5 ms·

It's impossible to get into the flow state of reading (when you are not aware you are reading) without subvocalizing. I've tried forever. It's impossible and an

by zelly 7y ago

It's impossible to get into the flow state of reading (when you are not aware you are reading) without subvocalizing. I've tried forever. It's impossible and anyone who claims to is lying or is just constantly skimming ("speed reading").

ryukafalz 7y ago
That’s a pretty strong statement. I don’t normally subvocalize while reading, and yes, I can still get into that flow state if I’m immersed in what I’m reading. I can subvocalize while reading if I think about it, but it’s honestly kind of distracting.
cecilpl2 7y ago
Just because it's impossible for you doesn't mean it's impossible for everyone. I never subvocalize, and can't remember ever having done so, except perhaps when I was very young. I devour fiction books in flow without it.
NateEag 7y ago
I do not subvocalize when reading. Trying to do it feels really weird to me.
- zelly 7y ago
  You probably do even if you do not realize it. Can you spot incorrect use of "a" vs. "an" in text? You're subvocalizing. Are you unable to read while talking? You're subvocalizing. The idea of not-subvocalizing is to see text as images. You should be able to recognize chunks of words like you recognize different types of emojis or types of dogs. It is completely different from the way everyone learned to read. I can not-subvocalize after much practice but only temporarily. I don't recommend it. It's useless on the same level as learning Dvorak.
  - NateEag 7y ago
    Your presumption that I'm wrong about my own experience is, well, presumptive. Your tests for subvocalizing are not all correct (spotting "a" vs. "an" does not require subvocalizing). I do experience text as visual stimulus without sound, and I do process it in clumps. As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I once experienced reading multiple lines simultaneously, perceiving not just sentences but paragraphs all at once. It was quite a rush. It's not something I can control, or something I can do on command, but I think it is decent evidence that I don't subvocalize.

by zelly 7y ago

ryukafalz 7y ago

That’s a pretty strong statement. I don’t normally subvocalize while reading, and yes, I can still get into that flow state if I’m immersed in what I’m reading. I can subvocalize while reading if I think about it, but it’s honestly kind of distracting.

cecilpl2 7y ago

Just because it's impossible for you doesn't mean it's impossible for everyone. I never subvocalize, and can't remember ever having done so, except perhaps when I was very young. I devour fiction books in flow without it.

NateEag 7y ago

I do not subvocalize when reading. Trying to do it feels really weird to me.

zelly 7y ago
You probably do even if you do not realize it. Can you spot incorrect use of "a" vs. "an" in text? You're subvocalizing. Are you unable to read while talking? You're subvocalizing. The idea of not-subvocalizing is to see text as images. You should be able to recognize chunks of words like you recognize different types of emojis or types of dogs. It is completely different from the way everyone learned to read. I can not-subvocalize after much practice but only temporarily. I don't recommend it. It's useless on the same level as learning Dvorak.
- NateEag 7y ago
  Your presumption that I'm wrong about my own experience is, well, presumptive. Your tests for subvocalizing are not all correct (spotting "a" vs. "an" does not require subvocalizing). I do experience text as visual stimulus without sound, and I do process it in clumps. As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I once experienced reading multiple lines simultaneously, perceiving not just sentences but paragraphs all at once. It was quite a rush. It's not something I can control, or something I can do on command, but I think it is decent evidence that I don't subvocalize.