Speed Reading

[theBruiser500]

What is the deal with speed reading? I see that average readers read around 250 WPM, I can read at about 350 WPM but I do a lot of reading and feel like I should be able to read and more and want to learn to read more a minute. Trying to learn about speed reading, there are a few things going on. It looks like with a few basic techniques like conentrating and not rereaidng stff and using your finger a person can get up to 500-800 words and a minute, also reading words in groups.

The world champion in speed reading was at 2000 words a minute, then 2nd place and 3rd place wwere at 1100 or 1200 wpm. But then there is this Evelyn Wood speed reaing thing, she says she can read at a few thousand WPM. IN some book on this it syas that robert kenedy had evelyn wood or her people or whatever come in and teach his staff how to do read that way. PReseident carter supposedly using her method could read 1200 wpm.

some sites say teedy roosevelt used to read a couple books a day. some sites say the famous philosopher mills could "read as fast as he could turn the page". why are the world champion speed readers so slow then? and then there is another photo imaging methord where a person can read 25,000 words per minute. thoughts? your experience with speed reaidng?

[kasey2004]

I attemted to learn speed reading a while ago, but i couldnt seem to get as much out of the material as i could reading naturally word for word. The basics of the speed reading i learned were just skimming the pages for meaningful words skipping over words like "the" & "and" ya know, and concentrating. I could never do it that great anyways, just not for me.

/images/graemlins/spade.gif Kasey /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[drudman]

Nice to hear from you again Daniel.

I've also been really interested in boosting my reading WPM, so hopefully some other people will chime in.

[toss]

25k words per minute? You have to be some kind of savant to read that fast. Thats like reading at Johnny 5 speed. Whenever I try to speed read I feel like I'm not absorbing the material fully.

[imported_ncray]

I too would like to know if there's anyone on the forums who is capable of that several hundred+ WPM reading/ comprehension. The only testimonials I've seen of actual methods working are those intended to market a product.

[miajag81]

I have always been a very fast reader without any kind of speed-reading training. It just kind of comes naturally. I have noticed that what I do is instead of reading words one at a time I will see a whole sentence or paragraph at once and get the meaning of it. I can't really explain how to do it as it is sort of an innate ability. But I think if you are trying to learn how, that method might be a decent one.

[Jman28]

I'm a terribly slow reader.

I've been told that to read faster, you aren't supposed to hear the words in your head (which I do). The way you do this is to practice reading very quickly, and let the comprehension eventually catch up with the speed.

[Popinjay]

speed reading software (http://www.infmind.com/)

If you are interested in reading faster I have to recommend this site. I actually never used the software but merely did the demo on the website. It trains your eyes to read peripherally instead of left to right word by word. Try the demo on the site you might be surprised.

[theBruiser500]

I have a friend and a dad who read pretty fast, I think 500+ WPM, maybe faster. They're practice being that they read a lot.

[PairTheBoard]

I think the key to speed reading is being able to recognize and then just skip all the fluff and bs. I get through the Sklansky religious threads pretty fast that way.

PairTheBoard

[send_the_msg]

[ QUOTE ]
Thats like reading at Johnny 5 speed.

[/ QUOTE ]

damn i'm glad someone referenced that movie. haha

[SmileyEH]

I did that demo thing and it said 592 WPM, but the text was pretty easy and I had some pauses strating and stopping cause i was playing a tourney at the time. This is good I guess?

-SmileyEH

[morello]

[ QUOTE ]
speed reading software (http://www.infmind.com/)

If you are interested in reading faster I have to recommend this site. I actually never used the software but merely did the demo on the website. It trains your eyes to read peripherally instead of left to right word by word. Try the demo on the site you might be surprised.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just tried this site. Initially it said I was reading at 484 wpm, and after doing their demo, I got up to 521 wpm. Not sure how reliable it is though.

[wacki]

I was at the library a few days ago. I spent 7 hours on 4 pages.

That is all.

[Jman28]

When reading denser books (poker, math, etc.), does speed reading help? I mean, you have to take the time to think and absorb the information anyway, right?

[TStoneMBD]

i actually have a copy of eyeq and used it for a couple of weeks. it appeared that i was actually increasing the speed of my reading, but its hard to tell. am i comprehending the passage as the same level as i was a week ago but am reading faster? maybe i am reading faster but understand less.

i think i got up to like 800 words a minute, i really dont remember (its been a while), but i cant comprehend the text as i can by reading at a normal pace.

for whatever reason i got bored with the program and stopped using it, which seems pretty silly.

i believe that eyeq advertises that many people read 1500 wpm after they use eyeq for a while. if the world champions dont even read that fast then imo this discredits their software.

[edtost]

[ QUOTE ]
i believe that eyeq advertises that many people read 1500 wpm after they use eyeq for a while. if the world champions dont even read that fast then imo this discredits their software.

[/ QUOTE ]

i did the demo and went from 920 -> 980, and have no speed reading training. if the world champions aren't 1.5x as fast as me, that's pretty sad.

[edtost]

[ QUOTE ]
When reading denser books (poker, math, etc.), does speed reading help?

[/ QUOTE ]

not to any appreciable degree.

[dawade]

I can read fast, but when I do I don't absorb the information as much, and even when I read at normal speeds I sometimes forget important details in a section only a paragraph or a page before.

(Not MAJOR details but just certain stuff)

[Dan Kimberg]

One relevant study I'm aware of was done years ago by Pat Carpenter, Marcel Just, and colleagues at Carnegie Mellon University. (I'm only aware of it because I was later in the same department.) The upshot of their study was that speed readers pay for their speed with poorer comprehension than normal readers. They also argued that speed reading is likely to work well for simple material, and less well for complex material, and that people not specially practiced at speed reading could skim and read almost as quickly as speed readers with comparable comprehension. So to some extent, the science backs up common sense more than it supports miraculous reading techniques. If you just need the gist, skim or speed read. If you care about the details (e.g., you're reading a good book on poker strategy), take your time.

There have been more recent studies, but I believe the evidence still weighs strongly against any huge special benefit to learning special techniques for speed reading. Experimental tests (from the scientific literature) of the claim that people can speed read with perfect comprehension have I think uniformly failed to support this claim. If you don't read a lot, you can certainly improve with practice. But anything much beyond about 250 words per minute and you're probably sacrificing comprehension. The wikipedia article on speed reading has a few useful starting points if you're interested, although it could use some editing (Allyn and Bacon is the publisher of the Just/Carpenter book on reading, not an author).

Of course, the kind of detailed comprehension you get from regular, slow reading isn't always desirable, especially if a superficial understanding is all you need. There's lots of empty text out there, and not everything calls for detailed reading. I try to avoid reading things that are best understood superficially, so as much as I'd like to quadruple my reading speed, I don't want to sacrifice comprehension. Sometimes this means I'm spending a lot of time soaking up unimportant detail or redundant material, which is a waste of my limited reading time. But I blame careless authors/editors and not my slow reading speed for the wasted time.

dan

[theBruiser500]

"But anything much beyond about 250 words per minute and you're probably sacrificing comprehension."

I highly doubt this is true, when I"m reading and enjoying it the mostc coincides with when i am reading fastest. This is also what everything i've read on speed reading says. when you go slower you get bored, and when you get bored you go slower. I have a hard time beliving that the world champions in speed reading are 2000 WPM and 1200 and 1100 for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place, maybe no one cares about the world championship.

[wacki]

Just an FYI. Bruiser, when you have kids, force them to read. They have to read, and read a lot before the age of 12. The brain is rewiring itself during that stage in life and it will make a difference. For instance, people who learn a language before the age of 12 don't have an accent. Those who learn after 12 do.

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, people who learn a language before the age of 12 don't have an accent. Those who learn after 12 do.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's a pretty gross generalization. it is quite popularly told that it's easier for kids to learn new languages though.

[theBruiser500]

wacki i completely agree with your point. in fact, it might be one of the reasons why i'm so smart now

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For instance, people who learn a language before the age of 12 don't have an accent. Those who learn after 12 do.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's a pretty gross generalization. it is quite popularly told that it's easier for kids to learn new languages though.

[/ QUOTE ]

The gross generalization was made for succinctness. Obviously not everyone falls into those two categories. I was inaccurate, I apologize. However, I still stand by my main point.


Bruiser, please explain. Are you saying you read a lot as a kid? Or were there other factors too?

[theBruiser500]

"The gross generalization was made for succinctness. Obviously not everyone falls in those into those two categories. I was inaccurate, I apologize. "

No need to apologize, astroglide is just being stupid

'
Bruiser, please explain. Are you saying you read a lot as a kid? Or were there other factors too?'

yah my parents read to me when i was little, classics such as, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Where The Wild Things Are, and my favorite (obviously), GOodnight Moon

[wacki]

Thanks for sticking up for me bruiser. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]

yah my parents read to me when i was little, classics such as, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Where The Wild Things Are, and my favorite (obviously), GOodnight Moon

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of parents do that. I doubt those books are what set you apart. My dad forced my sister to read the new york times every day when she was very young. As a result she has amazing abilities when it comes to reading large quantities of material. Even all of her classmates at medical school were jealous. I rebelled as a child and so my reading speed is rather slow. Then again most of the things I read are rather complex and can fit on a napkin. Still, I wish I had listened to my dad when I was a child.

When I have kids I'm going to lay down a pile of books and force them to read a book of their choosing (<-- very important as that's why I didn't read) as soon as they are able to read on their own. I will most likely discuss the book with them every Sunday if not more often.

[TStoneMBD]

if your kids absolutely hate reading are you going to force them? i think there is a line in which discipline is not worth the misery, but am not mature enough to know where that line resides.

[wacki]

I will minimize the pain by giving them a wide choice of reading material. I will buy them any book they want from Robert Greene's "Art of Seduction", to politics books, history, hard science, greek mythology, etc. The exercise will be good for their brain and the knowledge they gain will be good for them as well. I will explain to them the reasoning behing my decisions. If they do their work I will reward them with more freedoms and other benifits. If they don't I will take freedoms away. I will adjust to each kids abilities and effort. They will learn very quickly that their life will be much better off in the short run and the long run for reading on a daily basis. An hour a day outside of schoolwork should be more than enough reading IMO. It really isn't that much to ask.

If they work hard I will give them more freedoms than 99% of their classmates will have. If they are lazy I will go as far as striping their bedroom down to the white paint and locking them in to die of boredom.

"Arbeit Macht Frei"

-SS Obersturmbanführer Rudolf Höss

[TStoneMBD]

alright fair enough. i definitely agree that its a good idea to allow them to read whatever they want to.

im not so sure if i agree with your logic that if they read they deserve more priviledges than 99% of their classmates. i dont think that reading (most) books is going to be more important than making sure that your children are restricted from certain things.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont think that reading (most) books is going to be more important than making sure that your children are restricted from certain things.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they work hard, and don't [censored] up, I will trust their judgement. A very wise person once said to me "You can't prevent them from doing something. You can only teach them the right way and hope they aren't stupid about it."

I want my kids to fall down when I am still around to help them get back up and not when I am on the opposite side of the country.

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
"The gross generalization was made for succinctness. Obviously not everyone falls in those into those two categories. I was inaccurate, I apologize. "

No need to apologize, astroglide is just being stupid

'
Bruiser, please explain. Are you saying you read a lot as a kid? Or were there other factors too?'

yah my parents read to me when i was little, classics such as, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Where The Wild Things Are, and my favorite (obviously), GOodnight Moon

[/ QUOTE ]

Twelve years old does not count as "little", Bruiser.

[toss]

I have a theory that kids who played old school RPGs did better in school. They were forced to read all the text and became better readers.

[Dan Kimberg]

I wrote:
"But anything much beyond about 250 words per minute and you're probably sacrificing comprehension."

Bruiser replied:
"I highly doubt this is true, when I"m reading and enjoying it the mostc coincides with when i am reading fastest. This is also what everything i've read on speed reading says. when you go slower you get bored, and when you get bored you go slower."

Well, certainly there isn't always that much to comprehend, and obviously if a text is simple and repetitive, you can read it very quickly and not miss anything. When you read 1000WPM (or whatever), you don't necessarily miss something important in everything you read. But if you read books that have meaningful details, you simply can't read leaps and bounds faster and still get everything. At least so the research suggests. I'm not sure what you've read on speed reading, but what I've seen comes from people who have seriously tried to find out if it works as advertised, and who I'm sure would kill to be able to read faster if they could do so without losing anything. They've made a sincere effort to see if the claims of speed reading advocates pan out, and they haven't had much luck. I will however admit I don't know much about the recent literature (speed reading was more of a hot topic 20 years ago than it is now).

Of course, the fact that you read quickly when you're enjoying yourself isn't inconsistent with this at all. Many people have this experience, and I do too to some extent (although sometimes I enjoy something that's so thought-provoking, I have to pause on practically every page). But it doesn't follow that you always get the most out of your reading that way. Sometimes the most enjoyable way to read something is also the most superficial. Sometimes the things you enjoy most are the things that dovetail so nicely with your way of thinking that the details are redundant. It's okay to miss out on details you already understand. That doesn't mean you have good comprehension of the text, it just means you didn't need good comprehension to get the most out of your reading experience. But skimming is liable to work a lot better with potboiler mysteries than with subtle or technical material, or even with books on poker. It's even liable to work well with the morning paper, which may be packed with details you just don't choose to care about.

None of this is to say that speed reading (or skimming) isn't valuable. But it looks to be a pretty intuitive trade-off.

dan

[CancerMan]

The real Rain Man can read two pages at once. His eyes move independently of eachother. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[spoohunter]

This whole approach to reading as a science is very disheartening to me. Why on earth would you want to read FASTER? I am sad enough when a book ends as it is. Sit back and enjoy the ride. It is not a race to cum first, but a long slow roll in the sack.

[Cased Heel]

I am a very slow reader but my thought on the subject is this:

a)humans are taught to recognize words at a glance. We are not taught to recognize sentences at a glance due to the fact that they are rarely identically repeated. This is why when the normal person reads, their eyes bounce from word to word as quick as possible.

Now, typical American script is written with what? 10-15 words per line? This is too long. Your eyes are FORCED to move left to right to absorb each word.

I FEEL that if books were written with 3 or 4 words per line (say...15-20 characters), you could center your eyes in the middle of the line, absorb the line, and simply move your eyes down the page, in a straight line as fast as you could.

Of course, pages wouldn't get any narrower, so you'd see two colums of text on each page. Another problem with this is that there is more variance in cutting off words. The right edges of the text columns would be much more "zig-zagged" than they are with the current layout.

Does this make sense to anybody? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

My main point is that you can look at the center of 4 words and instantly know what is says, leaving you to simply move your eyes DOWN the page instead of across, then down, then across, then down, until your eyes are so tired from all the movement that you become drowsy (such is my case).

[theBruiser500]

i don't agree with your idea. even if a line has 15 words you can mentally group 4 words together. and when youd o it that way you an select 4 words that naturally go together and make sense. if it is 4 words per line you are forced into reading 4 words together that don't naturally do so

[SmileyEH]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't agree with your idea. even if a line has 15 words you can mentally group 4 words together. and when youd o it that way you an select 4 words that naturally go together and make sense. if it is 4 words per line you are forced into reading 4 words together that don't naturally do so

[/ QUOTE ]

Good observation. I knew the idea wouldn't work for some reason - you definitely articulated it for me.

-SmileyEH

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
Just an FYI. Bruiser, when you have kids, force them to read. They have to read, and read a lot before the age of 12. The brain is rewiring itself during that stage in life and it will make a difference. For instance, people who learn a language before the age of 12 don't have an accent. Those who learn after 12 do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely untrue. I had to learn a new language when I was 10/11 in 30 days. It had nothing to do with being young etc. It's because I had to sit in a room studying with my dad 10 #(*#&(*&$ hours a day, then go outside for 3-4 and attempt to talk with the other kids there. I still have an accent in English even though it was my first/primary language because I lived overseas. This kids XXXXX learn faster than adults stuff is complete hogwash. It's like the people who claim adults can't get good at chess quickly. It's all bologna.

Sorry for blowing up. I just see this stuff said all the time and it's complete crap. It's in the same category as people saying we use 10% of our brains. It should be on an episode of Penn & Teller.

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just an FYI. Bruiser, when you have kids, force them to read. They have to read, and read a lot before the age of 12. The brain is rewiring itself during that stage in life and it will make a difference. For instance, people who learn a language before the age of 12 don't have an accent. Those who learn after 12 do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely untrue. I had to learn a new language when I was 10/11 in 30 days. It had nothing to do with being young etc. It's because I had to sit in a room studying with my dad 10 #(*#&(*&$ hours a day, then go outside for 3-4 and attempt to talk with the other kids there. I still have an accent in English even though it was my first/primary language because I lived overseas. This kids XXXXX learn faster than adults stuff is complete hogwash. It's like the people who claim adults can't get good at chess quickly. It's all bologna.

Sorry for blowing up. I just see this stuff said all the time and it's complete crap. It's in the same category as people saying we use 10% of our brains. It should be on an episode of Penn & Teller.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we only use 10% of our hearts.

[SmileyEH]

[ QUOTE ]
This kids XXXXX learn faster than adults stuff is complete hogwash

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong.

-SmileyEH

[Cased Heel]

I see your point but I still would prefer my method.

My method allows your eyes to simply move DOWN the page instead of left-right, then down (repeat) causing too much strain on your eyes.

Plus, when you're reading DOWN, you can still skim a line of 4 words that may not make sense, but the next 4 you see on the line below clarify. You see?

AND, when reading left-to-right, if you want to group 4 words together, you have to "guess" where to bounce your eyes on the line (where is the center of the next 4-5 words?) It's less efficient.

But if the lines
look like this
then you can simply
center your eyes in
the middle of each
line and move downward.
A much better method,
in my opinion.

Is this last paragraph not easier to read than all the previoius text?

[Cased Heel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just an FYI. Bruiser, when you have kids, force them to read. They have to read, and read a lot before the age of 12. The brain is rewiring itself during that stage in life and it will make a difference. For instance, people who learn a language before the age of 12 don't have an accent. Those who learn after 12 do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely untrue. I had to learn a new language when I was 10/11 in 30 days. It had nothing to do with being young etc. It's because I had to sit in a room studying with my dad 10 #(*#&(*&$ hours a day, then go outside for 3-4 and attempt to talk with the other kids there. I still have an accent in English even though it was my first/primary language because I lived overseas. This kids XXXXX learn faster than adults stuff is complete hogwash. It's like the people who claim adults can't get good at chess quickly. It's all bologna.

Sorry for blowing up. I just see this stuff said all the time and it's complete crap. It's in the same category as people saying we use 10% of our brains. It should be on an episode of Penn & Teller.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we only use 10% of our hearts.

[/ QUOTE ]

MOOOMMMMM!! The MEATLOAF!

[eMarkM]

As others have alluded to, the key to reading faster is not to sub-vocalize what you read. You have to train yourself to read whole sentences at a glance. I don't think you really need Evelyn Wood to do that. I don't know anything of their classes, but I glanced at their website and it looks like that's what their training is teaching. They claim they can treble your WPM. Well, if you're at 200 WPM, the low end of the average they quote, and get you to 600, I think that's an attainable goal if you're consistently sub-vocalizing while reading and break yourself of that habit.

You just have to really concentrate on not doing that when you read. I still fall into the habit of "reading aloud in my mind" and it can be difficult to change that if that's what you've done since childhood. Now, you're not going to get up to 2K WPM, but you can significantly increase your speed if you're not sub-vocalizing.

Also, there are different gears you shift in and out of depending on the reading material. Some books deserve a slow, deliberate read. The latest Harry Potter book, I can put into high gear and finish very quickly, about fours hours total for me this past weekend. Probably around 600 WPM. So I could read "two books a day" easily if that's all I did all day and the books were simple fiction like Rowling. A lot of dialog and nothing too taxing on the brain. The latest Harrington book, or something else that presents more intellectual material, I'd downshift because I want to understand the material presented. I doubt you could read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason in half a day and get total comprehension.

One aid I use to read faster is to place a bookmark on the line I'm currently reading. This helps me focus on the line because when you start reading words in groups and start speeding along, sometimes you can get lost and start focusing on the wrong line and lose track.

I also recommend a book called How to Read a Book by Mortimer J. Adler. Not speed reading per se, though he does mention it. He describes how to approach different kinds of reading material and the different levels of reading required of them. How to make a superficial reading, detailed reading for complete comprehension, how to be critical of what you read and a lot of other subjects that go into comprehension beyond just reading fast.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the deal with speed reading? I see that average readers read around 250 WPM, I can read at about 350 WPM but I do a lot of reading and feel like I should be able to read and more and want to learn to read more a minute. Trying to learn about speed reading, there are a few things going on. It looks like with a few basic techniques like conentrating and not rereaidng stff and using your finger a person can get up to 500-800 words and a minute, also reading words in groups.

The world champion in speed reading was at 2000 words a minute, then 2nd place and 3rd place wwere at 1100 or 1200 wpm. But then there is this Evelyn Wood speed reaing thing, she says she can read at a few thousand WPM. IN some book on this it syas that robert kenedy had evelyn wood or her people or whatever come in and teach his staff how to do read that way. PReseident carter supposedly using her method could read 1200 wpm.

some sites say teedy roosevelt used to read a couple books a day. some sites say the famous philosopher mills could "read as fast as he could turn the page". why are the world champion speed readers so slow then? and then there is another photo imaging methord where a person can read 25,000 words per minute. thoughts? your experience with speed reaidng?

[/ QUOTE ]

Speed reading was all the craze (especially Evelyn Wood) in the '70's when I was a kid. I learned these "techniques" back then and they are IMO complete bullshit. It amounts to glorified skimming and the speed you gain is directly correlated to a lack of comprehension. When I was in elementary school I got really "fast" at one point and realized that while I was losing so much information that the whole point ofreading faster was defeated. This was especially true for literature. I mean if you are going to start skimming great novels to just get to the end quicker, what's the point.

A few years after I stopped there was an episode of "That's Incredible" (for those of you who remmeber that) on ABC where a pizza delivery kid who was supposed to be like world speed reading champ or something. Theyhad him "read" all of "War and Peace" in 15 or 30 minutes in between pizza deliveries. It was impressive watching his right hand blaze down page after page and then rapidly turn to the next one. After he "finished" and they interviewed him it was quite clear that he had no idea what he had "read", if in fact he was reading anything at all. Of course, John Davidson loudly exclaimed, "That's Incredible!"

[Cased Heel]

"Well that proper girl in the hat just eye-f*cked the s*it outta me"

[steelcmg]

[ QUOTE ]
I see your point but I still would prefer my method.

My method allows your eyes to simply move DOWN the page instead of left-right, then down (repeat) causing too much strain on your eyes.

Plus, when you're reading DOWN, you can still skim a line of 4 words that may not make sense, but the next 4 you see on the line below clarify. You see?

AND, when reading left-to-right, if you want to group 4 words together, you have to "guess" where to bounce your eyes on the line (where is the center of the next 4-5 words?) It's less efficient.

But if the lines
look like this
then you can simply
center your eyes in
the middle of each
line and move downward.
A much better method,
in my opinion.

Is this last paragraph not easier to read than all the previoius text?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know i can read this about 1million times faster i wouldnt mind trying to read a book this way to see how it work

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the key to speed reading is being able to recognize and then just skip all the fluff and bs. I get through the Sklansky religious threads pretty fast that way.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO

That was classic, Pair. It is quality not quantity. Nice to see you back posting your quality material.