> Sorry you can't λx→x, but you might be λy→y.   I remember when I was in primary school, I overheard an explanation from one of the teachers about the childr

> Sorry you can't λx→x, but you might be λy→y.   I remember when I was in primary school, I overheard an explanation from one of the teachers about the children in a gifted course: "[They're] wrong: They aren't smarter than you, [they] just learn faster than you."   After a week, my memory of my experience of a book is the same whether I λx→x or λy→y, it's just that one of these methods took less time in absolute terms. I don't really know what the reading experience is like for you, and I don't know what you call these things, but if I experience books faster than you, you want more time in your life with no other downside that I can see, then I can tell you about my experiences. Now I say this because I'm certainly biased: I didn't enjoy the article, and where's why I think I didn't enjoy the article:   Here's the statements in the article in "support" of λx→x  • Professor Treiman concluded that it’s extremely unlikely you can greatly improve your reading speed without missing out on a lot of meaning. What exactly do you mean by "greatly" and "a lot"?.  • Skim readers spent more time reading text that was earlier in the paragraph, toward the top of the page and in an earlier page of the document. These findings were interpreted as evidence in support of a “satisficing” account of skimming process. And?  • Have you ever tried listening to an audio recording with the speaking rate dialed way up? Yes, I used to read and transcribe legal dictation at +50% and I got done faster. What exactly do you mean by "way up?".   And here's the statements in the article in "support" of λy→y  • Participants in a 2009 experiment showed reading half the words distributed relatively evenly throughout the text versus losing the beginning half or the end half had better comprehension. No kidding.  • You can learn to skim strategically so that you spend more time looking where the more important words are likely to be, and if the words are presented in a stream you may be able to learn which words to focus on and which to ignore. Sounds great.   I was unable to extract anything stronger than these statements, but then I was λy→y. What I nonetheless got out of the article, wasn't convincing to me that I, doing λy→y am somehow missing out on something. Instead, I felt like this was attempting to console people who λx→x, and perhaps maybe they shouldn't feel so bad.