5 ms·
I also do this naturally. I call it "reading a movie" and it works best for: fiction, computer stuff, and to a lesser extend where I already have some knowledg
by sophacles 17y ago
I also do this naturally. I call it "reading a movie" and it works best for: fiction, computer stuff, and to a lesser extend where I already have some knowledge. It also works when I'm not tired. When I start 'reading words' (your wife's inner narrator), I have to give up and stop for a while. When reading new and difficult stuff I'll usually read each chunk[1] twice, once for the words and once for the picture. This seems to be the best. I do notice that I have an above average reading retention in my peer group, but at a conceptual level. I am absolutely terrible at quoting, since the ideas are transferred, not words.
Does the your experience match mine?
[1] The groupings can be a couple sentences or a couple of paragraphs per chunk, depending on how unfamiliar I am with the topic.
- salvadors 17y agoI also don't subvocalise when reading (repeating aeiou or 1234 to myself when reading didn't slow me down at all), but I also don't form movies, or even static images, when reading. I actually have no ability to visualise at all, despite the claims in many medical textbooks that such ability is essential. The first source I ever found that took this seriously was an Oliver Sachs article in the New Yorker a few years back on on visual imagery in the blind, where he revealed that he also has no "inner eye": http:://www.truncheon.net/newyorker/20030728_sacks.html - scroll to "visual imagery in the sighted" I've also found that my retention is entirely conceptual — I soak up ideas, but rarely remember the details. I never remember quotes, and with fiction I often can't even remember the names of the main characters. I don't really read much fiction, though. I particularly dislike books that go into huge depth of description: like Tolkien who couldn't even mention walking past a tree without taking 3 pages to describe it.