4 ms·
I found myself reading faster without this. It doesn't account for variations in how quickly I can recognize a word, or whether I had to think about what was ju
by orib 18y ago
I found myself reading faster without this. It doesn't account for variations in how quickly I can recognize a word, or whether I had to think about what was just said. It just blats out the words in a monotone emphasis, demands complete attention (someone calls your name, and you turn around? gotta start over, or at least spend plenty of time seeking) and fails with images.
I just tested my reading with both this and the original text of an article (for those curious, it was some random chunk of text that was posted here: http://abstractgeneratorfactory.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-java-isnt-shit-part-2-conservatism.html http://abstractgeneratorfactory.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-jav...).
When reading the article over (2nd time, avoiding pauses to think) I managed to get the 2072 words read in about 2:20 (so, between 850 to 900 words/min).
When reading with spreeder, I couldn't keep track past 600 words/min.
This was done a couple of times with consistent results (so it wasn't just me remembering what I'd read beforehand)
- swombat 18y agoOne important problem with spreeder is that when you read normally, your eye jumps much in the same way as it does when using spreeder, but it captures 2-3 words at a time, not 1 word at a time. So with spreeder, your speed is actually divided by 2-3, you lose the context, the ability to pause and think, the images, the ability to skim, etc...