3 ms·

> 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

by lutusp 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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.

by lutusp 14y ago

yen223 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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.