eyeQ is NOT bullshit. Please read.

[sliver]

War & Peace in a four night sitting? Sounds good to me.

Skimming along at a thousand words a minute you aren't going to appreciate it for what it is. Roald Dahl and R. L. Stine might remain relatively intact, but that's because there's no substance and no language to miss.

[Deji]

I spent a total of 2 seconds reading the first post :icon14:

[Guest]

I was wondering what that thing was called, I've seen a commercial like 5 years ago. Thanks :icon14:

[Therac-26]

Sounds cool. I'll give it a shot.

/me hits up a.b.cd.i

[Guest]

I spent a total of 2 seconds reading the first post :icon14:

:icon19:

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

[Massive Quasars]

I've aware of some criticisms of conventional speed reading programs. One such criticism is that these programs can increase one's wpm performance, but at the cost of comprehension.

Search this site for speed reading studies. I haven't given it a shot yet, but try to see what you can come up with.
http://www.pubmed.org

[Guest]

Yeah I bought one of those speed reading books years ago that teach you to read faster. Took me two minutes to read it.

[mjrpes]

If you're reading a crappy Pat Buchanan editorial on foxnews.com or technical articles that present data more than anything else, speed reading techniques will help you get through the pain without too much degradation in comprehension. If you're doing research you pretty much have to learn to speed read through thousands of pages of shit.

For good books that are situational (like fiction), and books that force you to think deeply (essays and philosophy), speed reading is a hinder and not a help. How can you enjoy a book like War and Peace if you're blazing through it? No one can understand what Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is about by blazing through at 1,000 words per minute. In fictions and poetry I have to hear the words in my mind and compose an image of the situation in my head. Enjoyment in reading (for me) comes from reading it like it's a movie. To speed read would be like pressing the fast forward button on the VCR; you get the plot but lose pretty much everything else.

[R00k]

If you're reading a crappy Pat Buchanan editorial on foxnews.com or technical articles that present data more than anything else, speed reading techniques will help you get through the pain without too much degradation in comprehension. If you're doing research you pretty much have to learn to speed read through thousands of pages of shit.

For good books that are situational (like fiction), and books that force you to think deeply (essays and philosophy), speed reading is a hinder and not a help. How can you enjoy a book like War and Peace if you're blazing through it? No one can understand what Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is about by blazing through at 1,000 words per minute. In fictions and poetry I have to hear the words in my mind and compose an image of the situation in my head. Enjoyment in reading (for me) comes from reading it like it's a movie. To speed read would be like pressing the fast forward button on the VCR; you get the plot but lose pretty much everything else.

I'm the same way. My roommate rags on me for how long it takes me to finish books, but I've never understood why he was in such a hurry to finish them to begin with. I don't read things to say I've finished them; I read books for enjoyment, entertainment and/or education. I don't feel like I could get any of those by quickly glancing at the paragraphs. Sometimes the atmosphere is the best part - in The Davinci Code I read some pages twice, just to get a better feel of the scenes.

[rep]

Sub-vocalization is not necessary for comprehension. It's a hindrance if anything.

[corncobman]

Read this real fast.

I am Sofa King Rita did.

Aye, that you are.

j/k.

[R00k]

Sub-vocalization is not necessary for comprehension. It's a hindrance if anything.

Sub-vocalization is not what I'm talking about. :icon27:

And it wouldn't be a hindrance to comprehension anyway. :icon27: +

[rep]

In fictions and poetry I have to hear the words in my mind and

I'm the same way.

Sub-vocalization is not what I'm talking about. :icon27:

:icon28:

[R00k]

That's not the part of his post that I was identifying with.

If you had comprehended my post you would have known that. So much for your speed-reading. :lol:

[plained]

often times i catch myself in the wrong read mode hehe

like flying too fast through a nice comic.

or too leisure-like through a non-critical manual.

im pretty sure you guys use a variable reading speed too no?

[rep]

That's not the part of his post that I was identifying with.

So you admit to not having the ability to clarify? "I'm the same way." Is fairly broad.

[werldhed]

That's not the part of his post that I was identifying with.

So you admit to not having the ability to clarify? "I'm the same way." Is fairly broad.

You'll notice, of course, that his post included more than "I'm the same way." In fact, it has a couple of lines clarifying what he meant.

[rep]

Then he's not in fact the same way. Sit.

[werldhed]

Then he's not in fact the same way. Sit.

First you say that the phrase "I'm the same way" is pretty broad.

Then you suggest it has to be exactly the same as the entire post R00k quoted.

Which is it? Broad, or precise? If It was a broad statement, his following explanation clarified what he meant rather nicely. Don't try changing the rules now.

[[xeno]Julios]

Sub-vocalization is not necessary for comprehension. It's a hindrance if anything.

sub vocalization is not the relevant issue here. Comprehension requires sophisticated cognitive processing that takes time. So much time, that if you were to speed read you wouldn't have time to process the information richly, in many cases.

Rep, I've noticed that in this thread, and in many others, you completely fail to respond to posts that somehow challenge your ideas. You just ignore them, or talk about something different.

Not once have I ever seen you say:

"Ah ok that makes sense"

or

"wow cool never thought of that"

or

"perhaps, but what about this?"

For instance, you haven't addressed my post on the first page of this thread.

And you completely stopped responding on that thread about singing vs. speaking (the wax audio imagine this thing)

[mjrpes]

Then he's not in fact the same way. Sit.

What part don't you get? R00k is agreeing with me that speed reading takes away a part of our book reading experience, most notably the creation of what R00k calls 'atmosphere' and I call the 'movie in the mind.' Both of us find this to be an important part of our book reading experience that goes beyond simple comprehension of material. Let me quote myself again: "To speed read would be like pressing the fast forward button on the VCR; you get the plot but lose pretty much everything else." What don't you understand about this?