3 ms·

Straw man? I've never heard it claimed that speed reading can give the same level of understanding as normal reading. Just that it's a way to quickly get a sens

Straw man? I've never heard it claimed that speed reading can give the same level of understanding as normal reading. Just that it's a way to quickly get a sense or gist of a work.

allemagne 11y ago
I've definitely seen promos for seminars that claim to "double your speed" and at the same time "increase your comprehension," so I'd say that speed reading being on par with normal reading is at least a real claim made sometimes and a perception that probably exists among many.
- mdip 11y ago
  The course I took promised both, so the problems the article has with speed reading courses are completely fair IMO. They're ridiculous and on par with claiming a pill will make you lose hundreds of pounds without any effort or work. I've way more than doubled my reading speed from when I took a course 18 years ago. My retention is dramatically higher, as well. The main reason for the increased retention, however, had less to do with the course than a change in the way I consume information from books. If the technical book is worth reading, I read it at least twice. "Read" includes skimming/scanning techniques that I've gotten very good at over 18 years. Thinking "well, I can read 90% faster with these techniques" will result in retention that is very low if you change nothing else. The first read is rapid and haphazard (sometimes just to figure out if it's worth using the book as a source of information). The second read will be honed for specific information (and third and fourth). That serves two points in favor of retention. By being able to get through a massive text in a weekend with multiple reads (versus a single read over a few weeks), that information hasn't become foggy from multiple long breaks/distractions--it's fresh. My second read is cover-to-cover, but focused with note-taking and doing exercises. Subsequent reads are surgically focused on areas where I am weak and are done more slowly. Before, my learning was single-pass (with some section/chapter review). Because of the reduced time/effort it takes me read, I can do so in a multi-pass manner with careful focus on learning the material rather than on the act of reading.
Joeboy 11y ago
Increased comprehension was definitely one of the selling points when we were offered a speed reading course at my slightly odd school in the 1980s. Its proponents may have backed off on those claims since.
dsp1234 11y ago
From the Spritz FAQ page[0]: "Our testing shows that the retention levels when spritzing are at least as good as with traditional reading and that, with just a little bit of experience, you will retain even more than you did before." So at least some companies are making claims of this nature. [0] - http://spritzinc.com/faqs http://spritzinc.com/faqs

Straw man? I've never heard it claimed that speed reading can give the same level of understanding as normal reading. Just that it's a way to quickly get a sense or gist of a work.

allemagne 11y ago

I've definitely seen promos for seminars that claim to "double your speed" and at the same time "increase your comprehension," so I'd say that speed reading being on par with normal reading is at least a real claim made sometimes and a perception that probably exists among many.

mdip 11y ago
The course I took promised both, so the problems the article has with speed reading courses are completely fair IMO. They're ridiculous and on par with claiming a pill will make you lose hundreds of pounds without any effort or work. I've way more than doubled my reading speed from when I took a course 18 years ago. My retention is dramatically higher, as well. The main reason for the increased retention, however, had less to do with the course than a change in the way I consume information from books. If the technical book is worth reading, I read it at least twice. "Read" includes skimming/scanning techniques that I've gotten very good at over 18 years. Thinking "well, I can read 90% faster with these techniques" will result in retention that is very low if you change nothing else. The first read is rapid and haphazard (sometimes just to figure out if it's worth using the book as a source of information). The second read will be honed for specific information (and third and fourth). That serves two points in favor of retention. By being able to get through a massive text in a weekend with multiple reads (versus a single read over a few weeks), that information hasn't become foggy from multiple long breaks/distractions--it's fresh. My second read is cover-to-cover, but focused with note-taking and doing exercises. Subsequent reads are surgically focused on areas where I am weak and are done more slowly. Before, my learning was single-pass (with some section/chapter review). Because of the reduced time/effort it takes me read, I can do so in a multi-pass manner with careful focus on learning the material rather than on the act of reading.

Joeboy 11y ago

Increased comprehension was definitely one of the selling points when we were offered a speed reading course at my slightly odd school in the 1980s. Its proponents may have backed off on those claims since.

dsp1234 11y ago

From the Spritz FAQ page[0]: "Our testing shows that the retention levels when spritzing are at least as good as with traditional reading and that, with just a little bit of experience, you will retain even more than you did before." So at least some companies are making claims of this nature. [0] - http://spritzinc.com/faqs http://spritzinc.com/faqs