7 ms·

I am what you might call a speed-reading skeptic. Like most of us, by which i mean intellectual types who define our selves and worth in part by the relative l

I am what you might call a speed-reading skeptic. Like most of us, by which i mean intellectual types who define our selves and worth in part by the relative level of our perceived knowledge, speed reading seems like a holy grail. There's so much out there to read, and not enough time in my life to do it. But it is to us as fad diets/exercise regimes to people who care primarily about their looks/weight. I say this because its apparent I'm a relatively fast reader, i have to read a lot for work, and i have professional colleagues to compare myself to. In all these speed-reading fads in professional environments, I've never actually met a single person, NOT ONE, who can actually read these materials faster than an intelligent, well read person. (barring perhaps abnormalities like Kim Peek, but newsflash, you know if you're Kim Peek and if you are/aren't, there's not much you can do about it). Get someone into an actual environment where they have to read lots of stuff, have to comprehend it, and its professionally demonstrable, and suddenly all the "speed readers" vanish. Do you know why I'm a relatively fast reader? I'd say probably: a) genetics b) reading a lot. b) is about the only thing I've seen that has a big effect and is demonstrable, and is in our control. The fastest readers read a lot. The slowest readers don't. Those who didn't read a lot, and then started reading, got faster. And barring genetic abnormalities and usual statistical variance, no one I've met, EVER, has been able to read more than 3/4/5/6 hundred words per minute with accurate comprehension. Which brings us of course, to the comprehension debate. Lets avoid the ridiculousness of the comprehension stats that are usually poorly designed and created by people trying to sell you things, they are worth about as much as fad diet testimonials and figures. And this is where a lot of speed reading salesmen try to get you. "I can read this at 1000 wpm with just slightly less comprehension!". "I can skim and pull out the important parts really fast!". To which my feelings can be summed up: Anyone can purport to increase their reading speed by including words they didn't read or comprehend in their wpm. Frankly, if you are not reading something with %100 comprehension, you are not reading it. Taking a sample and taking a census are two different things. That you can take a 10% sample in 10% of the time does not make you a "speed-census-taker". Ditto skimming, summarizing, or any other weasel-word used to gloss over the fact that someone is trying to speed up their "reading" by reading or comprehending less. I'm not saying skimming doesn't exist. I am saying its not the same as reading/comprehending, and that "speed-readers" show heavy drops in comprehension.

hsitz 13y ago
I'm with you on the skepticism thing. When we read, at least when we read anything important, we aren't simply ingesting bits of information. We're usually reading something that was carefully crafted to have a logical flow, where what is presented early supports or leads to what is said later. To understand the structure of a written piece is not easy. For "dense" works (e.g., some philosophy) it might take reading and re-reading several times, jumping forward and backward, to fully figure out what is being said, whether it makes sense, whether it's to be taken as reliable or not. Even that might not be enough. The idea of speedreading for the "main points" is ridiculous. Even less dense works have a logical flow, they aren't just a list of bits of information. If you're going to read critically (i.e, with good comprehension), which is generally the proper way to read, speedreading is useless.
- colechristensen 13y ago
  >If you're going to read critically (i.e, with good comprehension), which is generally the proper way to read, speedreading is useless. I find it to be immensely useful as a first run-though or a refresher for high-importance text reading.
jacobolus 13y ago
> Frankly, if you are not reading something with %100 comprehension, you are not reading it. This is too dogmatic to be (IMO) a useful definition for the unadorned word “reading”. After all, what does it even mean to comprehend something 100%? Without being inside the author’s head (and perhaps not even then) it’s impossible to know all of the ideas associated with every word and phrase by the author at that particular moment, or the precise rhythm and intonation the author would use in saying the words aloud, or the precise feelings the author was trying to evoke. Or for that matter, is it possible to comprehend something 100% without deeply thinking about what it means to the reader, all the ideas and feelings the words (in context with the rest of the world at the moment of reading) dredge up. For instance, I personally can’t read something in a truly deep way, and really know what I think about it, without writing (often lengthy) comments of my own. But I wouldn’t say that shallower types of reading aren’t still “reading”. Language inherently distorts thoughts, which are impossible to perfectly package and unpackage in a serial format.

hsitz 13y ago

I'm with you on the skepticism thing. When we read, at least when we read anything important, we aren't simply ingesting bits of information. We're usually reading something that was carefully crafted to have a logical flow, where what is presented early supports or leads to what is said later. To understand the structure of a written piece is not easy. For "dense" works (e.g., some philosophy) it might take reading and re-reading several times, jumping forward and backward, to fully figure out what is being said, whether it makes sense, whether it's to be taken as reliable or not. Even that might not be enough. The idea of speedreading for the "main points" is ridiculous. Even less dense works have a logical flow, they aren't just a list of bits of information. If you're going to read critically (i.e, with good comprehension), which is generally the proper way to read, speedreading is useless.

colechristensen 13y ago
>If you're going to read critically (i.e, with good comprehension), which is generally the proper way to read, speedreading is useless. I find it to be immensely useful as a first run-though or a refresher for high-importance text reading.

jacobolus 13y ago

> Frankly, if you are not reading something with %100 comprehension, you are not reading it. This is too dogmatic to be (IMO) a useful definition for the unadorned word “reading”. After all, what does it even mean to comprehend something 100%? Without being inside the author’s head (and perhaps not even then) it’s impossible to know all of the ideas associated with every word and phrase by the author at that particular moment, or the precise rhythm and intonation the author would use in saying the words aloud, or the precise feelings the author was trying to evoke. Or for that matter, is it possible to comprehend something 100% without deeply thinking about what it means to the reader, all the ideas and feelings the words (in context with the rest of the world at the moment of reading) dredge up. For instance, I personally can’t read something in a truly deep way, and really know what I think about it, without writing (often lengthy) comments of my own. But I wouldn’t say that shallower types of reading aren’t still “reading”. Language inherently distorts thoughts, which are impossible to perfectly package and unpackage in a serial format.