Speed reading...

[Alan D. Hyde]

ANYONE may do it--- it's simply a matter of easily-learned technique. It doesn't require unusual gifts or abilities. And, it INCREASES pleasure & comprehension.

IT'S NOT UNUSUAL to jump from a reading speed of 150 words per minute (wpm) to, say, 1200 wpm (such a jump would mean that you could read in 7 1/2 minutes what formerly took you an hour).

I simply mention this because of the number of stressed-out students/ teachers/ employees/ business-people/ professionals who work HOURS a day unnecessarily as a result of reading inefficiently.

Alan

See---

http://www.evelynwood.com.au/

[ 01-23-2006, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

[Bruce Hooke]

I find that speed reading works reasonably well for content that I do not have to think much about to "synthesize," but for content that needs more thought, what slows me down is not the speed at which I can read the words, but rather the speed at which I can process the thoughts behind the words. The extreme example of this is something like Walden where each sentence deserves a pause and some thought, but the same concept can apply to reading matter that is not as dense. None-the-less, it is a useful technique and I should use it more than I do...

[JormaS]

I did some semi-serious training many years ago. It resulted in my reading about 400 words per minute, and it has pretty much stayed there. I think I lack the incentive to read really fast---mostly I try to keep a reasonably fast rate because it seems to help concentration and comprehension.

By the way, my 400 wpm are for English. In my mother tongue I´m "slower" because the word structure is different. For example, "from the central area of the town" has seven words, but in Finnish the same thing is expressed with one word, "keskikaupunkialueelta". :D

[Donn]

I stopped reading things that benefit from Evelyn's techniques long ago.

[Donn]

"keskikaupunkialueelta" Gesundheit!

[George Roberts]

When I was young and in college, I spent all of my time in the library. I could not read quickly (you try to read books where equations span several pages), but later when asked a question I could point to any book that discussed the issue and come reasonably close to the proper page reference.

Now, I write much more than I read.

[ 01-23-2006, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: George Roberts ]

[Stephen Hutchins]

Hmmm.... Anything that can be read without thought, isn't worth reading...

[Sue H.]

Speed reading has improved my reading speed and my ability to quickly scan chapters before a class, but I can't completely get a handle on it.

I still spend a lot of time trying to play catch up on my college reading, mostly because reading for pleasure has been such a big part of my life that it's easy to slip back into that old slow reading rhythm.

Summer & winter breaks are great because I can just read for pleasure again and not specifically to learn something or pass a test. But it would be great during the school year to speed though texts and remember it all.

Wood's note taking ideas are useful, too. Graphing and mapping have helped me get away from straight note taking and they're easier to review from.

[Alan D. Hyde]

Think of speed reading as an animated rapid-fire conversation with the author.

Then, afterward, sitting at home by the fire, you reflect on the content of that conversation.

If you understand what was said by the writer, and retain the track of his thinking, then speed reading does not detract from rumination or analysis...

Alan

[Bruce Hooke]

Alan,

That works OK if you are reading for big ideas. It does not work so well if you are reading material where each sentance needs to be thought about carefully and analyzed. There is no way you are going to remember each sentance of the book or conversation later in the evening.

That said, I don't really believe the people who say they never read anything that can benefit from speed reading.

[Ian McColgin]

We had another thread where the differences between speed reading methods - scanning versus Evelyen Wood were mentioned.

I taught myself the technique that I later learned was the Evelyn Wood method. It is not at all like scanning nor is it like ingesting without thought.

I know that the Evelyn Wood method is not for everyone because I had a time after I taught myself and before I got glasses at age 20 when my astigmatism made my vision blurry enough that it did not work.

I also believe that familiarity with the language is necessary. I can read even complex technical or scientific texts that way but I cannot absorb, to take one example, differential equations at speed.

But to emphasise by repitition, with the Evelyn Wood method one reads every word. It's true that one does not argue with the text while reading. But one argues more to the point in the abundant time one has after reading.

[Victor]

I read War and Peace in ten minutes once. It's about Russia - Woody Allen.

[Alan D. Hyde]

Ian's said it better than I did...

Thanks, Ian.

Alan

[ccmanuals]

And who cannot forget Cheech and Chong's "Evelyn Woodhead Speed Reading Course" :D

[George Roberts]

Ian McColgin ---

There are differences among reading of hard science, soft science, and paperbacks.

In hard science reading one should never leave a sentence until he believes. It is too easy to never come back to an important step that is not completely understood.

In soft science reading arguments can always wait.

In paperback reading why would one want to read fast lying in the shade of the sail on a nice day.

To paraphrase my wife ("her computer runs faster than she can think"): my reading speed is slow enough that I do not make any important errors.

[Ian McColgin]

I happen to read conventionally most of the time because I find interruption when reading at speed a bit like piling on a reef. Most unsettling.

I generally read six to ten volumes per week, typically with three out at a shot. I try to have one novel, one history/biography/etc, and one science or technology but there are days when three novels just leap off the library's shelves . . .

I've found that my enjoyment of all forms of reading is higher if I've read thrice at speed than once conventionally. My attention is greater. My textual memory is superior. My appreciation of the language is better if in the contemplative time after reading I go back and perform key parts aloud. This of course is most particularly true of poetry.

Reading at speed is work. Any interruption is aweful. So, I'm more than half the time lazy, treating reading as others treat TV, and with someone who may want to say something from time to time.

Like so many things in life, there are different ways of doing things and almost any way is right sometime for someone.

[Phillip Allen]

I took a course in speed reading...I'm not willing to give up reading for content which is the first casuality. It's great for college students who don't care if they retain anything past finals...scan and hope for 60% which is (was) the stated goal for my course. One of the things I learned there is that it is acceptable for college students to study for tests and then throw it away...so much for higher education...

BTW I'm not running this through spell check because it take time away from my session limit...

[Ian McColgin]

Let us always be mindful of the profound differences between reading a text, every word of the text, at very high speed thrice and allowing time for reflection versus scanning a text once and hoping that the eye will hit enough key words. The latter skill, and a not unuseful one, is scanning. By "reading," whether at speed or not, at least Allan and I mean reading each word.

[Alan D. Hyde]

Absolutely, Ian.

Essentially, though one reads every word, his mind picks them up as parts of phrases and sentences--- thoughts, just as we do in a good conversation.

To read this way improves both understanding and retention...

Alan