

Ask YC: Speed reading? - rguzman

How quickly do you read on average? Not how many books you read over a certain period of time, rather how much time do you have to invest into reading a certain amount?<p>Does anyone have any experience with methods, exercises or anything to help one read faster?  Of course, I mean improving speed without reducing comprehension or retention. Secondly, reading "technical" material is different from most other reading and this doesn't need to help with "technical" reading.
======
whacked_new
Without claiming myself an expert in research on reading, and not a "speed
reader" myself, I am probably able to deliver something of a lecture on this
topic. Disregarding my lack of credentials, here's something you might find
interesting in an unstructured manner. I apologize in advance for lack of
sources; you can question me on anything I write, and I assure you there are
sources but I won't bother digging.

Generally, proponents of speed reading don't know their stuff. Speed reading
is based on the notion that the brain is underused in comprehending text;
training would supposedly untap this potential. Don't count on it. Some say
that if you read faster, you force your brain to focus, and so comprehension
goes up. This works to an extent, noticeable, sure, but far less than hyped.
And it is not a technique problem: it is a discipline problem. If you're
generally focused at what you do, you're probably among the faster readers.

So most people read at about 250-400wpm, and this is related to the speed of
the "inner voice," aka "subvocalization" (or, better, the phonological
pathway/loop). So the idea is that if you reduce, or eliminate the inner
voice, you can read faster. Programs that focus on these will claim 1000+ wpm.
There is some truth to this, but these programs aren't all it takes.

Now when your eye sees text, it the brain takes time to parse it and register
meaning. Conscious meaning, IIRC, happens after a 350ms mark, which means it
is biologically impossible to read word by word, line by line, beyond the
speed of the inner voice. This means that if you want to read faster, you're
reading in blocks of text .

What does this mean? It means that when a normal reader sees a word, you're
seeing a sentence or paragraph. Peripheral vision? Not necessarily. Peripheral
vision doesn't have enough acuity to support parsing at a level required for
detailed reading. IOW, most of the peripheral vision talk by these programs is
BS.

The cases where PV is useful is when you have good familiarity with the text
contours. How do you train this? The hard way: build your vocabulary, and read
a lot. Reading is a "self-bootstrapped process," if you will. This is, AFAICT,
the ONLY fool-proof, non bullshit method.

FYI, I recall two speed readers, who both read very fast but in different
ways. First one reads blocks of text in a glance. He would see a paragraph and
understand it in the time you read a sentence, in a kind of real-time, bulk-
parsing process. The second one would read text in a "serial" fashion without
regard to the meaning, into some kind of buffer, then think about it after
he's done. The catch: both are geniuses.

The bottleneck in deciphering meaning from text is not at the text->parse
stage (this is what SR programs focus on). It is from the parse->meaning
stage. IOW, brain power. Fortunately you can train this, but probably not with
some book or some program.

This is pretty thoughtstream. If you have other questions I'm happy to
discuss.

~~~
rguzman
Thank you, this was informative. I'll believe you about the sources.

Who are the two geniuses?

I've heard the block of text at a time thing before. In fact, I even think
most people who I know that read significantly faster than me do so this way.
The strange part is that when asked, people have told me that they have a hard
time deciding whether they read a word a time or in larger blocks of text. My
only question would be: can this skill be learned/trained? If so, how does one
go about doing that?

I'm a bit ambivalent about the bottleneck, at least personally. I guess it
depends on what kind of reading you do most of the time, but I'm inclined that
I read more materials that are written in simple text that was meant to be
consumed easily and that in those cases the bottleneck is in the text->parse
stage. When reading technical material (which I also spend a fair amount of
time doing) the bottleneck is definitely on the parse->meaning stage and that
process probably takes several orders of magnitude more time, but speeding up
the text->parse stage would be worth its while still. I say this because the
process is a little bit different when reading technical material. You get
through the text and you think about it for a long time, do problems, discuss,
perform thought experiments, etc. But everything in the list seems to be a
different stage than the parse->meaning stage. It is more of a meaning->true
understanding/intuition stage. Something like first you read and you need to
comprehend what you have been told at a "language" level. Then you go and
understand the concepts more abstractly and at different levels. However, it
is difficult to draw the line between those two stages.

~~~
whacked_new
These geniuses were an accomplished scientist, and a high school friend (who
will probably become an accomplished scientist). It shouldn't be hard to find
these kinds of people among "smart" folks though, simply because they absorb
lots of information on a regular basis. If we arbitrarily set the upper limit
of normal reading to be at 800wpm (very optimistic and unlikely), there are
people who still vastly exceed this speed. It's not just skimming: they will
learn the stuff just as anyone else would, in an almost magical process.

You're right about the bottleneck, which makes my previous post's discussion
not so good. There are multiple bottlenecks, and improving one area will not
guarantee a result like those programs promise. If it's technical material,
obviously, if you were Feynman you'd be able to quickly read hard paper
without feeling uncomfortable (hence my reasoning about brain power). If it's
Bearstein Bears, then, yes, you can fly over pages with total comprehension.
As you said, here the speed of parsing text would make a big difference.

This is related to the "block of text" thing, which can be trained. It's not
"reading in blocks" per se, but the training of fast visual pattern
recognition. In this sense, it is similar to the pattern recognition the Rain
Man used to count 270 or so matches in one glance. The most direct strategy
then, is simply twofold. One, increase your vocabulary. Not just so you can
answer test questions: you really need to know these words cold. Unfamiliar
words take longer to retrieve from memory. Obviously, Charles Dickens would
take longer to decode than Douglas Adams. (Hitchhiker is interesting though,
since there are many invented terms; maintaining speed on this requires a
relevant, but different, skill, and shouldn't be confused with that involved
in vocabulary building). Two, read more, and ideally, when you read non-
essential material (daily news perhaps), consciously push yourself (this takes
discipline). The point of this is not for speed of parsing words. It's for
recognizing the shapes of lumps of words. To illustrate: if you see "the Jedi
reader reads fantastically quickly" a thousand times, you'll begin to parse
that as a combined shape, in a single fixation. You will slow down, though, if
you see "fantastically quickly, the Jedi reader reads." On the most part these
two sentences are semantically equivalent, but the latter will take longer to
parse, simply because it takes a different shape. But if you read that many
times, you'll start chunking it like the other sentence. So reading a lot is
simply to build up your arsenal of "familiar phrase shapes."

Again, this is the most foolproof way of training yourself. There are other
things that may bring small improvements. But this is basically the heart of
the matter. There are people who can parse unfamiliar word forms very quickly.
The "bottleneck" here, as I understand it, is at the pipeline between CPU and
RAM, and cache size. Genetics plays a big role here, so I usually don't
bother.

------
bayareaguy
Once in a while if I find a good solid article or paper I'll paste it into
ZapReader[1].

[1] - <http://www.zapreader.com/reader/index.php>

~~~
whacked_new
For those interested in these kinds of applications, this is an RSVP (rapid
serial visual presentation) device. Its chief benefit is most likely forced
self-pacing (and thus, forced concentration), but I highly doubt it will
assist your comprehension. For one, it is ludicrous to read "the quick red fox
jumps over the lazy brown dog" and "scientists discovered more CP-violation
than predicted by the standard model" at the same speed. For two, this RSVP
method obliterates benefits of peripheral vision. Sure, you can do several
words at once, but PV does its job above and below the lines as well. For
three, it eliminates any recall aids you might have acquired by the shape of
the text (ever think, "what was that word... it was at the left bottom corner
of that page"?).

Otherwise, it's an interesting thing. I would play with that kind of stuff,
but for experimentation.

~~~
technoguyrob
I think the comprehension remains just fine. I use a desktop version of
zapreader (now obsolete as far as I'm concerned, I like web apps much better),
and I comfortably read at 800wpm without any comprehension issues. The brain
caches words as they're flashed to your eyes, and you only have 2% of "real"
(narrow) vision anyway, so from a psychological viewpoint it makes sense.
That's also why zapreader has a pause button. The nice thing about my desktop
reader (which I admit I don't use a lot, hence I'll switch) is you can pause
it and show the context, which lets you think for a while if you want to.

~~~
whacked_new
Context is definitely important; the pause function is a nice touch. I don't
deny that there are things you can read with RSVP. You probably can see that
there are things that aren't suitable for RSVP too. It depends on the content
and very importantly, the goal. But I will contest the usefulness of RSVP as a
primary approach to reading in daily life; the case for peripheral vision
above and below your current focus is strong enough. Your center of gaze is
where meaning is most efficiently processed, but peripheral cues do enhance
understanding. I would further reason that the spatial arrangement of text is
also useful in aiding recall (different topic).

Also, the brain, or a little more accurately, your visual memory buffer, does
indeed "cache" images, which does get deciphered in time, but as the text is
flashed to your eyes at a constant rate, it doesn't make a difference. If I
flash a stimulus at your eyes for 65ms, you may not consciously detect
something, but it will register in your brain and you will process it, after
the stimulus is gone. This is the visual buffer in action, but the processing
is latent and does not occur at the same speed it takes to send the signal
from the optical nerves to the visual cortex. If I flash many short pulses
back-to-back, I won't bet on retaining most of the stuff.

The one-line RSVP has a fundamental speed limit before your forebrain cannot
consciously register (hence willfully reflect upon) the material. While you
can pause the reader, it requires intervention by your hands, which could be
an unnecessary delay, because your eyes are far quicker and more fine-tuned
for this task.

Anyhow, I'm sure zapreader has its uses. It does force you to read in a less
lazy way, and is also useful (very definitely so) for training, but for those
serious about reading very "fast," RSVP can only do so much.

------
jakewolf
Had a speed reading class in 8th grade. Used an exercise to recognize several
words at a time by reading pages with the material split into 2 columns
starting with 2 words in each one building up to 4 or 5 over time. We were
tested for reading comprehension and speed. It really worked for me, but not
everyone. Can scan pages insanely quickly now. Retention is another story.

------
streblo
[http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Book-
Touchstone/dp/0671212095...](http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Book-
Touchstone/dp/0671212095/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207527635&sr=8-2)

I read that for a high school english class, and it changed the way I read. It
teaches you how to absorb more information in less time.

~~~
yters
I'll second that. I haven't read the whole thing, but the multiple, deepening
passes idea is key.

------
subwindow
I used to work for a company that hocked speed reading training software. As a
kind of side effect, I learned how to speed read.

The thing with speed reading is that you can increase the speed at which you
read fairly easily, but your comprehension and recall will suffer greatly. I
can probably read 500 words per minute, but comprehension is pretty low
(~60%). At that point, it generally isn't worth it.

Speed reading is kind of a stressful activity, and there's only a very narrow
set of situations in which it makes sense to speed read something. 95% of the
stuff that I read, I read for pleasure, and in order to enjoy reading
something you have to read it the "old fashioned" way.

If you want to teach yourself to speed read, books and the like won't really
help much. It is kind of like learning to drive- you really have to just try
it yourself. To start, sweep your hand over the words in an "infinity sign"
pattern, with the height of each sweep being about 3 or 4 lines high. Don't
read the words to yourself, just focus on the words above your finger. After
awhile, you'll be able to detach your eyes from the lines, and you can stop
sweeping your hand over the page. The key is to take in as much as possible
with your eyes, and let your brain assemble everything in the background.
You'll eventually get pretty good at associating key nouns with the verbs and
adjectives around them. That's pretty much all you need to get 50-80%
comprehension with most things.

(P.S. I'm not aware of any speed reading methods that don't come with a
reduced level of recall/comprehension. I think it is just the nature of the
beast.)

------
asdflkj
If you think you're reading too slowly, the solution is to read less crap.

If you're enjoying your book, you don't wish it would end sooner. This would
be like wishing your delicious meal would end sooner. And if you're not
enjoying it, why are you reading it? The answer for many people is that they
need to meet some quota to uphold their imaginary status as intellectuals.
That's the real problem to be solved, not reading speed.

------
brentr
I don't understand why people are always trying to find shortcuts for
somethings that are meant to be done very carefully.

Writing is done to communicate ideas, ideas that the author took considerable
time to formulate and put into a coherent work. Reading is one of the tasks in
life that should be done very carefully. The only way to read quicker and
retain the same level of comprehension is to practice reading.

~~~
mdemare
I noticed that as I became a faster reader, I lost my interest in novels. I
used to think this was because my taste had changed, but now I think the speed
itself is the problem. When I read novels in foreign languages, I enjoy them
much more.

My advice, start reading slower (and closer) and save time by stop reading
fluff. Anything worth reading is worth rereading.

------
yters
Check out Dictator: <http://dictator.kieranholland.com/dictator.html>

It lets you set how many words are visible at a time, so you can use it to do
the exercises jakewolf mentioned.

I could read Crime and Punishment at about 600-700 wpm (around 200-300 is
normal) and I think I still had good comprehension. You can also adjust the
speed as you go if passages get more difficult.

Also, when I read normally, I don't read linearly. I scan a page and narrow in
on interesting words. Usually, if the material isn't too tricky, I can
understand a paragraph very quickly this way. It is how I read online.

Finally, it really helps to think about what the author is saying, especially
if I try to anticipate what's next. This gives me something to compare and
contrast with, which makes me retain and understand what I read much better.

~~~
xlnt
i prefer to read word by word so i don't miss anything. if something isn't
worth reading that way, i usually read a couple sentences at random places
that way then leave.

i think a large majority of arguments would go more smoothly if people would
actually read all the words instead of guessing what the other person is
saying.

~~~
rguzman
I go back and forth between trying to read between the two styles. It mostly
has to do with whether I'm trying to read to "savor the language" or to gather
information. I'm definitely not willing to skim through Howl, but if I get the
point on a textbook without having to read every word in a paragraph that's
awesome.

~~~
xlnt
haha textbooks. i used to just read the summary at the end of the chapter in
most text books, and maybe the section headings, and that's it. skipping most
pages is even faster than speed reading or skimming :)

of course that doesn't work for math textbooks and some sciences.

------
elagothro
If reading technical documents or for pleasure, I invest myself pretty deeply,
taking a lot of time and occasionally re-reading passages.

If reading for just fast consumption of information, I often will use a
multiple sentence technique where you read 2-3 lines as you go across and
reconstruct the ideas as you go. It is unusual, but it works eventually. It is
not meant for deep understanding though. Kind of like reading something and
only getting the highlights (albeit very detailed highlights).

------
smalter
i prefer to read slowly. as i understand it, part of the idea of speed-reading
follows: step 1: you read the words aloud; this is slow because you can only
read as fast as you can talk; step 2: you read the words aloud in your head
without your lips moving; faster, but still slow because you can "see" faster
than you can "hear"; step 3: you identify words/meaning through sight and not
sound. the thing is, moving to step 3 takes away some of the musicality/beauty
of language.

~~~
rguzman
I will try this next time I'm reading for leisure.

BTW: good luck on your YC application ;)

------
nl
I'm generally a pretty fast reader. I've never done any speed reading courses,
but I gre up without a TV so I read a lot when I was young.

I can read at somewhere between 575 & 600 wpm with <http://www.zapreader.com/>
(I hadn't tried that before - interesting idea). That's not comfortable, and I
need to concentrate to do it, but I suspect I'd still be getting close to 100%
recall. I'm not a reading technique expert, but it seems to me that the
zapreader software is specifically designed to stop people using skimming
techniques, so if you can read at a good speed on that you are doing pretty
well.

When I'm reading a novel I generally read at 1 minute per page. On average
that's probably around 250 wpm, and I find that relaxing and easy.

------
noodle
the biggest tip that i picked up on how to read faster is this:

eye movement is the bottleneck in the i/o process. your mind will process the
words fast, you're losing all of your speed on moving your eyes across each
word and focusing on them. learn to use your peripheral vision more.

on each new line, instead of focusing on the first word, focus on the second,
but use your peripheral vision to read the first. finish up the line in the
same way but backwards. you'll find you'll be reading markedly faster already,
without really losing any of the meaning, context, or beauty of language.

you can speed it up even faster by taking the same technique to an extreme,
but i don't like to do that, myself.

~~~
whacked_new
Eye movement isn't the bottleneck. I mean, reducing fixations will not
increase comprehension. Sure, your eye takes time to move, but each saccadic
jump takes less time (and is immensely precise with its jump, so it's a pretty
optimized process) than that of text recognition to comprehension in your
brain.

Peripheral vision serves as priming mechanism. You can better prepare your
mind to piece together relevant words and form meaning, but don't expect it to
support reading like the center of gaze.

------
Maven911
Took a speed reading seminar, best method i found was to use a ruler and just
slide it down the page, and you try to keep up.

Also, do not vocalize the words externally, it should just be read naturally.

------
daniel-cussen
I budget two minutes per page for books, and three minutes per letter-sized
page of text.

Stay away from speed-reading products.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_reading>

------
ucdaz
Just read digg.com everyday.

------
logjam
Don't bother. Just read more. I've always read very fast, and I don't think it
helps that much. My experience has been that reading quickly is reading
carelessly, which serves well for scanning and finding info - but to
understand, you have to slow down and make metaphors, pictures in your head,
or work with pencil, paper (or programming tools!)

~~~
rguzman
Yeah, that's why I excluded "technical" materials. You have to read those with
pencil&paper and/or a terminal. However, I think there would be some benefit
in being able to read things like novels or simple non-fiction quickly.

~~~
danohuiginn
"things like novels"

Only if they're bad novels. When I read (good) novels, I'm constantly trying
to slow myself down - to the point of literally mouthing the words or forcing
myself to linger five minutes on a page. It takes so much longer to _feel_ a
novel than it does to intellectually take in what's going on - so if I read
too fast I end up knowing what happened, but not having experienced the novel.

As somebody pointed out on the 'heroes' thread, fiction often has a very high
information content - it's just buried in symbolism and multiple meanings and
the like.

