4 ms·
I skimmed this article in about 20 seconds and then went back and read it more closely. I don't feel like I missed much on the first pass. Sure you won't get t
by mds 10y ago
I skimmed this article in about 20 seconds and then went back and read it more closely. I don't feel like I missed much on the first pass.
Sure you won't get the full literary experience skimming through War and Peace. But fluffy articles with a single tweet's worth of information content I can "speed read" just fine.
- chadcmulligan 10y agoskip reading is perhaps a better name for it. I got the gist - speed reading doesn't work, saved myself a few minutes only skipping to the start of each paragraph.
- lomnakkus 10y agoThere's already a name for it: skimming
- wmil 10y agoNewspaper articles are kind of a special case. They're written so that the editor can easily shorten them for space.
- MaulingMonkey 10y agoThere's all kinds of different... "textures" of information. Some things are extremely thick with information. Every few sentences, I might need to pause and think through all the implications and realizations that are revealed to me. In audio form, I'm rewinding or pausing, and consuming at <1x speed. Other sources might spread the important details and facts around. I'm better served by speedreading / skimming / playing back at (>?)2x speed. This strains my short term memory less, letting me assemble the important bits into a broader, deeper understanding of the material, that can contextualize all those snippets in a way that makes it easier to commit to long term memory. This can happen even with information dense material, in which case I'm better served by repeatedly skimming, than trying to do a single solid readthrough once. And then there's the stuff that wasn't even worth skimming through once.