speedreading - myth or true

[crazyhorse]

A few years ago I tried speedreading. I bought Tony Buzan's book and I was hooked, and I must say I practiced a lot with it (up until an hour a day). But I can't say I'm happy with the results that it provided me.

I heared about the famous JFK tale and I wanted to be able to read up to 1000 wpm. I mean who wouldn't want to do that! Can you imagine how much more books you can read. That would we be walhala.

But there are a lot of things that I don't agree with it. Your reading comprehension is way better with traditional reading then it is with speed reading. The way speedreaders test their comprehension isn't a very good indicator as well, these multiple choice questions are way to easy to fake.

I find that speedreaders are more concerned with going through a lot of material instead of really grasping the content of a book. I mean Mark didn't you said that you only read 1/3 of the books you read (I think you said it in the lifestyle section of G3). Don't you think it's better then to read a summary on wikipedia instead of actually buying the book?

So I'm skeptical, very skeptical. I tried googling to find some scientific research done on speedreading but I couldn't find any. I mean speedreading already exists for at least 50 years, if it is really that effective then there should be some evidence for this right?

[Drewid]

I had some good luck with it, although I didn't get the results they were claiming I would get.

For certain titles I found my comprehension actually improved. But anything that's constructing a logical case (rather than a narrative) I found I got better results from the traditional method.

[crazyhorse]

(06-06-2012 06:45 PM)Drewid Wrote:  I had some good luck with it, although I didn't get the results they were claiming I would get.

For certain titles I found my comprehension actually improved. But anything that's constructing a logical case (rather than a narrative) I found I got better results from the traditional method.

Thanks for your input! I'm really curious to hear other people's opinions as well. One thing that I do notice however is that your reading comprehension improves as you read more. But that shouldn't come as a surprise

[Tobias]

My observation: People who start reading A LOT at an early age and keep reading A LOT can sometimes read three lines at the same time in one second while their comprehension is far above average. These people are extremly intelligent as a result of their acquired reading speed and or genes. What an average reading guy can do with speed reading attempts is quiet limited.

[Halo Effect]

I read a chapter in a book on speed reading the other day. It was written by a fairly well-known Dutch psychologist.

As far as I know, it is not true that speed reading means reading multiple lines at the same time or even whole pages at a time. Think about it, if a line has 10 words for example, you would at the same time be reading the first word, 11th word and 21st word in a text, then the 2nd, 12th, 22nd word, etc. That would make reading like solving a puzzle...

I've heard about the fastest speed reader in the world, and he supposedly reads one line at a time, from left to right, only taking in a few words at once. He just does so at an insane speed.

What the book I read said about speed reading is that there are two things that are crucial to read faster: a) start reading bigger blocks of words, and b) read more blocks of words per second. More words per eye movement and quicker eye movements = faster reading. Reading bigger blocks of words means that you don't say each word independently in your mind, but take in multiple words at once. If you focus on the word you're reading now, you may notice that you are also aware of the meaning of the words next to it. With practice you can take in the meaning of a sentence by reading blocks of words without "verbalizing" each word in your mind.

A technique speed readers use is to guide their eyes with a finger or pen for example. So they move a finger or pen under the line they're reading. This helps with not tracking back, and it also helps the eyes to move in a smooth motion, allowing you to read faster. Not tracking back means you don't keep going back to what you read before because you think you didn't get it. We often think we didn't get a previous sentence we read and go back to it, which really slows us down. I've read that just like you can sometimes hear someone say somehting, say "What?", and then realize that you did understand him a moment later, your mind can also take in the meaning of sentences shortly after you read them. I'm a bit skeptical about it, but there is probably some truth to it.

Personally I get pretty tired when I try to "speed read", but that's probably due to a lack of practice. I do believe that it is possible to read significantly faster for most people, and it doesn't require strange things like reading multiple lines at once. Another myth about speed reading is that speed readers read everything quickly. If you read a really dense book that you need to think about deeply to understand the concepts, then of course speed reading won't change this. You will need to take in the information and think about it and take your time.

If you want to improve your comprehension there are many great techniqiues that have little to do with speed reading. For example, start by reading the table of contents of a book, read the chapter titles, then read subtitles in a chapter, look at pictures, quickly scan the pages. Try to get an idea of the kind of text you're reading and the structure it has. Ask yourself what your goal is when reading this book and how you can accomplish that goal best. Next, don't just start reading, but ask yourself more questions. What do you want to learn in this specific chapter? After reading a chapter, summarize what you just read in your own words, without looking at the chapter. If you find knowledge is missing, go back and read it. If it's for school, imagine likely exam questions and try to answer them without looking in the book. If you can't answer them well, go back and read until you can answer them.

[Mark]

@crazyhorse: I read fairly fast naturally with good comprehension, but I don't always read the entire book depending on a few factors.

If a book is poorly written, repeats itself a lot, or if I feel like I'm grasping its concepts fairly quickly, I will skip lines, paragraphs and in some cases pages or entire chapters. If a book is really bad or I don't find it useful, I'll skim through the whole thing looking for sections that interest me and just focus on those.

Usually though, assuming I'm reading something good, I'll just occasionally skip the rest of a paragraph or page if I feel I comprehend its points after the first couple sentences.

So on the one hand, I can "read" 2-3 books in a single day if I want... but I'm not actually reading and processing every word. Honestly, I think the idea of processing every word is inefficient and pointless when reading non-fiction if you're not getting a whole lot of value out of a book or feel like you already understand the points its making.

On the other hand, if a book is good, or I find a lot of it interesting, I slow down and read every single word. For instance, yesterday I read a 100-page book in between watching a basketball game. It took about 2 hours and I wasn't focusing on it consistently. It was an easy read and very repetitive, so I skimmed a lot of sections, and the last chapter was a pitch for the guy's self help course or something, so I just skipped it entirely.

100 page book after dinner may sound very impressive. But before that, I read Dan Gilbert's "Stumble on Happiness." It's about 250 pages, is brilliant, and contains quite a bit of psychological theory and a lot of research in it. That took me about a week to read, which for me is pretty long for such a short book.

It all depends on the book, how good it is, how well it's written, how dense it is, how much I'm enjoying it, etc.

So yeah, technically there are books I've "read" which I only actually processed 2/3 or 3/4 of the words in it. Some books I read the first couple chapters, decide that I'm not getting a whole lot out of it and then put it down... Whether you call that reading it or not, I don't really know. I don't really care.

Other books, if they're amazing, I go back and read 2-3 times within a year or two. I've read "The Selfish Gene" twice, and plan on re-reading "Stumble on Happiness" again this year.

This is all for non-fiction. Fiction, I read every word and take my time with it. And if the writing sucks or fails to catch my interest after 20-40 pages, then I put it down and move on.

As for actual speed-reading techniques... I toyed with it when I was in college and it definitely upped my reading speed. But honestly, I think what helped my speed and comprehension the most was just reading a lot for many, many years.

[Traindom]

Halo Effect: I used a method similar to what you prescribe in your post, specifically the last paragraph. I used something like this: http://educatoral.com/SQR3.html

I did an extensive review of three chapters that covered the colonization of the West. It took many HOURS, but it was so worth it. I could recite almost every single detail. The recall during the test was amazing as well. I loved it. But it was too taxing so I never really did it as strictly as I did it the first time. It works though.

What I do now is I read a passage and analyze it. I ask myself "why" to the text and try to come up with answers. I try to figure out how the concepts work. I did this with superb success in my Macroeconomics class. This is the method I use normally in almost anything.

Mark: At this point, do you still buy actual books or do you find yourself buying ebooks and reading them on a Kindle? I imagine that there must be some books that are worth getting in paperback or hardcover.

[crazyhorse]

These post definetly clear up a lot of things.

I've also read 500 page books in a short ammount of time. Why? The content was so easy to grasp, it was a book about productivity techniques, that's definetly not hard material.

But I recently read Cicero "the ideal oratorical". The book was about 200 pages, but it was very dense and it was also written in a very classical way. If you've ever studied latin, then you'l know what I mean. This means that the sentences were very long with a lot sentences aside, sometimes this can be as long as a paragraph, sometimes even longer. If you arn't used to that, then it can definetly take some time to get through. But I must say that if you then read other genres, it's so easy to get through. Like ridiculously easy....

I do agree with some of the pointers about "reading back". That's indeed a time-waiste, what I've found is that a chapter usually expalins itself the more you progress into it. My guess is that my expectations about speedreading were perhaps a bit too high. But they throw around these Kennedy tales who allegedly read 1000 wpm and with good comprehension. Well yeah, then you want that as well.

I must say that reading a lot is probably the best excercise there is. I'm starting to notice this as well. It's like everything improves from reading, your concentration as well.

haha Traindoim that's exactly what I do as well. I always ask myself "why" and while it is the best way to truly grasp material, it can take a long time. I see that you're still having a passion for macroeconomics, same here buddy.

But it's good to be selective about what you'll read. Right now Charles Darwin "the origin of species" lies next to my bed. But that's a book with a whopping 550 pages, so that will probably take a bit longer. My main concern was that I would think I would move to slow, so when I would be reading Darwin's book I would think to myself "am I not wasting too much time on this book, couldn't I be reading something else". But that's just your brain coming up with excuses.

But I think I'm starting to see the point of speedreading, it's just a tool that will allows you to skip the boring or unncessary parts. Whereas with classical reading you would have read those lines.

[Jani]

You can't read 1000 WPM without skimming text.
900 WPM is the max and still reading every word. That's the max what our mind can process in one minute. So, it's BS that you can read faster than that with perfect comprehension.

Think about it, you don't learn how to read at school. So, you can improve your rate of reading tremendously.

The two techniques that improved my reading speed the most are:
- Reading in concepts / paragraphs; not in sentences. You need to remember the concepts, not the words of a book.
- Eliminate subvocalization

I have a rate around 500 - 600 WPM in English, not my native language. That's the double of the average reading speed. I'm happy about it.

The technique where I could improve the most is reading more words per block. At the moment, I find this difficult because it interrupt with my reading flow. I once saw in a video of Rich Schefren that he had a pdf reader with a speed reading function; that highlighted automatically block of words. But I never found such a pdf reader. =/

[Tobias]

Halo: What you are saying is very usefull advice for beginners lime myself but not accurate: good speed readers do read mutiple lines at the same. I know someone who can do that. And it does not logically follow that you have to read every word multiple times when you read multiple lines at the same time. In fact, Tony Buzan - the God of Speed Reading and Mind Maps- suggests to read multiple lines at the same time.

[Mark]

(06-07-2012 03:26 AM)Traindom Wrote:  Mark: At this point, do you still buy actual books or do you find yourself buying ebooks and reading them on a Kindle? I imagine that there must be some books that are worth getting in paperback or hardcover.

I buy almost exclusively Kindle and read them on my iPad, mostly because I'm constantly traveling. I do still enjoy a good paper and glue book though.

Back in the day when I was broke, I'd go to the book store on a Saturday afternoon, hunt for a good short book, read it in the bookstore in a couple hours and then put it back on the shelf.

[questra]

I read the exact Tony Buzan book and have had some practice speedreading. Attended a short training on speedreading too.

Apparently the theory of how the ultra speedreaders read so fast is that they process huge chunks of text with one glance/sweep of the eye. This is non-linear reading, but letting the mind make sense of chunks of text (multiple lines, multiple words). An example of how the eye/mind would be able to read across multiple lines is when reading traditional music notation - there's both treble/bass clef to read at the same time, with multiple notes on each clef - skilled musicians can pull this off. I guess another way to put it would be - reading with peripheral vision, rather than focusing on each word.

Like Jani said - common reading speed for a college graduate is about 300 words per minute. I probably average about 400 words per minute so the speed reading techniques didn't do any super wonders for me. But it's a speed I'm very comfortable with. Plus, if I really need to skim a text at top speed - I can always push that faster. When reading for enjoyment/beautiful writing - I tend to slow down and enjoy the words though.

For me, still the most crucial part in getting speed up is practicing reading more and more.

[Traindom]

(06-07-2012 03:41 PM)Mark Wrote:  

(06-07-2012 03:26 AM)Traindom Wrote:  Mark: At this point, do you still buy actual books or do you find yourself buying ebooks and reading them on a Kindle? I imagine that there must be some books that are worth getting in paperback or hardcover.

I buy almost exclusively Kindle and read them on my iPad, mostly because I'm constantly traveling. I do still enjoy a good paper and glue book though.

Back in the day when I was broke, I'd go to the book store on a Saturday afternoon, hunt for a good short book, read it in the bookstore in a couple hours and then put it back on the shelf.

Awesome. I imagine reading books on a tablet is much more preferable to reading them on a laptop or a cell phone. It's more portable than a laptop and its screen is much bigger than a cell phone screen.

And lol. I feel guilty for skimming magazines at the check-out areas of supermarkets, heh.

[WhoIsDaveGalt]

It's amazing that the 'speed reading' myth has gone on so long. JFK never read 1200 words per minute. This figure was just an off-the-cuff answer he gave when questioned about his reading. It's true he took the Evelyn Wood course, but he never finished it, and never tested his speed and comprehension. According to a detailed study of speed reading (The Causes of High And Low Reading Achievement, by Ronald P. Carver), JFK's reading speed was probably 500-600 wpm.

The Evelyn Wood course was a scam based on improving your 'effective' reading rate. And this was measured with comprehension tests. The final test was just simpler than the initial test. You could probably pass it without even reading the material. But in Evelyn's defense, she had no say in how the course was conducted. The course she created went broke in the first year, and it was the buyers of her business that started making the wild claims of possible reading speeds. They even made up the story about Evelyn 'discovering' the method of sweeping your hand across the page when she brushed off the pages of a book she had thrown to the ground when she was discouraged with her attempts at reading fast. This just never happened, and yet it is the foundation for all the finger-waving patterns espoused by so many courses today.

No one really reads faster than about 800 wpm. Reading is comprehension. Without comprehension, it is not reading, but simply recognizing words... a computer can do that. It's true there are savants who indeed can read thousands of words per minute. But these are 'idiot' savants--even though they can even recite back what they read, they didn't really 'comprehend' it. Their brains are like recorders that can collect and retain data but not really understand the information. That is, you couldn't really have a conversation with them about it. In the end, anyone who 'reads' 1,000 wpm is skimming. There's nothing wrong with skimming; it's an important efficiency technique. But it's not reading. If you only comprehend 50%, then you only 'read' 50%. So what you called 1,000 wpm was really only 500 wpm.

It makes no sense to try to read faster than you can comprehend. Reading IS comprehension. That is why your reading speed changes with the difficulty of the material. The real reading takes place, not when you recognize the words, but when you assimilate the new information with your existing knowledge. More new information--slower assimilation. And less existing knowledge--slower assimilation. It's a process of taking new info and sticking it the the old info, and it takes time... sometimes more, sometimes less. But reading without assimilating the new information is like reading with the lights off in your brain.

The one method for comprehending faster is to read whole thoughts at a time, by looking at groups of words and visualizing them as ideas rather than listening to the text as a string of words. It has been known for over 100 years that fast readers read in word-groups. Louis Émile Javal discovered this in the late 1800's with a photographic method to detecting how readers moved their eyes. It was a complete surprise at the time, because up until then everyone simply 'knew' that readers had to look at each letter. The problem was, this discovery lead to attempts to emulate the symptoms of fast reading rather than the cause, by suggesting readers learn to widen their 'eye-span'. The cause was not that they could 'see' more words at a time, but they could 'understand' more words at a time.

Understanding groups of words at a time is only possible if the groups are meaningful on their own. Sentences are usually made of several separate 'thought-units. Each thought-unit is a meaningful piece of information, and it can be visualized as a unique idea on its own. This visualizing will take the place of verbalizing the words, and it will make comprehension easier, and make it easier to maintain concentration. It takes practice to learn to read ideas instead of words, and it's certainly not going to apply to all types of reading. There is a free web site though that can show how this can be learned. Take a look at http://www.readspeeder.com if you're interested in trying this.

[crazyhorse]

(06-08-2012 11:42 AM)WhoIsDaveGalt Wrote:  It's amazing that the 'speed reading' myth has gone on so long. JFK never read 1200 words per minute. This figure was just an off-the-cuff answer he gave when questioned about his reading. It's true he took the Evelyn Wood course, but he never finished it, and never tested his speed and comprehension. According to a detailed study of speed reading (The Causes of High And Low Reading Achievement, by Ronald P. Carver), JFK's reading speed was probably 500-600 wpm.

The Evelyn Wood course was a scam based on improving your 'effective' reading rate. And this was measured with comprehension tests. The final test was just simpler than the initial test. You could probably pass it without even reading the material. But in Evelyn's defense, she had no say in how the course was conducted. The course she created went broke in the first year, and it was the buyers of her business that started making the wild claims of possible reading speeds. They even made up the story about Evelyn 'discovering' the method of sweeping your hand across the page when she brushed off the pages of a book she had thrown to the ground when she was discouraged with her attempts at reading fast. This just never happened, and yet it is the foundation for all the finger-waving patterns espoused by so many courses today.

No one really reads faster than about 800 wpm. Reading is comprehension. Without comprehension, it is not reading, but simply recognizing words... a computer can do that. It's true there are savants who indeed can read thousands of words per minute. But these are 'idiot' savants--even though they can even recite back what they read, they didn't really 'comprehend' it. Their brains are like recorders that can collect and retain data but not really understand the information. That is, you couldn't really have a conversation with them about it. In the end, anyone who 'reads' 1,000 wpm is skimming. There's nothing wrong with skimming; it's an important efficiency technique. But it's not reading. If you only comprehend 50%, then you only 'read' 50%. So what you called 1,000 wpm was really only 500 wpm.

It makes no sense to try to read faster than you can comprehend. Reading IS comprehension. That is why your reading speed changes with the difficulty of the material. The real reading takes place, not when you recognize the words, but when you assimilate the new information with your existing knowledge. More new information--slower assimilation. And less existing knowledge--slower assimilation. It's a process of taking new info and sticking it the the old info, and it takes time... sometimes more, sometimes less. But reading without assimilating the new information is like reading with the lights off in your brain.

The one method for comprehending faster is to read whole thoughts at a time, by looking at groups of words and visualizing them as ideas rather than listening to the text as a string of words. It has been known for over 100 years that fast readers read in word-groups. Louis Émile Javal discovered this in the late 1800's with a photographic method to detecting how readers moved their eyes. It was a complete surprise at the time, because up until then everyone simply 'knew' that readers had to look at each letter. The problem was, this discovery lead to attempts to emulate the symptoms of fast reading rather than the cause, by suggesting readers learn to widen their 'eye-span'. The cause was not that they could 'see' more words at a time, but they could 'understand' more words at a time.

Understanding groups of words at a time is only possible if the groups are meaningful on their own. Sentences are usually made of several separate 'thought-units. Each thought-unit is a meaningful piece of information, and it can be visualized as a unique idea on its own. This visualizing will take the place of verbalizing the words, and it will make comprehension easier, and make it easier to maintain concentration. It takes practice to learn to read ideas instead of words, and it's certainly not going to apply to all types of reading. There is a free web site though that can show how this can be learned. Take a look at http://www.readspeeder.com if you're interested in trying this.

Hey man

thanks for the reply. Yeah I guessed that a lot of it was basically a myth. It's amazing how much material there is out there that is basically false.

What I don't get is this course that you're recommending to me. I mean that looks a lot like one of these that I've tried.

You also have one post on this forum. Are you sure you arn't trying to sell something here?

[Jani]

It's easier said than done. How can you know what the thought-units are before you read the sentence??
I did one exercise on the site you recommended, it's easy if the sentences are already broken down in thought-units. But if not, you just need to read word for word but think / visualize in thought-units.

[WhoIsDaveGalt]

It's true there are several places that 'chunk' words for you. But they only can divide the text based on a set number or words or a character count. This produces a lot of disjointed, meaningless phrases... impossible to make sense of on their own. The readspeeder site is unique because it actually breaks the sentences into MEANINGFUL word-groups. Real thought-units are much easier to read and understand at a glance.

An no, I'm not trying to sell anything. It's free!

---

Jani, yes it is easier said than done. Saying things is usually easier than doing them.

But learning to read thought-units IS easier if done in stages. By first learning to see and visualize whole ideas at a time, it will then be easier for you to begin seeing normal text in meaningful groups. But trying to learn both skills at the same time would be much harder. That is why readspeeder is designed to slowly remove the amount of assistance until you are reading normal text on your own.

The key is to learn to read 'visually', to see the ideas as you read. This is easier at first when the ideas are separated into thought-units for you. Then when you concentrate on visualizing the ideas as you read regular material, you will naturally pick out the meaningful groups of words because you can't visualize single words or whole sentences.

I just think it's a shame that all the speed reading scams have conditioned people to expect some get-smart-quick scheme. Unfortunately, like most important things, it takes work to master this skill. Good tools and techniques can reduce this work, but it still takes time. However it seems a lot of people have adopted the Bart Simpson school of thought, "It was hard, so I quit."

[Jani]

I guess you're the owner of that site??
I must say, it's pretty awesome. You certainly have a follower more on your blog.

[Traindom]

Cool site! I loved your posts. They were very informative. I love people who dispel myths or misapprehensions. I appreciate the effort. I'm going to check out the site too!

[juggernaut92]

I do some exercises in this software program called eyeQ. My wpm are steadily increasing. So if you really want to increase reading speed you could check that out.