4 ms·
I've always found this interesting. Think+transmit seems more likely to be the bottleneck vs receive, given that we can easily parse most podcasts etc at 3-4X s
by Yenrabbit 1y ago
I've always found this interesting. Think+transmit seems more likely to be the bottleneck vs receive, given that we can easily parse most podcasts etc at 3-4X speed. If being understood by everyone wasn't required, I wonder if one could learn to boost both send and receive rates?
- 0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago3-4x! Are you the flash? I usually run things about 1.5x when I am commuting. 3x would require laser focus without distractions. Or you mean more a “can technically absorb the language being spoken” sense?
- pbh101 1y agoNot OP but listen to podcasts at highly accelerated settings: The information density of ‘two dudes talking’ or any unscripted format is very low, so it time-compresses well. Specific podcasts, typically scripted monologues with technical content, such as Causality [0] (recommended!), I need to listen to much slower. Ditto if it is in an accent which isn’t mine, which slows my comprehension. I also slow the speed if I’m driving. So, yes, it takes mental overhead, but is doable. Go one click at a time and it will feel natural. [0]: https://engineered.network/causality/ https://engineered.network/causality/
- 0cf8612b2e1e 1y agoI suppose the format is a huge differentiator. I exclusively listen to highly produced content which has essentially no dead time. The content is already a compressed transmission of information.
- wuschel 1y agoI would say that the ability and speed to receive and process information in a timely manner also greatly depends on the density and complexity of the material.
- Buttons840 1y agoThis suggest that maybe human minds are able to form ideas at a certain speed, and language has evolved to convey these ideas and not be a bottleneck, but there is no reason to improve language beyond this.
- Auracle 1y agoHm, I’ve always struggled with the other bottleneck - speaking. I tend to slur my words because my brain is forming the thoughts faster than I can speak. I could perhaps speed up my speech to match my brain but I’d sound like a maniac. Don’t get me started on writing. My letters will often transition halfway into a letter thats 3 words ahead.
- HPsquared 1y agoTyping speed is a good thing to develop.
- wenc 1y agoI usually listen at 1.5x passively. But what you said made me curious. I listened to this podcast at 3x. I was able to understand all the words, but my conceptual understanding decreased. I also have to listen actively -- not passively. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SFkwdm0PP0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SFkwdm0PP0 At 4x, I could only understand the shape of the sentences but could no longer make out the words. But I turned on the captions and found I could keep up. Turns out reading at 4x works, listening at 4x doesn't. English is also spoken with different prosodies and cadences. For instance, I can understand Singaporean English perfectly, but it's less amenable to being sped up. I tried listening to this lecture in Singaporean English in 3x and found that I could barely understand it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA1dnUYzRWU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA1dnUYzRWU
- manusachi 1y agoBlind people often go upto 600 words per minute and more with text-to-speech, which is, I think, would be an equivalent to 5x and more.
- yjftsjthsd-h 1y agoIn fairness, they cannibalize their visual cortex to do that:)
- ajb 1y agoLikely so. I've noticed that those whose first language is one of those with fewer vowels - and thus must have more syllables per second to convey the same information rate- sometimes speak English much faster than I (as a monolingual native speaker) find normal.