5 ms·

Awesome. 'For example, %= sounds like "centis" rather than "percent equals." Since even a silent reader will subvocalize, the length and complexity of the soun

Awesome. 'For example, %= sounds like "centis" rather than "percent equals." Since even a silent reader will subvocalize, the length and complexity of the sound is a tax on reading the code.' This is great. Clever how some of the sounds are reminiscent of existing readings.

david-given 11y ago
"Since even a silent reader will subvocalize..." Actually, no. I don't.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  Neither do I. One of the very first things that guides on how to speed-read tell you is to stop yourself from internally reading aloud.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    For code, I've never even needed to stop myself; it's just intuitive. The idea that one reads code as one reads prose just seems weird. Code has so much structure (and so few operators, usually) that I can just directly map the symbols to the semantics, bypassing the composing characters.
- yarvin9 11y ago
  "Subvocalize" has a literal meaning (micro-activation of the vocal cords) which good silent readers avoid. But you're still activating the vocal areas of the brain [0]. If you read much poetry, you'll see that the connection between reading and sound is pretty inseparable. [0] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23223279 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23223279
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    I wonder how much of that is pronunciation and how much is grammar and parsing. The latter don't require sounds.
  - david-given 11y ago
    I'm afraid I'm having a great deal of trouble understanding your point here. > "Subvocalize" has a literal meaning (micro-activation of the vocal cords) which good silent readers avoid. Right; so I'm not subvocalising. > But you're still activating the vocal areas of the brain... Well, sure. I see the symbol 'cat' and both the memory-complex representing a cat and the audio complex representing the spoken version of the symbol will be activated. That's how memory associations work. The written version of the symbol and the spoken version of the symbol will be strongly associated, because they represent the same concept. But that doesn't mean I have to wait for the audio to finish playing before I move on to the next symbol. That's a misconception of what's actually happening. (Plus, of course, hardly anyone reads a word at a time. It's nearly always complete phrases. Frequently not even in the right order.) > If you read much poetry, you'll see that the connection between reading and sound is pretty inseparable. Well, no. Poetry is mostly intended to be read aloud; it's supposed to be subvocalised. It's unrelated to prose (or computer programs).
    - yarvin9 11y ago
      It definitely doesn't mean you have to wait for the audio to finish playing. It does mean that your brain thinks the audio. Which has a lot of consequences, including the energy it takes to think... Most people do read poetry silently, in the same way they read prose (I don't literally subvocalize), and the sound still is everything. Try reading these two poems silently: http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/gems/the-tay-bridge-disaster http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/gems/the-tay-bridge-disa... http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/174183 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/174183
      - david-given 11y ago
        > It does mean that your brain thinks the audio. I'm sorry, that's simply not true. At least for me. It may be true for you. From the things you've said, I suspect you're a word-at-a-time reader, treating words as a sequential symbol stream, processing them as if they were speech. This is just one of the several different styles of reading. Others exist. I am, as I mentioned above, a phrase-at-a-time reader. I take in multiple symbols at a time, and not necessarily in sequence. If I had to think through the audio of a phrase, this simply wouldn't work. It also means that I would be unable to read symbols that didn't have an audio equivalent. Right now I'm working with Smalltalk. One of its operators is ~~. How is this pronounced? Don't know, don't care. It's just ~~. When I perceive it, I don't perceive 'tilde tilde'; it's a ~~. (Also, if you aren't reading Scotland's worst poet aloud, you are wasting him.)

david-given 11y ago

"Since even a silent reader will subvocalize..." Actually, no. I don't.

JoshTriplett 11y ago
Neither do I. One of the very first things that guides on how to speed-read tell you is to stop yourself from internally reading aloud.
- icebraining 11y ago
  For code, I've never even needed to stop myself; it's just intuitive. The idea that one reads code as one reads prose just seems weird. Code has so much structure (and so few operators, usually) that I can just directly map the symbols to the semantics, bypassing the composing characters.
yarvin9 11y ago
"Subvocalize" has a literal meaning (micro-activation of the vocal cords) which good silent readers avoid. But you're still activating the vocal areas of the brain [0]. If you read much poetry, you'll see that the connection between reading and sound is pretty inseparable. [0] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23223279 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23223279
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  I wonder how much of that is pronunciation and how much is grammar and parsing. The latter don't require sounds.
- david-given 11y ago
  I'm afraid I'm having a great deal of trouble understanding your point here. > "Subvocalize" has a literal meaning (micro-activation of the vocal cords) which good silent readers avoid. Right; so I'm not subvocalising. > But you're still activating the vocal areas of the brain... Well, sure. I see the symbol 'cat' and both the memory-complex representing a cat and the audio complex representing the spoken version of the symbol will be activated. That's how memory associations work. The written version of the symbol and the spoken version of the symbol will be strongly associated, because they represent the same concept. But that doesn't mean I have to wait for the audio to finish playing before I move on to the next symbol. That's a misconception of what's actually happening. (Plus, of course, hardly anyone reads a word at a time. It's nearly always complete phrases. Frequently not even in the right order.) > If you read much poetry, you'll see that the connection between reading and sound is pretty inseparable. Well, no. Poetry is mostly intended to be read aloud; it's supposed to be subvocalised. It's unrelated to prose (or computer programs).
  - yarvin9 11y ago
    It definitely doesn't mean you have to wait for the audio to finish playing. It does mean that your brain thinks the audio. Which has a lot of consequences, including the energy it takes to think... Most people do read poetry silently, in the same way they read prose (I don't literally subvocalize), and the sound still is everything. Try reading these two poems silently: http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/gems/the-tay-bridge-disaster http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/gems/the-tay-bridge-disa... http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/174183 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/174183
    - david-given 11y ago
      > It does mean that your brain thinks the audio. I'm sorry, that's simply not true. At least for me. It may be true for you. From the things you've said, I suspect you're a word-at-a-time reader, treating words as a sequential symbol stream, processing them as if they were speech. This is just one of the several different styles of reading. Others exist. I am, as I mentioned above, a phrase-at-a-time reader. I take in multiple symbols at a time, and not necessarily in sequence. If I had to think through the audio of a phrase, this simply wouldn't work. It also means that I would be unable to read symbols that didn't have an audio equivalent. Right now I'm working with Smalltalk. One of its operators is ~~. How is this pronounced? Don't know, don't care. It's just ~~. When I perceive it, I don't perceive 'tilde tilde'; it's a ~~. (Also, if you aren't reading Scotland's worst poet aloud, you are wasting him.)