comparison with listening.
Unfortunately pronouncing also is a very stable habit, it’s really hard to not pronounce things. I will try to use rhythms for speed reading.
The claim that pronouncing things is a bad reading habit that’s frequently made but I have never seen good evidence for it. Why do you believe it?
But it depends which speed do you read? If it’s 800-1000wpm (4000-5000 letter/min), then I maybe wrong.
The key problem here are your epistemics. My reading speed doesn’t really matter for this discussion. You are dealing with a topic that has an existing discourse and instead of familarizing yourself with that discourse, you are reasoning with anecdotal data.
Scott H Young for example writes:
It might be that Scott is wrong here, I don’t think the kind of observation that you use to support your belief that subvocalization is bad are strong enough to doubt Scott here.
I’ve heard about that and that looked like an evidence that you are able to untrain only things which are introspectively visible, not that it is somewhat important. Again, what about deaf-mute, what do they subvocalize? And “a bit faster”? 5000 phonemes/min, ~100/s, more looks like 1 phoneme per neuron activation. I doubt you can properly understand speech on 1000wpm.
But in general, when I started, I failed to find existing discourse and decided that it will be quicker to just check. And than it just looked too clear than I actually can at least think just visually and much, much faster than speak.
I’ll check the link though. (It’s existence explains why not more people checking this)
PS Edit: okay, I’ve read and I didn’t find anything new in this article. I will try to read link on “evidence”
And also just to check, will you also say that it’s impossible for ordinary human to read text and speak at the same time?
PPS Edit: and no, second article also hasn’t had any evidence. But still thanks, I’ve found some techniques of speed reading I’ve never heard before, only thought about by myself, so probably my ideas aren’t new even if it’s not something like math. And people converge in such topics, and end up having almost fully overlapping ideas, and I’m not exception.
And the reason why such ideas aren’t widely used probably isn’t that no one discovered that, but because people are sceptical. Like I was. 1000wpm? 20000wpm? Looks like fake for credulous.
But now I’m less sceptical even about such results because I was wrongly sceptical about such things like training of imagination, attention, intelligence, memory and willpower. And was clearly wrong. Btw, what you will say about these things?
Also I was sceptical about thinking multiple thoughts in parallel, but that was mostly because of Feynman’s and EY’s claim, and now I’m just more doubt them, after I understood it’s easily possible.
You are failing to distinguish the claim “It’s possible to read faster” with “There’s is single easy trick of removing subvocalization that will make you read faster without.”
A big aspect of why the article from Scott is noteworthy is because Scott used to make money with promoting speed reading (it was one of his top blog posts) and later changed his mind. He’s not someone who started out skeptic.
Today, we do have the ability to speed up podcast we hear by 4X and it’s people can still process the audio. While following a podcast along at 4x isn’t easy, it’s possible.
Googling finds me: “The provided book at the 2021 championship consisted of total 15,823 words which Emma Alam read in 20 minutes and 4 seconds at 789 words per minute with the extraordinary comprehension of 97%”
Given the way the human eye works 20000wpm seems implausible. That number suggests that people can read without being able to use the eye to focus to see individual letters.
Some apriori reasoning like: pronoucing goes a consequences, one token at time, but brain is 200Hz is consequence, brain is better in being parallel with all these 80M neurons, and also words have meaning as a whole, so most of step by step letters don’t even contain meaning.
And next evidence from experience to this apriori reasoning: when I succeed to stop pronouncing I can see and understand three words at a moment. Also I wrote whole shortpost here about my experience with trying to replace usual speech into visual thinking. (you need “visual thinking” section)