7 ms·
I've known a lot of people that push podcasts, videos, and audiobooks to extreme speed. I knew a guy who'd turn video speed up to 8x so he could binge watch a s
by knzhou 7y ago
I've known a lot of people that push podcasts, videos, and audiobooks to extreme speed. I knew a guy who'd turn video speed up to 8x so he could binge watch a season of generic anime in an hour flat. I knew a girl who'd get through paperback romance novels by scanning each page diagonally, in 10 seconds each. And here in this thread we have a lot of people bragging along the same lines.
I just don't get the point. If you can process content much faster than it was meant to be played, it doesn't mean you're learning much faster than you could, it means the novel information density is low. Any content that can be sped up that much without loss is not worth listening to in the first place. You're just skipping the trite cliches, filler, and obvious facts.
I can read fast, and I typically go through fluffy NYT bestseller nonfiction at 600 WPM. But when I do this I constantly have a sneaking suspicion that I'm just wasting my time. When I read a good book full of new ideas, I barely go at 150 WPM, but the time always feels well-spent.
- mLuby 7y agoI imagine it's a compromise between cutting through the fluff and using the primary source material. You could just read the plot synopsis or watch the highlights, but sometimes those don't convey build-up, suspense, or other data that are hard to losslessly compress. Being comfortable with the "boilerplate" of a given medium or genre usually lets you skim or skip it to jump right into the good stuff.
- liability 7y ago> . If you can process content much faster than it was meant to be played, it doesn't mean you're learning much faster than you could, it means the novel information density is low. I 'read' your comment using TTS at 3x. What does that say about the information density of your comment? (Little to nothing. TTS at that speed is still marginally slower that I normally read with my eyes. Human speech is generally much slower than is necessary to be understood.)
- knzhou 7y agoThat's a good point, 3x speaking speed is reading speed, so there's nothing unusual about using it on comments largely intended to be read. That makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense to me is consuming things that have a _set_ speed, such as video/TV or lectures, at a dramatically faster speed.
- alperakgun 7y agoI think it depends on the speaker. I watch most videos at 1.5x speed, and some slow speakers with gaps at 2x.
- dfhdshfff 7y agoI used to watch a lot of lectures at a high speed. But I've came to realize that the faster I watch something, the faster I forget it. It is like the infromation doesn't have the time to settle in my memory, despite me understanding it. It's maybe because when things are slow, I can use the dead time to think about the implication/corner cases of what's being said.
- bradknowles 7y agoIf you really want to understand it, I would encourage you to write down notes about it by hand. For some reason I do not yet understand, the motion of physically putting pen(cil) to paper helps ingrain that information into your brain, in a way that typing it into a computer does not.
- knzhou 7y agoSome people say writing is better because typing is "unnatural", but from an evolutionary standpoint both are extremely, equally unnatural activities. There's no reason moving a cylinder of graphite with one hand should be inherently better matched to the brain than moving squares of plastic with two. My personal guess is that, with fast typing speeds, it's too easy to just copy things word for word. With writing, you have to at least rephrase it and reorganize it to fit the notes reasonably on the page, which forces some processing to occur. I take notes solely by typing, but I only have retention if I do it slowly and reflectively.
- avinium 7y agoI have a pet theory that our brains are hard-wired to store information "better" if it bears some kind of personal/individual imprint. In other words, we can "store" knowledge more efficiently when written in our own handwriting than when typed into a neutral/generic text editor.
- knzhou 7y agoHmm... then perhaps it's good that I'm extremely particular about how I type my LaTeX, down to microadjustments to the kerning to make it look nicer.
- zik 7y agoMaybe "speed readers" still receive knowledge at around 39bps - they just filter out a lot more.
- ekanes 7y agoI think there's something to that. You're zipping through just listening for the highlights. Similar to how you can listen to a full podcast, or often just watch highlight clips on Youtube and feel like you "mostly" enjoyed it. You got the best stuff. Obviously that isn't what some people want, but it's an interesting optimization.
- markussss 7y agoI listen to a lot of podcasts and audiobooks while doing other things; walking, cleaning, cooking, traveling, playing games, etc. Every time I try speeding up, even just to 1.25x, I don't enjoy it as much, as it feels rushed and stressful. I think it could be interesting to learn to listen and read at extremely high speeds, but nothing more than interesting, and I'm even doubting the usefulness of it.
- 40acres 7y agoIn my experience the best books routinely stop me dead in my tracks. I just started Invisible Man and every paragraph is littered with really deep themes, I can normally finish a 500 page book in a few days (a majority of my reading is done during my commute) but this will definitely be a slow burn.
- jacobolus 7y agoPeople tend to enjoy genre fiction because it is full of predictable filler. Not all entertainment has to be surprising or life changing. Just spending time in the moment with an enjoyable story is not wasting it.
- microcolonel 7y agoI think this really is a case of to each his own. Pure fiction with drawn out descriptions and excess vocabulary drives me to anger. I think I have a similar thing visually, where above a certain text size, I have a very hard time reading. The optimal text size for me is pretty small, even on a standard resolution display.
- saagarjha 7y ago> I can read fast, and I typically go through fluffy NYT bestseller nonfiction at 600 WPM. But when I do this I constantly have a sneaking suspicion that I'm just wasting my time. When I read a good book full of new ideas, I barely go at 150 WPM, but the time always feels well-spent. I do the same, but with Hacker News comments :)
- knzhou 7y agoHey, I never said my comment was a novel insight! I'm here to waste time too. ;-)
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dredmorbius 7y agoExceedingly slow narration, particularly what's normal for audiobooks, is annoying to me because it's slower than I process words. It's like walking with someone whose pace is far slower than your natural gait -- it takes more energy and concentration to slow down. It's why slow-talkers are so annoying. This isn't "how fast can I go through this" but "what is a comfortable pace"? So I bump the speed up, though usually fairly modestly: 1.25x - 1.5x is generally enough. I've noticed that preferred speeds vary tremendously with the quality of the work and speaker -- high-density information and an exceedingly good speaker, and I'll slow down. Slapdash redundant content and poor speaker, I'll speed up. The degree of polish in the production matters tremendously. I've listened to CPG Grey's YouTube videos (highly polished) and podcasts (a lot of chit-chat with his co-host). The videos work well at normal speed, or perhaps slighly sped up. The podcasts I find nearly unlistenable, though they improve at much higher speeds (1.75x - 2x).
- Mikemo05 7y agoI tend to listen to audio books at 2.5-2.8 times speed and all media I consum is at 2x speed. Tip there are 10s of chrome extentios that allow you to change all html videos to 2x speed or even higher (including most ads on sites like YouTube and Hulu)
- knzhou 7y agoI'm totally with you, I speak at effectively 1.5x in real life, so that's what feels natural to me listening. But I get turned off if something needs to be sped up _beyond_ reasonable human speaking speed to be palatable, like 2.5x or 3x. It's like putting a pile of salt on really bland food. I get the feeling that I'm panning for gold.
- optimuspaul 7y agoI can't keep up with fast talkers and I like my books and movies at nominal speeds. When things are fast I can't pay attention. My brain needs to extra cycles to wander and consume and let my focus be split.
- godelski 7y ago
- js2 7y agoAs I used to tell my boss: a man page read once thoroughly is worth more than ten-times skimming it quickly.
- jimmaswell 7y agoI can watch videos like Linus Tech Tips up to 2x speed and get just as much out of it as otherwise.
- floatingatoll 7y agoFluff has value. Fresh cotton candy should be eaten rapidly. It’s fluff. It’s allowed :)
- yowlingcat 7y agoFor me, when I'm reading something dense, my WPM fluctuates. It could be 300WPM in the easy areas, and down to 30WPM in the conceptually challenging areas.
- jlebar 7y agoAny content that can be sped up [by 8x] without loss is not worth listening to in the first place. "That's just, like, your opinion, man." Obviously the people who are getting something out of it, otherwise they wouldn't do it? "Don't yuck my yum."
- the_duke 7y agoAfter doing speed reading exercises a few years ago I initially also started to use the techniques for novels, but that was a bad mistake in my opinion. While I could get my comprehension percentage quite high with a bit of training, I lost all connection to the characters and story, stopped imagining the scenes and felt like the reading the book was a waste of time. Novels should be read at a natural pace to give room to your imagination and dive into the story. You can still quickly scan over boring/repetitive filler text, but I did that without caring about WPM already. With other things like textbooks / articles / reports cranking up your WPM and applying your attention more selectively by focusing on or re-reading critical parts is a very helpful skill though.