Talk:Speed Reading

Regarding the highlighted text:
 * *This wikibook is a resurrection of a previous version of a wikipedia article speed reading that was rejected as being un-encyclopedic, obtuse, woolly thinking, and bad advice on the whole. But at least reading this wikibook will be cheaper than attending a course!

Hey McPhearson et al, Reading the idiotic and feable-minded comments of a few "less than average IQ" posters here is very similar to the pain I feel in my brain after I inadvertently inhale to much ice. I believe it is what you would call a brain freeze. Some of these morons on here are very clearly bitter toward anyone with the ability to finish his reading in a shorter period of time. I would say to that person, go finish that book you have been reading the past 12 months, and stay the hell off of this site! What a moron. If you spent a few hundred bucks on some software that you saw advertised about 3 am, right after the girls gone wild video, then all I can say is your problem, your money, you should have just spent 10 bucks on the soft porn, and you clearly are an idiot to get suckered into some stupid scammers statements. I would expect you also buy the "virus software" that popped up on your screen stating you had 3,000 viruses and click here to buy the fix. Idiot either way. I assume you are also the one that added in the main, er book? that you are mildly retarded, or at least mildly autistic. Friend, I would say after reading your comments that there is nothing mild about your condition, except the doctor that claimed it was only mild. I can tell you with 100% certainty it is full blown retardation, and nothing mild about it. For the rest of us, we will continue taking advantage of "all methods and speeds" of absorbing printed information, and you can continue on your pathetic way. Good luck with that romance novel you've been reading since Christmas of 2009. Oh, and by the way, unfortunately for you, and your archaic method of "reading" you spend at least an hour reading the "wikibook" that you commented was total garbage.....huh, interesting. But hey, at least you will remember how awful and useless the facts in it were for the rest of your life. Me, I happily read it in about 2 minutes, and will remember everything I wanted to out of it. Essentially, that there are still very ignorant persons out their that are still utilizing theories that went out of commission in 1910, and that fortunately there were a couple, if only that, of beneficial statements about the many many advantageous ways to take in information, and reading and comprehending at a much higher rate of 250 wpm is one that persons without your condition of mild, er, major retardation, utilize every single day of our enlightened life. Sorry, this must have taken you at least 2 hours to read. I'll shorten it for you next time. The one positive is that by the time you are done reading this you will have memorized it in you long term thus maybe 20 years from now on your 100th, you may understand. 24.10.20.162 (discuss) 23:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * They sent me to college full time when I was 13 due in large part to my ability to read extremely rapidly. This is how I learned how to do it.  I have been teaching people how to do it for 26 years.  Unfortunately, there remain feebleminded people who seem to consider that the mental limitations, limited experience, and limited understanding they are saddled with aclpply to everybody, and they like to deface things as above while wholeheartedly believing that they are contributing to society by doing so.


 * Rapid visual reading is not about reading to ace comprehension tests. A "speed reader's" brain is ploughing through enormous amounts of information at high speeds, and making sense out of it.  The primary idea of rapid visually oriented reading is to look at information, qualify it, search it, or classify it.  Typically one pass through information reading at "normal" speeds is not enough to remember most of what a person has read.  The same applies to speed reading.  One advantage of speed reading is that a reader can read the same material 4 times over in the same time it takes a person reading it at "normal" speeds.  Do you think a person who reads something four times over in the same amount of time has an advantage in understanding?  Try it yourself.  Just remember that practice is required to develop a skill.


 * This material is surprisingly hard to write about:
 * It is hard to describe mental processes within one's own brain or the reports of others with no or minimal references to rely upon from commonly shared experience. Keep in mind that none of the people that were "natural" speed readers interviewed by Evelyn Wood could describe how they did what they did.  Groping, often feeble attempts at describing something outside of common experience are often gawked at as "obtuse or woolly thinking".  If you actually saw me or someone like me in action cramming 105 pages of organic chemistry textbook in 20 minutes and then acing a college midterm using such skills, you would have a little more respect for the difficulty of putting such skills into words and be more prone to try to encourage it.
 * It is easy to leave out relevant information.... and often hard to know what to put in place of something even when you know you are leaving something out.
 * -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 10:43, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

If you think the statement in bold is feeble minded, just take a look at the module in question. The reason it is difficult to write about is because it will not make logical, practical, or intuitive sense to anyone reading it at under 300wpm (reading for comprehension). It just does not make practical sense and passing an exam on short term memory is nonsense and it is not a skill that people need. People want to understand and remember what they read long term. If they don't they are gonna look a pretty dumb in the long term. N.Raja 05:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Not everything needs to be read for the long term. Here is a case example: you are given a stack of books four feet high and told that somewhere in that stack is a peice of information that an engineer misunderstood and implimented his misunderstanding in his project.  You have two days to find the problem.  How you gonna do it?  You don't have to read that pile to memorize it, you need to read it to sift the information, looking for something that does not synch with how that engineer actually implemented his project.  The only way to solve that problem is with developed speed reading skills.  I know, because I have been in that situation on multiple occasions, and come through.  You can't use skimming or scanning to find a problem like one single control bit inverted because some chinese author inverted a sentence structure - you have to be aware of the structure of the every sentence in that four foot thick pile to spot a glitch like that. -- Jim Whitaker 4.227.195.115 12:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone give such an exercise? If they know the fact is in there, why not point you at where it is?  Otherwise you could read the whole thing, and find they mistaken ... the thing you looking for is not in fact in there. AlMac 14:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, this is actually an extremely hypothetical, plus even more rarely occuring, situation. It is not worth the trouble of regular speed reading practice to cover this base. Plus, skimming and scanning will make a better job of it. You have already dug yourself into a hole. How come normal everyday researchers at research establishments, law associations, and universities are able to cope with this kind of situation without ever having to enrol in any sort of speed reading course? I'll tell you. Its because the natural processes of reading (including educated guesses at where the information is hiding, and scanning and skimming) will enable the solution. Plus, skimming is better for digging out details. Speed reading trains you to ignore details. If you are looking through Chinese texts, it will probably be for legal reasons of contract. Details are essential. Either way, speed reading is a great way to train yourself to be ignorant. N.Raja 14:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Speed Reading Research
Okay, so since you have taught speed reading for 26 years and after reading this Wiki entry, I feel it was a good overview, but not fully complete. What book/reference material would you recommend to someone who is researching all the different styles of speed reading? Is there anything out there? What book/self-study guide is the best in the speed reading field to learn from in your opinion?

Thanks


 * There are no generally accepted books that will define the best methods for speed reading. But a good way to find sources is to compare what has been posted on wikipedi in terms of references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_reading.


 * One good source is any paper or book written by R.Carver et al. These chaps have researched reading rate at the highest level for years, and have been constantly verifying their findings.  Theirs is an extremely thorough approach, and a good baseline for doing any research on reading ability and rate.


 * Beyond that, (and for interesting contrast) there are the speed reading books usually sold on the popular psychology sections of bookstores, and more cheaply in the psychology sections of libraries. You will notice the difference between these two sources.  The former scholarly research investigates reading rate and goes through a great deal of peer scrutiny, whereas the speed reading manuals generally disagree with each other in every sense and even contradict themselves throughout (similar to this wikibook as it stands).


 * The one thing I am intrigued by is the level of misconception, self deception, and non comprehension of speed readers, as is evident in this wikibook. It is utterly fascinating how people can be so innacurate regarding their own level of ability or understanding.  I am doing research in this area, and speed reading is a very rich source for collecting data about self deception in general, especially in the inability to accept the facts.  Very useful for understanding metacognition.


 * As a researcher, I've no intention to insult anyone here. If you feel your version of speed reading is good for humanity, go ahead and spread the word. People will take it or leave it as they wish. RegardsThaumaturge 09:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * To respond to the first question above: most of the material out there on speed reading is absolutely pathetic. It is almost all complete hype.  (The classic example of pure hype is "Mega Speed Reading" which basically says "read faster, read faster, now READ EVEN FASTER".  See, how you are a speed reader!  They charge something like 60 or 80 bucks for a set of cassette tapes... Wonderful....)  Most of the people providing feedback about this article are people for whom such systems have failed....  The only good material I can think of was published in the 1970's (some of which I attempted to recapture in this wikibook) and cannot be found these days.  I cannot recommend ANYTHING out there in current publication, which is why I put this material in this wikibook together.  The best place to learn high speed reading skills from is to study someone who developed their own system that works, experiment with reading methods, but ultimately to develop your own style, or to completely abandon the whole notion if you don't have the "right kind of brain" to make use of speed reading skills.  It is impossible to give a complete run down of a viable speed reading system because so much depends upon the individuals own abilities.  An author can only put into words what people have been able to put into words about the ways that their brains seem to work.  It is impossible to impart mental abilities in a ten page article, and impossible to put together such a description that will appease all students of psychology who will sit there and pick away at it to find ways to claim it is nonsense because it doesn't "agree" with "accepted" assumptions about how the brain works.  Some of the writing in this wikibook needs a fair amount of work, such as the section I just rewrote on "Cognitive Window" which was somewhat confusing in it's previous incarnation.  -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 05:54, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * To the second author, the researcher, I am seriously interested in what you see as self-contradictory or self-deceptive in this wikibook, because I will most certainly iron such out and clean it up. It is probably just bad writing rather than self-contradiction.  I haven't gotten any constructive criticism on this material yet, so it is sort of sitting there.... uncorrected and waiting for real feedback.


 * Another thing to point out, mental abilities vary enormously across the population. For example, I have an IQ in the seven to eight sigma range.  I was sent to college full time when I was 13.  Systems that work for me don't work well for others.  I am known for lightning fast cognitive faculties, and reading at speed reading rates is a natural extension of that.  I have been using speed reading skills since I was 11 years old (and teaching wide eyed people I encounter who want to learn how to do it), and it is not uncommon for me to pick up a four foot high stack of technical manuals to isolate some misunderstanding of some engineer that has screwed up a project.  To date I have a 100% hit rate in finding such things while reading at often 10K-20K WPM.  I don't read that kind of stuff to "remember" what I read (when I was a teenager I tried to "memorize" an encyclopedia and quickly learned the error of my ways - but at least I didn't waste a lot of time trying to do it :-) ), I read stacks of manuals and such to compare the information I see in the text with what I already know (or assume).  I have no self deceptions about my reading abilities, they have been tested consistently and thoroughly since I was 11.  Your reading researchers, quite frankly, are concentrating on people with IQ's of 100....  Not having read their material, but having some exposure to their conclusions, I feel safe in assuming that they are making an enormous number of flawed assumptions: about what reading is, what reading can be, and what it means to understand something.  A person doesn't have to remember what they are reading in order to recognize and evaluate ideas in printed text -- the assumption to the contrary is a fundamental flaw in their methodology.  -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 05:54, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If anyone has ideas of how to expand this article, or specific ideas of shortcomings, you are welcome to put suggestions here for others such as myself to embellish (or reject), or introduce them into the text... -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 12:12, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think this article has only one shortcoming; The words.

It is truly the dumbest lot of tripe I have ever read about improving reading. The good news is that it is so unconvincing, it is unlikely to get anyone into trouble, chasing their tails to "forget everything after tests".

If speed reading is incompatible with long term memory, then there is absolutely no point whatsoever in training yourself to do it. Long term memory is crucial for learning, scanning data, thinking, and using the brain for any useful task. You have a really dopey idea of long term memory, AND you like to promote activities that have no value to people whatsoever. You make some attempt to sell it using hype, but really the logic is so absurd, it could be comedy. Just get a life and read books properly. That way you will actually understand them. Mcphearson 04:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You miss the point. The point being that people are out on the web looking for information about speed reading and how to do it.  No on in their right mind claims that speed reading is about improving reading.  It is a tool to allow you to rapidly process lots of information as rapidly as your brain can do it.  It's shortcomings are spelled out rather clearly, I think. - Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 03:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

You have not pointed out shortcomings so much as differentiated speed reading further from reading (and made it sound useless to anyone with a brain). You have hyped speed reading into a magical technique for passing exams without having to attend. But the fact is, your prescriptions are totally conflicting to the point of idiocy. I have noticed that your original article was very different from the present one in its explanation and terminology. But no matter how much blowing with the wind you do, you just don't seem to be able to make any sense. But that's not so much your fault. The fact is, speed reading does not make sense either. Mcphearson 03:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Anybody who uses speed reading alone in the expectation of passing a college level examination gets what he deserves. Once in a while, it works.  And yes, the terminology didn't so much change as it got deleted because so many people didn't think it was "mainstream" enough, so I toned this down to be a little more like mainstream speed reading "dogma".  My older versions attempted to explain how things worked in the brain at high speed and how to control the runaway mental processes of speed reading.  It got flamed repeatedly to the point that I figured someone else would go in and purge the article of my ideas, so I did it first.  They are still there in the older versions for anyone who wants to dig through the history of this article as you did. -- Jim Whitaker 4.227.247.178 06:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, like I said, your success story at the bottom of the article is like one of those speed reading adverts that screams at you that you don't need to study and long term learning is unimportant. The whole book really doesn't stand up to even basic logic. Mcphearson 10:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Who ever said anything about "logic"? This is speed reading!  The point is to introduce people to a different way of thinking and reading.  It works for some people, when they use the skill judiciously and are familiar with its weaknesses.  The story at the bottom of the page is unusual, showing how it has sometimes been used in desperate situations. -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 03:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. The inconsistencies are probably too many to list in one go. But I can start with the practical options. You state that skimming and scanning are distinct from speed reading, but your description of the action and results of speed reading exactly matches the action and result of skimming and scanning. That is contradictory.

I can tell you that they are distinct. However, you are stating that speed reading is superior. Skimming and scanning can be achieved by ANYONE in a short time with NO REGULAR PRACTICE whatsoever, and NO REDUCTION IN THE ABILITY TO JUDGE COMPREHENSION and more useful for extracting details from text. Speed reading (as you are promoting it) requires regular practice, only some people are capable, and as the research shows, it results in reduced ability to judge comprehension. As ability to judge comprehension level is crucial for even barely competent reading, surely speed reading is a terrible way to train your mind. And as flexible reading is the most important factor in work, study etc, surely skimming and scanning will be more appropriate.

You infer that people are amazed at their results when they learn speed reading, and that this is a distinguishing feature. The same is true when you show someone how to scan for the first time. They are reading at 1000 to 10000wpm plus and getting an overview of the main concepts, and realizing that their comprehension level is low, but still being amazed at their results.

In these first three examples, skimming and scanning are not self deluding practices. Speed reading (and its related theories) is consistently deceptive and the pseudo(pretend)scientific theories support the self delusion. Thaumaturge 7 July 2005 07:20 (UTC)


 * I concur. The good thing about these wikibooks is that someone with sense and knowledge is curious enough to read and  state the obvious about where the absurdities lie (ie, speed reading).  After trying hard throughout my job and degree and in practice training, I have discovered that ANY kind of speed reading is just poison for the mind.  It makes novels less interesting, work reading full of holes, and exam results shrink.  It feels great for a while to be able to glide over the page with smooth speed and feel like you are going somewhere fast.  But then you test yourself with the most realistic comprehension test possible (exams, work, and conversation about the material with other knowledgable people) and you find this kind of reading will consistently let you down time and time again. It is no surprise (and very reassuring) that people have been sued for making even moderate claims about speed reading. And yes, I have used the methods pushed in this wikibook, and stating that some people are incapable is just the most ridiculous excuse I have heard, it is backed up with dodgy nlp theory, and it is inconsistent with the findings of reading research and psychology.  Speed reading is EXTREMELY limited in usefulness.  And it sets up so many bad reading habits it should be avoided like the plague.  The only possible thing you can use it for is the most pulpy and useless reading materials known to man.  That may be 90% fluff, but normal writing is at least 90% meaningful.  Normal text requires a good level of comprehension to get the gist of and understand in a useful way.


 * Here is some repeated advice to save any newbie a lot of time and effort: Just focus on good comprehension as a good workhorse level of reading, good imaginative study strategy, and a very very very small and focused amount of skimming, rather than mind limiting speed reading (and for overview purposes only).  Authopten 08:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

After reading through the article I can't see why the other comments here are making such a big deal with the article. The article does not make any preposterous claims and the discussions about how useful speed reading is seem to be rather irrelevant. What I gather from this is that, speed reading, as explained here, is a tool for information synthesis and retrieval, not for information storage (memorization). I can certainly see a use for accelerated information synthesis.

On the article: the last "success story" at the end does indeed feel a bit out of place, and rather biased. Some of the referenced links seem a little dubious as well; as they show the same type of reading speed hype commonly found in popular literature on the subject.


 * What on earth is wrong with being biased? This is a how-to booklet on speed reading, not wikipedia - thank God.  In this context, virtually anything goes.  Metaphorman 04:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly be interested in links to academic research on the subject instead.


 * What you will find is a lot of derision about how speed reading and academics aren't a good mix and suggestions by some about what to do when you are faced with overwhelming amounts of reading to do. Probably the best selection of reading is on a link on the wikipedia page: Study skills page with dozens of reading and rapid reading links which I am adding to the links at the end of this wikibook.  Metaphorman 04:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Clean up
Can this be divided up into subpages for easier reading? Pufferfish101 03:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that it is sequential in nature, building on what preceeds it, my answer is "not really" Metaphorman 04:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I've not yet made up my mind about the material here, but working in the IT field, and being able to absorb (and apply) more material at up to 2000wpm than most of my colleagues are able to absorb (let alone apply) at the commonly accepted deep-reading speed of 100-400wpm (300wpm is as slow as I am able to go without losing focus and comprehension), I do not automatically discount your claims.

I'd like to thank you for putting up this page, as it makes for interesting reading anyway, and must have constituted a lot of work. Let the reader beware and make up their own mind based on whether it works for them.

Zuiram 23:06, 22 October 2006 (MET/DST)


 * After having examined the article more closely, I've found that it does a fair job of expressing how I normally read, with the exception that I haven't yet mastered assimilating several lines at a time, and that I haven't been using my glasses as I should.
 * Zuiram 21:21, 23 October 2006 (MET/DST)


 * I'm also one of the people trying to make up my mind on how to improve my reading speeds. Thanks for the text. A funny note about comment above: The time difference between them is almost a day. 84.42.184.28 (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Worst Wikipedia article I've ever seen
Is there a single Wikipedia rule that this monolith of nonsense doesn't break?

+1. Same here. Generally, Wikipedia can probably get one person to just clean out the speedreading garbage from all wiki sites. Never read so many scientifically rejected theories on one page. But as long as there are people out there that look for the quick fix instead of the real skill, we will have to live with this. No reason to be bitter about it, though. 84.63.58.109 (discuss) 15:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)