3 ms·
10x faster is a huge exaggeration. Average speaking speed is 150 WPM, while average reading speed is 300 WPM. If you watch/listen at 1.5-2x speed, which many pe
by fasterik 3y ago
10x faster is a huge exaggeration. Average speaking speed is 150 WPM, while average reading speed is 300 WPM. If you watch/listen at 1.5-2x speed, which many people do these days, we're only talking ~10-20% slower on average.
I would agree that reading is better for things that I know I will want to read. But there is a finite amount of attention in a human lifespan. There are many things I know I wouldn't want to spend my reading time on, but which I would happily throw on at times when reading would be impossible, like doing chores, exercising, or driving. Audio makes it possible to learn more things in the same amount of time.
- bigstrat2003 3y agoIt's not a huge exaggeration. I'm speaking from experience of how quickly I can process the written word versus a video.
- fasterik 3y agoFor that to be true you'd have to be reading text at 2000 WPM and retaining as much information as you would from watching a video at 200 WPM. That would imply reading the average New Yorker article (~6000 words) in 3 minutes. Count me skeptical. Generally anything over 700 WPM is considered skimming, not reading. There's very little evidence that anyone can read above 1000 WPM without severe loss of comprehension, except in the top percentiles of competitive speed readers. Even they are only achieving 50-60% comprehension. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_reading