Speed Reading Is Real

3 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1 20 November, 2017 - 00:36
Offline
Joined: 3 weeks 5 days ago

Speed Reading Is Real


I've seen a lot of skepticism and etc on this topic, so I wanted to comment. I have personally met two natural speed readers in my life(natural meaning have always done so, never had to be taught). Both of them are of unusually high intelligence, though I haven't concluded that intelligence is the sole cause, or even has anything to do with it. I suppose it could be coincidence. Anyway, I have witnessed proof that their speed reading is real. One of them tested at 1149 WPM, and the other at 1369 WPM. In order to ensure it was real, I personally wrote out of body of text that was around 1100 words, so that I knew they had never read it before. I read with them side by side to compare reading speeds. Both of them finished in under a minute, while it took me around 5 minutes to finish. I made sure they put down the text as to not continue reading after claiming to have finished. They both had 100% comprehension, and both also comprehend far more efficiently than most people. In fact, one of them is a musician, and she can read a lyric sheet once and never have to read it again. She remembers the first time and never forgets.

Due to this personally witnessed information, I conclude that true speed readers read at 1000+ WPM. The only thing I cannot conclude is what gives the ability. It seems strange to think that someone naturally does this without instruction, does it not? Neither of them could conclusively explain how they do it, but were able to give me clues. Both of them said the same things though. I think the best explanation I got was when one of them told me that they see one or two sentences all in one shot, and take it all in at once, instead of one or a few words at a time. She said to think of it like seeing a prohibition sign, like a circle with a line through it. A sign like this has many different parts that make up the picture, but one doesn't look at each part in order to interpret its meaning. They see the sign and just know what it means all at once. An example she gave was the sentence "I love you." She said imagine not seeing three words, but instead seeing a heart. Seeing a heart would be much faster than seeing three words. Obviously that is an overly simplistic example that would roughly be incompatible with the concept of taking in entire sentences the same way, but it's similar nonetheless. I have watched her read two and three sentences in one glance and tell me word for word what they said. One glance meaning one millisecond. Speed reading is real, even if you don't understand how it is possible.

20 November, 2017 - 01:28
Offline
Joined: 2 years 7 months ago

As a mnemonist, I am interested. But as a psychologist, I am unconvinced.

Give me a novel and I can read it at 1500 WPM, give me a Stephen Hawkings book and I might read at 100 WPM. That is one problem with speedreading, just because you can do it with one text doesn't mean you can with the other.

Quote:
In fact, one of them is a musician, and she can read a lyric sheet once and never have to read it again. She remembers the first time and never forgets.

I happened to have met a girl who is an autistic savant, she could hear a sing she never heard before and play it on the piano, so I am not saying that it is impossible. Never forgetting however, is. Everyone forgets. Your friend might have a good memory, but she will forget, alter or mix up things regardless, unless she is a computer.

Quote:
They both had 100% comprehension, and both also comprehend far more efficiently than most people.

Everyone has 100% comprehension if you ask them, their comprehension might just be wrong. People often say "I know what I saw," which is cool and all but while you know you saw X with a blue hat, someone else will swear that he wore a red one. But I am sure you have tested it under decent circumstances so lets say that they did remember what the text is about. You never mentioned how you tested that, which makes the statement invalid, contributing to me not being convinced.

Quote:
I think the best explanation I got was when one of them told me that they see one or two sentences all in one shot, and take it all in at once, instead of one or a few words at a time.

That is how people say speedreading works. Too bad that the eye doesn't work that way.

Quote:
One glance meaning one millisecond

Lets go with the thought that our perception works with 30-60 frames per second, 50 to give it a nice number. That is one frame every 20 milliseconds. If your friend's brain is capable of making sense of every single millisecond, watching television must be hell, with all the flickering and still images. Brains take time to make sense out of things, if a brain has to do that every millisecond, I imagine your friend would melt from all the consumed energy. Which is why the brain doesn't do that. It takes chuncks of 50 to 100 milliseconds and merges all the information, which it then analyzes.

Speedreading is fun and a cool party trick, but when tested in controlled settings, I have yet to see someone pull off things like 3000+ WPM on an encyclopedia. 1000 WPM is not impressive, especially on easier texts. Tossing intelligence into the mix doesn't solve that. Based on the things I have seen so far, I even believe that higher intelligences often lead to less focus, which doesn't help when speedreading.

20 November, 2017 - 14:05
Offline
Joined: 3 weeks 5 days ago

First let me start off by saying I don't expect you to just take my word for it. If I were in your position and never saw the proof for myself, I'd be just as skeptical. Probably more so, in fact, as I'm a very skeptical person in nature. That said, let me respond to what you've said(I don't really know how quoting works on this forum as I'm new to it, so this may seem weird):

"As a mnemonist, I am interested. But as a psychologist, I am unconvinced.

Give me a novel and I can read it at 1500 WPM, give me a Stephen Hawkings book and I might read at 100 WPM. That is one problem with speedreading, just because you can do it with one text doesn't mean you can with the other."

They both did tell me their speed is significantly lower if they're not focused and/or aren't interested in what they're reading. I doubt it'd be as low as 100 WPM since even I never read that slowly, but yes your point there is otherwise valid.

"I happened to have met a girl who is an autistic savant, she could hear a sing she never heard before and play it on the piano, so I am not saying that it is impossible. Never forgetting however, is. Everyone forgets. Your friend might have a good memory, but she will forget, alter or mix up things regardless, unless she is a computer."

I'm sure if she went long enough without singing a particular song, she'd forget. She is in constant practice, since she's a career musician, so she never does. The significance of my point was mainly to point out that she only has to read it once. I am a fellow musician. Primarily a vocalist. So, I personally deal with learning lyrics. There has never been a time where I can read a set of lyrics only one time and remember them well enough to sing them without hitch. So, her ability to do that is extremely significant in that context. It implies extraordinary comprehension skills.

"Everyone has 100% comprehension if you ask them, their comprehension might just be wrong. People often say "I know what I saw," which is cool and all but while you know you saw X with a blue hat, someone else will swear that he wore a red one. But I am sure you have tested it under decent circumstances so lets say that they did remember what the text is about. You never mentioned how you tested that, which makes the statement invalid, contributing to me not being convinced."

I asked them several questions about the text I had personally written for them. They remembered it even better than I did, and I was the one who wrote it. Both of them have extraordinarily accurate comprehension, which is all the more shocking due to how fast they read it.

"That is how people say speedreading works. Too bad that the eye doesn't work that way."

Apparently it does. As I said, I witnessed it. Being the hardcore skeptic that I am, I wouldn't be convinced had I not seen proof.

"Lets go with the thought that our perception works with 30-60 frames per second, 50 to give it a nice number. That is one frame every 20 milliseconds. If your friend's brain is capable of making sense of every single millisecond, watching television must be hell, with all the flickering and still images. Brains take time to make sense out of things, if a brain has to do that every millisecond, I imagine your friend would melt from all the consumed energy. Which is why the brain doesn't do that. It takes chuncks of 50 to 100 milliseconds and merges all the information, which it then analyzes."

She looked at it for one millisecond. I'm sure it took longer for her brain to actually process and interpret what she saw. She literally glanced at it and looked away, and was able to tell me what it said word for word.

"Speedreading is fun and a cool party trick, but when tested in controlled settings, I have yet to see someone pull off things like 3000+ WPM on an encyclopedia. 1000 WPM is not impressive, especially on easier texts. Tossing intelligence into the mix doesn't solve that. Based on the things I have seen so far, I even believe that higher intelligences often lead to less focus, which doesn't help when speedreading."

I've never seen them read 3000+ WPM so I can't speak to that speed. But how is 1000+ WPM not impressive? I couldn't even dream of reading that fast. As far as intelligence goes, I did admit it could just be coincidence. I pointed it out because it seemed worth mentioning that they both have unusually high levels of intelligence. However, my IQ is 172, and I don't speed read, so that suggests that being of high intelligence does not mean you will be a natural speed reader.

Download our free ebook! Just click the "Sign up" button below to create an account, and we'll send you a free ebook with tips on how to get started.

Related content: