Article criticizes speed reading

[Blue Tyson]

And like anything else, some people are really slow, or really crap at reading, or both, and some are the exact opposite...

[Fastolfe]

For me, there are 3 types of reading:

- What the French call "en biais" reading, loosely translated as "slashing through the page", reading from the upper left corner of the page to the lower right corner in a straight line: this is for quickly getting the gist of something. You leave out 75% of the information, but you can read up to 10 pages a minute that way. Perfect when you forgot to do your homework, you want to have an idea about something quickly and appear clever in front of your boss, or you're contracted to do a book review for money without working too much.

- The method I use (not sure it has a name) to read most novels, and for a first read of a poem; I call it the "method of the 3rds": mentally divide the page in 3 columns, and between 3 and 9 lines depending on the format of the page, then force your eyes to jump from square to square and "take photos" rhythmically. If you get the rhythm right, the text should just "upload" itself into your brain. If you go too fast, back up. If the text is densely packed with information, read as many squares as you can until you feel you're missing out too much, then back up and "rescan", but this time jumping from grid point to grid point (in-between squares). If you do all this fast enough and if you manage to make it second nature, you miss very little, but more importantly, the story flows naturally and keeps its natural pace. Anything slower for me and it's like watching a movie in slow motion: sure I catch all the dialogs, but the movie is boring.

- Slow reading (call it deep) to catch all the details. That's for the second reading of a poem for instance: once you know what the poem is about, you can revel in the intricacies of the language and the rhymes. Of course, this is also the sort of reading you do to read technical documents, reports, spreadsheets, contracts and norms in which the devil is in the detail.

[mgmueller]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Here's a news article making the rounds among US newspapers that criticizes speed reading and promotes what is called "deep reading".

I took a speed reading course one summer when I was in high school, and after it was over I didn't buy into it, and I never have. I don't believe that people who read particularly rapidly properly digest the ideas they are reading.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...reading11.html

I think it totally depends on the subject matter.
While studying, I've used that technique.
We used to call it "mini-max principle". Meaning: Maximum results with minimal effort.
If you have to get an understanding of hundreds of pages within 1 or 2 days, you only can do this by some kind of speedreading technology. And I find it perfectly workable.
BUT: For me, this kills all the joy of reading. I'd never use this for casual reads. For endless pages of information though...

[silasgreenback]

Originally Posted by mgmueller

BUT: For me, this kills all the joy of reading. I'd never use this for casual reads. For endless pages of information though...

For sure. I'd rather read like I'm being told the story than having the outline described. For novels, it's also nearly impossible to avoid spoilers if speed reading.

When it comes to the "mini-max" principle, for me it's fine for scholarly introductions and boring prefaces.

As far as the internet, admittedly, I skim at least half the links I go to.