View Single Post
Old 07-04-2020, 12:48 AM   #115
DNSB
Bibliophagist
DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
DNSB's Avatar
 
Posts: 51,466
Karma: 179640714
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Device: Kobo Sage, Libra Colour, Lenovo M8 FHD, Paperwhite 4, Tolino epos
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirage View Post
That's remarkable. Did you train yourself to read at these speeds? Or did it come naturally? That's a valuable skill to have. I'm a relatively quick reader when I want to be and I'm focused, but nothing like those speeds. I like to read that fast when reading informational stuff that I don't get great pleasure from reading, but am motivated to know the content. More literary writing, even if it's non-fiction, I've actually slowed down some over the years on purpose.
I think it mostly came naturally. I started reading at a very early age⁠—my mother used to reminisce about me reading the backs of cereal boxes when I was 3. My parents taught in the Northwest Territories and I spent quite a bit of time sitting at the back of the classroom (the small schools had a single classroom, the bigger schools had 2!) so I'm tempted to say I learned to read by osmosis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mirage View Post
I recall years ago that there were books and people on TV touting speed reading techniques. I read some stuff about it. Scanning large chunks of text without speaking the words in one's head was one of the techniques. The claim was that retention was better, too. I played around with it some, but didn't stick with it.
One article dumping on the speed reading programs attracted my ire and the author and I engaged in a rather nasty exchange of message. Basically, the author claimed that no one could read over ~280WPM unless they were only skimming which seriously compromises comprehension. He continually restated that physics said that one can take in more than 7-9 letters in a "fixation" and we are limited to 4-5 fixations per second so no one can read faster than his proclaimed maximum. We sidetracked into saccades and the discussion ended in a mutual decision that the other heretic was wrong and no longer worth wasting electrons on.

Sadly, a collection of deviant data points did not disprove his theory. He was not a fan of Thomas Huxley (the man responsible for "The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.").
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	vonhoffman_huxley.jpg
Views:	120
Size:	101.0 KB
ID:	180369  
DNSB is online now   Reply With Quote