3 ms·

> (up to 1000 wpm with 50% reading comprehension if you believe speed reading websites) My effective WPM (meaning take the reading comprehension as a coefficie

> (up to 1000 wpm with 50% reading comprehension if you believe speed reading websites) My effective WPM (meaning take the reading comprehension as a coefficient and multiply it by the raw WPM) ranges between 800 and 950. Why do I keep running into people doubting speed reading is a thing? I had to practice at it above and beyond a love of reading.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
lutusp 13y ago
> Why do I keep running into people doubting speed reading is a thing? I don't think anyone doubts that it exists. What remains doubtful is whether there's any retention of what's read. "I took a speed-reading course so I could read 'War and Peace'. It's about Russia." -- Woody Allen
- yen223 13y ago
  Exactly. It's easy to trick yourself into thinking you're reading, when all you're doing is scanning through a lengthy passage and skipping past words you assume are insignificant.
- codewright 13y ago
  The "effective" part is a measurement of the retention. In my case, we're talking about 95-98%. I don't understand why people are so scornful of speed reading :\
  - lutusp 13y ago
    Maybe because some have tried it and discovered they didn't really retain what they read. This might easily be a personal thing, not an indictment of speed reading at all, only that some people can't absorb printed matter quickly. In other words, the same training with the same goal, but completely different outcomes. Another issue is content. Some of what I read requires great concentration and repeated scanning of complex passages. Other content can be read quickly simply because it doesn't require much from the reader. So one might say that not all reading is created equal. Example: how quickly can one absorb "It was a dark and stormy night"? I would guess pretty quickly. On the other hand, "Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana" might take a little longer. :)
    - codewright 13y ago
      The rate at which I can consume material definitely varies depending on the material. I read philosophy a good 2-3x slower than literature. It's a little bit disingenuous to suggest those speaking of speed reading are saying, "1,000 WPM ALL THE TIME ALL THE ABSORPTION IRRESPECTIVE OF MATERIAL!" - I don't think anybody is saying that.
lsc 13y ago
meh, I hit about 400wpm without "speed reading" techniques; I mean, that's just how fast I read. If I don't really understand the material or if my short term memory isn't working well, I'll go back and re-read it. The thing is? slowing down between words hurts comprehension, rather than helping it. The bottleneck in my system is short-term memory. The translation of letters to words to sentences to concepts is largely automatic; but if I have a pause there? that automatic process stops. If I'm talking in person with someone, and they say half a sentence, then stop and 'uhm' for a while, I completely lose the thread of conversation. I find it pretty believable that others are twice as fast as I am at the letters on a page->concepts translation. That bit about re-reading? that is the primary reason that I think reading would be superior, even if I could speed speech. saying "what?" is /way easier/ when you are reading than when you are listening. (as an interesting aside, I know blind people often use text to speech software set to run, well, much faster than a normal human can talk. Apparently they start out at a normal speed and then slowly increase the speed. I've been talking for quite some time about getting me some of that gear and learning how to use it, but I have not done so yet. I suspect it would suffer from the same "difficult to repeat just the bit you want" part, but I haven't tried.)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

lutusp 13y ago

> Why do I keep running into people doubting speed reading is a thing? I don't think anyone doubts that it exists. What remains doubtful is whether there's any retention of what's read. "I took a speed-reading course so I could read 'War and Peace'. It's about Russia." -- Woody Allen

yen223 13y ago
Exactly. It's easy to trick yourself into thinking you're reading, when all you're doing is scanning through a lengthy passage and skipping past words you assume are insignificant.
codewright 13y ago
The "effective" part is a measurement of the retention. In my case, we're talking about 95-98%. I don't understand why people are so scornful of speed reading :\
- lutusp 13y ago
  Maybe because some have tried it and discovered they didn't really retain what they read. This might easily be a personal thing, not an indictment of speed reading at all, only that some people can't absorb printed matter quickly. In other words, the same training with the same goal, but completely different outcomes. Another issue is content. Some of what I read requires great concentration and repeated scanning of complex passages. Other content can be read quickly simply because it doesn't require much from the reader. So one might say that not all reading is created equal. Example: how quickly can one absorb "It was a dark and stormy night"? I would guess pretty quickly. On the other hand, "Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana" might take a little longer. :)
  - codewright 13y ago
    The rate at which I can consume material definitely varies depending on the material. I read philosophy a good 2-3x slower than literature. It's a little bit disingenuous to suggest those speaking of speed reading are saying, "1,000 WPM ALL THE TIME ALL THE ABSORPTION IRRESPECTIVE OF MATERIAL!" - I don't think anybody is saying that.

lsc 13y ago

meh, I hit about 400wpm without "speed reading" techniques; I mean, that's just how fast I read. If I don't really understand the material or if my short term memory isn't working well, I'll go back and re-read it. The thing is? slowing down between words hurts comprehension, rather than helping it. The bottleneck in my system is short-term memory. The translation of letters to words to sentences to concepts is largely automatic; but if I have a pause there? that automatic process stops. If I'm talking in person with someone, and they say half a sentence, then stop and 'uhm' for a while, I completely lose the thread of conversation. I find it pretty believable that others are twice as fast as I am at the letters on a page->concepts translation. That bit about re-reading? that is the primary reason that I think reading would be superior, even if I could speed speech. saying "what?" is /way easier/ when you are reading than when you are listening. (as an interesting aside, I know blind people often use text to speech software set to run, well, much faster than a normal human can talk. Apparently they start out at a normal speed and then slowly increase the speed. I've been talking for quite some time about getting me some of that gear and learning how to use it, but I have not done so yet. I suspect it would suffer from the same "difficult to repeat just the bit you want" part, but I haven't tried.)