Would be nice to have a bit more explicit science to explain what's going on here, even though I intuitively understand what the desired goal is.

you can tell he's fast from the tire tracks across his chest

uh... sorry but you need to take this OUT of science, and put it in lies.

>> ^berticus:
uh... sorry but you need to take this OUT of science, and put it in lies.


Why's that?

I'd say take out of "science" because there's no science explaining this. As far as "lies" go...I don't know, does this work? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, maybe go fuck yourself.

Speed reading techniques in general try to move people away from "saying" words internally, which slows the number of words that are read in a given time frame. It is not uncommon for programs to teach people how to read multiple lines at once, which can't be done if you hear the words in your head.

This video is highly simplified, but it does demonstrate one component of speed reading. By removing your internal voice from the equation (in this case, giving it something else to do) your brain is forced to create more neural connections between the visual process and comprehension that don't involve the slow "sounding out" process. It does take lots of practice (like first learning to read) so don't think that doing the stuff in the video will instantly triple your reading speed.

I don't know the specific requirements for the science channel, but I didn't see anything that should qualify for lies. If anyone has a link to scientific material that refutes anything in this video then please post it.

I have removed this video from the Science channel, from the crushing weight of peer pressure.

DERP DERP

aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou 1234 aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou aeiou.

If I were to make a guess I would say the reason we have this "internal voice" is the way we teach children to read (reading words aloud as we're pointing to them syllable by syllable). This can only lead to the brain learning to read in this fashion.

From this simple hypothesis maybe there is a way to teach a child to learn to speed-read before they read with an "internal voice." How that would be done, I don't know, but it WOULD be interesting.

TL;DR version: Read faster.

reading involves the following physiological limitations: saccades, span of fixation, fixation duration, and regressions. eliminating the 'subvocal rehearsal' (yeah, i'm real convinced about that) isn't going to change any of those other four things. would just loooove to see what this 'technique' does to comprehension too. what, they don't supply any data? i'm shocked.

reading multiple lines at once? .... you have been duped. want to buy some of my snake oil?

>> ^berticus:
reading involves the following physiological limitations: saccades, span of fixation, fixation duration, and regressions. eliminating the 'subvocal rehearsal' (yeah, i'm real convinced about that) isn't going to change any of those other four things. would just loooove to see what this 'technique' does to comprehension too. what, they don't supply any data? i'm shocked.,

"They" who? A simple Google search pulls up all kinds of info. Competitive speed readers apparently have a 50% comprehension while reading at between 1000-2000 wpm. That's around 15-30 words per second. I can't imagine they're using subvocalization at those speeds. I wouldn't say 50% is acceptable for someone trying to learn new material, but they are reading as fast as they can. Slowing their rates down would improve comprehension, but I would like to see some real studies on the subject to sort out the BS from the real benefits.

I don't know the specific methods used by the human brain to translate visual text into comprehension, but I know I can read faster than I can "hear" the words in my head. I have a bad habit of unconsciously reading to myself audibly, which does slow me down. When I force myself not to do that then I read noticeably faster.


reading multiple lines at once? .... you have been duped. want to buy some of my snake oil?

Yea, that's almost as silly as piano players reading multiple lines of music at once. =P

I can read two lines at once, though admittedly it does depend on what I'm reading. I can't do that with any real comprehension with a physics text book, but it's pretty easy with a newspaper article. It also takes a lot of practice since the skill tends to degrade rather rapidly otherwise.

>> ^Psychologic:"They" who? A simple Google search pulls up all kinds of info. Competitive speed readers apparently have a 50% comprehension while reading at between 1000-2000 wpm. That's around 15-30 words per second. I can't imagine they're using subvocalization at those speeds. I wouldn't say 50% is acceptable for someone trying to learn new material, but they are reading as fast as they can. Slowing their rates down would improve comprehension, but I would like to see some real studies on the subject to sort out the BS from the real benefits.

Guess what... I can have a 50% comprehension for a piece of text I've NEVER read. The method of testing is important in how you interpret 'comprehension'. It's just another way they dupe people. 1000-2000 WPM = skimming, not reading. What happens when you skim? Comprehension drops.

I can read two lines at once, though admittedly it does depend on what I'm reading. I can't do that with any real comprehension with a physics text book, but it's pretty easy with a newspaper article. It also takes a lot of practice since the skill tends to degrade rather rapidly otherwise.

I believe
don't you.

50% would only make sense if you had half a chance of getting it right, which woudn't be the case with something you'd never read.
Also it's got to be BS about reading two lines at once (except for kim peek), it would just be a muddle of words.