Speed Reading Doesn't Work

[latepaul]

So says this article

Put another way, the problem with speed-reading claims is that speed-reading is really just another way of saying “skimming.” You can flash as many words as you like in front of your eyes, and though you may be able to understand each word on its own, they won’t mean much as a collective whole. Language processing just doesn’t work that way

In the end, the only reliable way to become a faster reader, then, is to expand your vocabulary — and the best way to do that is to read more. There is no shortcut, in other words

I must admit my reaction was "well, duh!" but it's nice to have some proper science to back that up.

I should also say that there's nothing wrong with "skimming" for certain purposes - background research, trying to quickly get a feel for a lot of material - but for me, most of whose reading is fiction for pleasure, I'd rather savour and understand what I'm reading.

[HarryT]

Yes, there's clearly a significant difference between reading for pleasure, and needing to absorb the maximum amount of information in a short time. In some professions, such as the law, or many fields of academic research, the ability to read quickly and take in the pertinent facts is essential.

[344a]

My elder brother and sister, they are both reading books very fast. And they can memorize the chapters if they want to.

Some people do have the talent.




.

[Cinisajoy]

Obviously speed reading does not work for the writer of that article.
I have been a speed reader and could retain books for farther back than I remember.
I learned to read very early because my mother would not read to me as much as I would have liked. (Which would have been all day every day.)
So yes, it is a skill.
Now I do take my time if it is something I need to learn.
Oh and I know many people that read faster than me.
I also know people that read slower than me.
It is just how someone is wired or taught or more than likely both.
All brains process information slightly different.

[eschwartz]

@Cinisajoy,

Well, I speed read too.

I read quite speedily, that is -- faster than most other people.

...

Although I am not sure that is what the article was referring to.

[frahse]

I disagree with the tenor of the article.

I became a speed reader as a child.

By the time I was 12, I could digest 3 or 4 books (about 200 pages each of fiction, autobio, historical etc.,) a day. I usually got 11 books every 3 days in the summer. My eyes suffered mightily and around 12, I had my first glasses for nearsightedness. They were -2 diopters. A year or 2 later, it was -4 diopters. The doctor said that he had never seen eyes progress so badly so fast. Well he never saw a reader like me.

When I went to the AFES (Armed Forces Examining Station - the old terminology) at Fort Jackson my right eye was tested at 20/400 and my left was "Light." Or course in those days with the draft, if you were able to find the door, they took you. Over the years my eye's accommodation has changed and I can pass the Highway Dept's requirement of 20/40 and even 20/30 on my right eye, with the left testing a little worse. During the same time period I have gone from able being to see a gnat's eye on my nose to having to use reading glasses.

Now those books were not TEXT books. Those took longer. Not to read so much as to comprehend and memorize.

I decided to test out how long I took in College. I think I read my Thermal Physics book in College 4 or 5 times to understand it, and then worked out problems as well.

I could carry on more about eyes, but I will only repeat what I have heard relating to baseball (if you read, you won't be able to hit the curve)

[tomsem]

I can believe it is true when it comes to reading books (though even there, 'skimming' is often good enough to take in what is important).

But we digital readers have Spritz and (with some Kindle apps) Word Runner. These things make sure the fovea processes each word, at least.

I have been using Word Runner a fair amount of late and for some types of reading ('genre' fiction for example), I don't feel I'm missing anything (but then I wouldn't would I?). The time saved can be used to do a quick note summarizing what was just read, thus further reinforcing comprehension.

I've probably put in fewer than 40 hours thus far, so I don't really expect to have it perfected, but I find it worth exploring and playing with it. I hope Amazon will improve it (there is room for that) and bring it to iOS and even Kindle.

Spritz is probably slightly 'better', but I haven't played with it as much (on Android you can use it with reading apps that support TTS, on iOS you have to pick apps that integrate with it directly).

That said, I would not want to use it for everything I read, at least with the technologies I've tried so far.

But the basic problem of assimilating 'knowledge' quickly into human brains is a hard one, and something deserving of research dollars.

Note that Braille reading rates seem to max out for most people at around 200 w.p.m., but that may just be because it is not an efficient encoding system (character based). I can imagine subcutaneous 'sensory substitution' is potentially the fastest way to input text, or at least as fast as visual (there's been a lot of progress with it for replacing vision itself).

[slayda]

I have to agree with some posters - people have different types of brains. Some work very well with words. Mine doesn't and I read very slowly. on the other hand, I deal quite well with numbers, to the point that I remember them better than names, well I did before my memory started going, :>)

I tried taking speed reading classes & that seemed to marginally increase my speed until I realized that the latter material and testing was rigged, i.e. easier material to read and easier tests. Anyway I now read for pleasure almost entirely since I've retired so reading slowly on a good book just makes it last longer. However it does take longer to tell whether it's a good book.

[Tarana]

I personally believe that people who can read amazingly fast and have excellent comprehension of plot and recall have a form of ediatic memory specific for reading. People who realize they have it can exploit it throughout their lives. For others, speed reading can maybe help them get out of a very, very slow reading habit to give them more enjoyment of reading. Doesn't always work of course. If you have some form of learning disability or your brain doesn't work as well for the printed word, higher speeds aren't going to help you.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by latepaul

So says this article

I must admit my reaction was "well, duh!" but it's nice to have some proper science to back that up.

I should also say that there's nothing wrong with "skimming" for certain purposes - background research, trying to quickly get a feel for a lot of material - but for me, most of whose reading is fiction for pleasure, I'd rather savour and understand what I'm reading.

Except we already had the science to back it up. This problem was identified decades ago.

[latepaul]

You're right the paper in the article was a review of existing studies rather than new work.

And yet even so, witness the responses in this thread.

To all who "disagree" with the article, just to be clear, it's not saying that some people aren't fast readers with respect to others, or even that no improvement is possible. It's saying that the kinds of levels of improvement promised by speed reading courses etc are at the expense of comprehension.

[tompe]

And who read fiction just for comprehension?

Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk

[frahse]

Originally Posted by tompe

And who read fiction just for comprehension?

Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk

Amen brother, but to be a little more particular even: what fiction is so hard to comprehend?

What biograpy?
What documentary?
What screen play?
What history?
What travel guide?

What?

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by tompe

And who read fiction just for comprehension?

"Just" comprehension? No. But I want "at least" comprehension.

Without comprehension I may miss important information. If it's a mystery maybe I'll miss clues as to who the killer was. Maybe characters will appear to act in confusing ways - which I'll no doubt wrongly put down to poor writing - because I skimmed over something they did earlier that seemed insignificant but which created a sense of who they are.

And that's just comprehension of information. That's not counting what you miss in terms of atmosphere, setting, tension, character because you sped through or skimmed descriptive passages.

I'd no sooner speed-read a novel and think I'd gotten the most out of it, than I would read a synopsis and think I'd read the book.

And if you're thinking, "but that's not how I read. I get all that information and tone and still read quickly", well you're probably just a naturally faster reader and not really speed-reading in the sense that this article (and the paper and studies it's based on) means.

[kennyc]

I just sped read this thread....wait....what?