3 ms·
You too are very presumptuous with your claims even with your humble attempt to frame another's point. That said, I would like to address your claim of a 2min.
by caminante 11y ago
You too are very presumptuous with your claims even with your humble attempt to frame another's point.
That said, I would like to address your claim of a 2min. read-through:
"but I used my stopwatch and it took me pretty much exactly 2
minutes to read. I studied subjects at school that required a lot
of reading, and so I probably got the practice from that. (Of course,
not all texts are suitable for reading this way.)"
And how much comprehension did you get with a 2 min. flyby? With all due respect, you didn't read the equivalent of 10 pages of font-size=11 text in 2 min. If you're reading at that rate FOR comprehension then you're a savant. Otherwise, you're skimming, not reading.
Speedreading is snakeoil. [1]
[1] http://lifehacker.com/the-truth-about-speed-reading-1542508398 http://lifehacker.com/the-truth-about-speed-reading-15425083...
- to3m 11y agoI thought I'd made it clearer than I did that I was skimming, but that was indeed what I was doing. This is after all what the article suggests you should do. And that's how I got through the article in 2 minutes. And that's why the article tells you to do it! Once you've got through 3,000 words in 2 minutes, you might not recall all of it, but you'll at least be able to tell whether it's worth going back for a closer look, or just making a mental note, or forgetting the entire experience. This isn't a useful technique for everything. But when/if you have a huge pile of big, thick books to get through, all printed in small type with thin margins - probably the sort of thing the author here is thinking of - your options are a bit limited.