From: Herb Martin (HerbM@LearnQuick.Com)
Date: Sat Jan 28 2006 - 11:16:49 MST
> >About 10 times more per unit of time that I did
> >before learning the skill.
> >2500 WPM with similar comprehension is attainable
> >through moderate but serious practice.
> Somehow reading at speeds like this gives the impression to
> me of simply
> blindly integrating a lot of base level data. That just isn't
> enough though.
Remember we are talking about SIMILAR or BETTER
comprehension.
There are two or three standard 'objections' to
speed reading, this is one of the classics (not
a criticism of your impression, just to let you
know it is highly typical.)
Sometimes the objection is expressed along the
lines of "what about reading for relaxation?" or
"what about poetry?" or (your next example) "what
about math?"...
Here's the key: Once you can speed read you never
lose the ability to read SLOWLY. It is precisely
analogous to learning to run, or ride a bicycle
or even fly an airplane: No one would seriously
try to walk from America to Europe for a business
meeting next Tuesday-- you fly.
But no one would fly to the corner market to pick
up milk and bread.
> Imagine attempting to read a math textbook, over a section
> you have no previous knowledge about, at 2500 WPM.
Most of the time, I read math slowly -- math is typically
very dense information (in most cases.)
BUT, I can alter this in several ways: I can read ahead
at a rapid pace -- perhaps the item that is troubling
me will be explained better by a later example.
I can read it rapidly once, then slowly, then study
over the parts that still trouble me.
Or, I can just read it the way that "everyone else
does" -- like I used to read it always.
Oddly enough, some math and EVEN some poetry works
better at high speeds. My best example of this for
poetry that is largely visual imagery. Much of the
feel for speed reading is closer to video or images
than to that usual "voice in your head."
> It just doesn't make sense to me. You aren't really
> comprehending in a "more
> optimal" way, because integrating base level data just isn't
> nearly as
> important as appying more complex constructions of this base
> level data.
No, it just doesn't make sense to you because you haven't
done it - just as if you try to explain vision to someone
who is blind from birth....
Or trying to explain WHAT READING is to someone who is
not only illiterate but who has grown up in an primitive
culture where there is no lifelong explanation of the
value of reading....
How can text on the page allow you to learn as if you
were listening to an instructor or as if you were
watching a play, or....
For those who have never read this makes no sense.
> You
> would be better off spending your time going slowly and
> updating/adding/subtracting hypotheses on all the levels of
> abstraction for
> every piece of information you are getting.
Now you are telling me "you would be better off..."
No, I have more choices (than I had before) and I
am free to choose the best method, or methods, for
my needs, time, and even adjust based on results...
> Does that makes sense?
It makes sense that you have those feelings; it
does not correspond to the reality of the skill.
-- Herb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT