Studies challenge legitimacy of speed reading

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You can make all the suggestions you want, Dustin has made a decision - like the CTers and the Scooby/DJs- and all the counter data in the world is not going to change his/their minds. I ASSUME that someone over/important to him at some point in his life made fun of him for his reading or praised someone who he envied for their reading or even misapplied reading speed to intelligence to his detriment since this is not an area where there is normally much controversy, yet he has latched on to one study which shows something already known BUT does not go from that to what is also known that can quickly overcome that: yes, when most people learn to read they are concentrating on a very small area - but the eyes can actually see - at one time - about 170 degrees (including peripheral) and 90+degrees clearly. That is quite wide enough at normal reading distance to encompass a page or two and then it is just a matter of learning to make the brain work a bit better at processing what the eye sees (eliminating sub-vocalization is a BIG step towards that since sub v. almost forces the eyes to look at smaller groups of letters/words). I decided during the last run at this that it is pointless to argue with Dustin so I am just passing this on and otherwise won't bother - by the by there is an earlier thread on this where Dustin also printed out a thing or two to demonstrate what several thousand words looks like. If he is doing it for my sake, it is a waste of time. I know what several thousand word looks like - I have been reading since I was three (60 now) and teaching (for pay) about 35 years on and off. (Please feel free to tell me no three year old can read.)

Not only does common sense show that reading that much in that amount of time is simply impossible, So do numerous scientific studies.

It seems to me that you're making things up in a desperate attempt to feel special. Well since the scientists say it's impossible and since common sense says it's impossible, you might just qualify to take the $1,000,000 with your "super human" reading skills. How about it?

 

[Modified]

Lets try another online test... http://www.turboread.com/Ok on this poorly written titanic one ...

I just read the Titanic article aloud at 353 word per minute the first time through. If I didn't need to breathe I could do a bit better.

 

[drkitten]

Well, with ``junk like that'', I got bored after skimming the first paragraph, scrolled down, clocked 1432 wpm for a speed, and managed a 91% ``comprehension'' just by guessing what they were after. So...

Which more or less disproves Dustin's point.

What do you think speed-reading is? It's specifically about not bothering to read every word, because much of the writing can be grasped from contextual anchors.

The cited research suggests that people can, physically, look at about 300 wpm. Accepting this at face value, that doesn't mean that people must therefore take at least two minutes to read a 600-word article. They can read 300 words -- but which 300?

As Legge points out, people jump around in texts. They don't read consecutive words. Simply by not reading prepositions (almost all of which can be inferred from context) -- by not jumping to where your peripheral vision tells you there is a preposition (which are easily recognizable by their length, even with peripheral vision) -- you can probably add 10-20% to your reading speed.

I'm afraid that Dustin's interpretation of the research simply doesn't hold up.

 

[rudar]

Sure; I've done ``useful'' speed-reading when re-reading a book I had read before but needed to refresh myself on the form of the argument. Glancing at the first sentence of each paragraph was enough to re-build the general shape of their argument in my mind, and I rushed through two or three hundred pages in a couple of hours. I probably couldn't attain that level of speeding on my first read through a book, nor on one that wasn't structured in a very topic-sentence-explanation-new-paragraph sort of way.

My point in posting my stats from the online test was that assessing ``reading comprehension'' is also difficult, and merely by knowing that that's a site selling software, I could figure what they thought the ``right'' answers were, without having read any of the text I was supposedly comprehending and remembering. So any stats from such things on how well you're comprehending the text you're speed reading are completely meaningless. I didn't read the titanic one, but considering we all know a fair bit about the titanic already, I'd hazard one could probably score well on that comprehension test without reading the article, too.

 

[Irony]

Sure, if you actually pause to focus your eye on every single word, read every single to, the, and of, and sound out the words in your head you'll have trouble reading over 300 wpm.

Speed readers don't bend the laws of physics, they just read more efficiently.

 

[Cuddles]

A couple of my parent's friends got into speed reading, with all funny techniques for scanning pages in different ways and picking out important words. They were really disappointed when they found out that I still read at least three times faster than them while reading every single word in order. Personally I can't see the point of speed reading. The whole point of reading is that you're supposed to enjoy it. If you're going to skip through a book at 10 times normal speed without reading 2/3 of the words, why would you bother reading it in the first place?

 

[murphyr]

I didn't read the titanic one, but considering we all know a fair bit about the titanic already, I'd hazard one could probably score well on that comprehension test without reading the article, too.

The content is a bit more obscure than most people are probably familiar with, but you could control for that by just filling the story with lies, couldn't you?

Alternate possibility -- you're one of those people who is quite happy drawing their own conclusions based on limited information, and then simply dismissing all other claims without bothering to test them, since they don't fit your personal theory and are therefore, by definition, "wrong".

All you gave was your anecdotal assessment of how well you do something and how well the people around you do the same thing. The possibility of you misassessing your abilities exists, which I think was all he was pointing out. I'd be open to it being possible that you can read faster than this one article claims, but you would, as you suggest, have to test for it under controlled conditions.

 

[Dave1001]

A couple of my parent's friends got into speed reading, with all funny techniques for scanning pages in different ways and picking out important words. They were really disappointed when they found out that I still read at least three times faster than them while reading every single word in order. Personally I can't see the point of speed reading. The whole point of reading is that you're supposed to enjoy it. If you're going to skip through a book at 10 times normal speed without reading 2/3 of the words, why would you bother reading it in the first place?

The whole point of reading is not always that you're supposed to enjoy it. It would be very useful to be able to read 20,000 words per minute, including of fresh technical writings in a field that's new to the reader. But are variations of that possible? I'm actually intuitively open to it being possible -not necessarily for the person of median intelligence, but for very smart people (or for very positively deviant people in terms of reading ability). But what does the empirical evidence say?

I'm hoping that scientists in this field (which would be called what?) have a more developed vocabulary capturing the various distinctions in types of reading, types of reading speed, and types of material to be read than do the participants in this thread.

 

[Dave1001]

The content is a bit more obscure than most people are probably familiar with, but you could control for that by just filling the story with lies, couldn't you?

Great point. That's why I love this message board (and would love to cull the best participants to a new one). I think that would be a good control. Also one could control by simply giving the same test before and after the reading. Or to a control group that never reads it, and a group that does read it. etc.

All you gave was your anecdotal assessment of how well you do something and how well the people around you do the same thing. The possibility of you misassessing your abilities exists, which I think was all he was pointing out. I'd be open to it being possible that you can read faster than this one article claims, but you would, as you suggest, have to test for it under controlled conditions.

thank you. another empiricism/scientific method nerd.

 

[jimbob]

As in a "Where's Waldo" puzzle, crowded objects limit our ability to find targets in the visual scene.

Motter, along with his colleague, Diglio Simoni, looked specifically at people's ability to search for images on a computer screen. They showed that the proximity of objects that surround what a viewer is trying to focus on also determines how quickly a viewer can search out the target object.

But text is *structured* so the layout can *help* pick out images. It is not the same as a "Where's Wally/Waldo" problem.

I am sure that I use my peripheral vision and context to prime myself for what the words are probably going to be...

I would find it hard to believe that people can only read at about twice the speed of a fast typist.

Or indeed the fastest talker

I Hold the current World Record for fast talking, I can speak at 637 words per minute, which is 10.25 words per second.

Check it out in the 1999 Guiness Book of World records

These online tests are probably conservative, as it is far easier to read 900dpi print than text on a screen, which is why I print out so much at work, as it is so much easier to absorb information from paper.

For me, speed opf reading is dependent on a good clear typeface and firmatting, including justified paragraphs and short sentances.

As murphyr says, there is no controlled evidence, just many people stating similar speeds, but from my personal
experience I do not find claims of 1000 wpm to be unbelievable at all.


When I was at secondary school we had some test on our reading speed, and was measured at 800-odd wpm with 80% comprehension. I did have a serious book habit as a kid, probably because I developed a speed reading technique by chance... I am *bad* at reading aloud, as I only recognise shapes of words, and if I come across an unfamiliar name will just make an approximation without stoppiog to sound it out. I also jump about the page, so sometimes come to a dead stop whilst I refind where my miouth is...

I am also pish at proof reading, unless I read really slowly.

Jim

 

[parrotslave]

In high school I signed up for an experimental reading class that they were using to try new techniques for learning. Part of it we got to use those speed reading machines. I made it my goal to max the machine out by the end of class. The teacher was pissed as hell at me and told me I wasn't really reading that fast, just skimming, despite getting 97% comprehension on the tests.

 

[fuelair]

You claim you can read 10,000 words per minute with about 80% comprehension? Here is your post copied and pasted over and over until it reaches 10,000 words. This is the amount of material you claim you can read every minute...




Wait, Don't tell me...Did you get your superpowers from a blast of gamma rays or martins?

How did you know about the martinis - that's a trade secret!!!



We have a small misunderstanding here, based on your comment slightly later. Where did you get the idea that I thought this (reading speed )made me special? There sre lot's of things about me that make me special, but the reading speed isn't one of them, it is just a tool to make learning quicker. I have described the training not with any goal of acclaim - any more than I would be looking for that over my weapons use skills, they are tools to help me accomplish real things that I wish/feel compelled to accomplish - and as a matter of fact, it specifically came up - in the first thread becuase you seemed annoyed that I read a lot. That is one of the ways I learn, and frankly I even find it difficult under most circumstances to sit down to eat or "watch" television without something to read (I have been -humorously_ harassed for reading cereal boxes when nothing else was available) and the speed simply lets me read more. Tool. (oh, if it isn't clear,
it's my knowledge of a large number of fields of interest that it serves and that I value).

 

[fuelair]

This really is my last post on this. It is me quoting myself in a response where you confused my stated reading speed with the 15 year old students'. In both cases you claimed i gave that as my speed. I never mentioned mine in this thread but you stated it as 10,000wpm and 80% comp - which was what the boys' was.
Here is mine again from that other thread - where I also point out that you are misstating what I said:

Dustin, where did I say I read at 8000wpm? I believe I said my top was 5500 -the kid I helped train was about twice my speed - but that is not 8000 either. I said 850 when first tested in elementary, around 1450 on testing when joining ASA staff and 5500 after training. In addition, I may have said something that milead you to believe I normally read at the higher rate(not sure what or where, but...), I normally read at 1000 to 1500 wpm - unless I am data mining. Reading above that takes the enjoyment of the words and their flow away (notice how people who talk very fast tend to sound monotonous - it's the same with words in print. You see them, you remember them, but you do not have time to construct a view in your mind.). I was giving the speedreading details because you seem upset that this skill exists. It is not magic, I am not superhuman - nor are people who have perfect pitch, or can remember perfectly every word on every page they see (I wish I had that one!) (eidetic memory, slipped by me at first).

Added as edit: I said 5500 because that is what my last timed reading at ASA was. Not 6000, not 5217 (They used blocks of 50 above 1000 for ease of math I assume). I believe in accuracy - in the use and selection of words, the use of numbers, and in my statements. I will now tell you something I always tell my students at the beginning of each year:" I will not bother lying to you." The astute among them -1 or 2 a year -will catch that this has a possible meaning/interpretation of "it is not a bother to lie to you" and I tell them truthfully-that one iis not what I mean. In all my years teaching, only one student caught it (the real meaning): to lie to someone, you must care enough (unless you are a pathological liar) about them/their attitude/ feelings about you to want to look better in their eyes. I do not.[/QUOTE/]

 

[Fnord]

I was tested in the Navy at about 600 wpm.

[DISCLAIMER]

The test results were averaged over a six-week period.

I can not recall any details of what I read, 12 years later.

I was virtually addicted to caffeine at the time.

I've groan mor stoopidder sinse then.

[/DISCLAIMER]

 

[Dave1001]

How did you know about the martinis - that's a trade secret!!!



We have a small misunderstanding here, based on your comment slightly later. Where did you get the idea that I thought this (reading speed )made me special? There sre lot's of things about me that make me special, but the reading speed isn't one of them, it is just a tool to make learning quicker. I have described the training not with any goal of acclaim - any more than I would be looking for that over my weapons use skills, they are tools to help me accomplish real things that I wish/feel compelled to accomplish - and as a matter of fact, it specifically came up - in the first thread becuase you seemed annoyed that I read a lot. That is one of the ways I learn, and frankly I even find it difficult under most circumstances to sit down to eat or "watch" television without something to read (I have been -humorously_ harassed for reading cereal boxes when nothing else was available) and the speed simply lets me read more. Tool. (oh, if it isn't clear,
it's my knowledge of a large number of fields of interest that it serves and that I value).

I share Dustin's skepticism that you can read 10,000 wpm of fresh material with 80% comprehension on a topic which you're not already an expert, even if it's non-technical material.

Unlike Dustin, I don't think it's possible that no one in the world can -it would be more plausible to me if you came across as one of the most intellectually nimble posters on this message board. No offense, but you don't -though you do seem like a smart person.

Doesn't mean you don't have your claimed ability -but a little more evidence would be great.

Maybe we could do an on-line test: have you skim a 10,000 word document on the web, then give you a quick comprehension test that would be difficult to answer without having read the document for 80% comprehension.

Are you game, fuelair?

 

[Ben Tilly]

In regards to the claim that "reading more than 300 words per minute is almost impossible", I routinely read at at least twice that speed (without pushing myself, this is a comfortable speed for me), and if I really concentrate, I can do it even faster (although this would not be a comfortable practice for simply reading and enjoying a book).

Let me join the chorus on this one. Anyone who honestly believes that people can't read much over 300 wpm is seriously out of touch with reality.

The one time that I measured my reading speed was back in highschool. I often would read in the bath, so I grabbed a copy of Clan of the Cave Bear and started to read. The book was better than I expected, so I finished it before finishing my bath. (This became, admittedly, a rather long bath.)

My mother wanted to know what I'd been doing in there, so I produced the book and said that I'd read that book. The whole thing? The whole thing. She didn't believe me, so I handed the book to her, asked her to flip open and start reading. She began reading, I stopped her after about 3 sentences and told her what section of the book that was in, and what was going on, and that I could find that section. She closed the book, handed it to me, and I found the passage. Wash, rinse, and repeat several times. She was convinced that I really had read the book.

She asked how long I took. I told her when the bath started and stopped. She proceeded to estimate words per line, then words per page, then (knowing how many pages there were) how many words in the book.

Turned out that I'd read that book at 900 WPM.

My reading speed has fluctuated over the years. I think it is significantly slower than that now. (And, of course, reading on a monitor is slower than reading a book.) But even so, every so often I'll get caught up by a book and finish it in a single sitting.

I should note that I've never taken any speed reading class. I've read about how to do it, and tried it. I did cover material faster. I did understand most of it. But it caused me more strain and was less satisfying than just reading straight through.

Cheers,
Ben

 

[Ben Tilly]

I have heard it said (no, I cannot recall the source) that speed reading is 100% useless for technical material (especially that which is new to the reader) -- in other words, material requiring deeper comprehension than what's needed to simply store facts.

It doesn't matter what the source is, the statement is self-evident to anyone who has had to read a lot of technical material. It doesn't matter how fast you read, your brain still thinks at the same speed. For an extreme example, the slowest type of reading that I've personally encountered are math publications. A rate of one page a day is about par. There aren't that many words, but trying to figure out what they mean and fill in the gaps between them is very hard.

Cheers,
Ben

 

[Solus]

Well, with ``junk like that'', I got bored after skimming the first paragraph, scrolled down, clocked 1432 wpm for a speed, and managed a 91% ``comprehension'' just by guessing what they were after. So...

CHEATER! You skimmed it you're supposed to actively read it.
I if just skim through, 2283 WPM for one over 3000 WPM for the other.
80% comprehension.

 

[Solus]

Let me join the chorus on this one. Anyone who honestly believes that people can't read much over 300 wpm is seriously out of touch with reality.

The one time that I measured my reading speed was back in highschool. I often would read in the bath, so I grabbed a copy of Clan of the Cave Bear and started to read. The book was better than I expected, so I finished it before finishing my bath. (This became, admittedly, a rather long bath.)

My mother wanted to know what I'd been doing in there, so I produced the book and said that I'd read that book. The whole thing? The whole thing. She didn't believe me, so I handed the book to her, asked her to flip open and start reading. She began reading, I stopped her after about 3 sentences and told her what section of the book that was in, and what was going on, and that I could find that section. She closed the book, handed it to me, and I found the passage. Wash, rinse, and repeat several times. She was convinced that I really had read the book.

She asked how long I took. I told her when the bath started and stopped. She proceeded to estimate words per line, then words per page, then (knowing how many pages there were) how many words in the book.

Turned out that I'd read that book at 900 WPM.

My reading speed has fluctuated over the years. I think it is significantly slower than that now. (And, of course, reading on a monitor is slower than reading a book.) But even so, every so often I'll get caught up by a book and finish it in a single sitting.

I should note that I've never taken any speed reading class. I've read about how to do it, and tried it. I did cover material faster. I did understand most of it. But it caused me more strain and was less satisfying than just reading straight through.

Cheers,
Ben

Over 3000 WPM, is not fun but it's apparently doable as just did right now. I just skimmed the material and hit the right answers, helps to know what is going to be important and what's not, on the little test given. I just remembered the names and whatever details I saw as relevant.

 

[Wudang]

I'm hoping that scientists in this field (which would be called what?)

It falls under a number of fields but is often lumped under "human information processing" and is researched by people if the fields of visual perception, cognitive science, psycholinguistics, neurology and others.