Speed reading promises are too good to be true

Re:Speed reading promises are too good to be true by wapapaloobop on Monday January 18, 2016 @02:57PM (#10926495)

There seems to be some ambiguity in the term 'subvocalization'.

Should it refer strictly to (A) the internal monologue, (B) micro-movements of speaking muscles, or (C) both?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my suspicion is that parsing and comprehension of text would be impossible without A. But also that A is slowed by B; thus reducing or eliminating B is beneficial.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Speed reading promises are too good to be true by lhopki01 on Tuesday January 19, 2016 @09:17AM (#10930860)

It is almost certainly the internal monologue. I can read in two ways. One in which I have the words in my head as I read them and the other in which I just 'comprehend' entire sections of sentences at once. In the second there is never an internal monologue just comprehension. The second method lets me read most books in an evening, not sure what that works out in wpm but I was always significantly faster than anyone else at school at reading.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Speed reading promises are too good to be true by vpeters25 on Monday January 18, 2016 @04:43PM (#10927203)

The book I used on speed reading claimed subvocalization (internal monologue) was a "bad habit" that can be eliminated with practice. As far as my personal experience, it does.

[ Parent | on HN ]