Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot Asks: What's Your View On Speed Reading?
Wouldn't it be great if you could read a novel in an hour or two? Certainly, many people do that. The phenomenon of speed reading is nothing new with plenty of people claiming that they have grown habituated -- or taught themselves into -- reading things in an accelerated fashion. Not everyone -- including yours truly -- is a fan of this. There are several studies that suggest that 'speed reading' result in people missing out on lots of tidbits. A New York Times article, published Friday, also suggests the same. Jeffrey M. Zacks, and Rebecca Treiman, in an op-ed, citing a recent article in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, claim that "it's extremely unlikely you can greatly improve your reading speed without missing out on a lot of meaning." They write: Certainly, readers are capable of rapidly scanning a text to find a specific word or piece of information, or to pick up a general idea of what the text is about. But this is skimming, not reading. We can definitely skim, and it may be that speed-reading systems help people skim better.Which brings us to the question: What's your view on speed reading?
Wouldn't it be great if you could read a novel in an hour or two?
I read fiction for relaxation and to enjoy, become mentally immersed in the story, not just to acquire the text in my memory.
To be honest, for me at least, the same often applies to technical material.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
the thing i like about speed-reading is that when you come back to the same book in 4 to 12 months time, it's enjoyable - again - because you find things that you missed the first time. so the point that this article is making i see is an *advantage*... not a disadvantage.
It also means that you didn't enjoy it to its fullest the first time around.
It also means that there is a high probability that you can "read" a book and miss the good part about it, thinking that it was crap.
> However for many of the texts in school, much of the internet, and other "lighter" subjects it works with full comprehension and it saves time.
So when I write a reasoned argument and some moron comes along and completely fails to understand it, it really is because they didn't honestly try to understand what I was saying? I always thought that was the case, but it's nice to see someone admit it.
Speed reading is bullshit. Even at normal reading speed, information is often missed, and you can find it merely by reading slower. To suggest that one can go faster than normal without missing any information is absurd.