I just took a reading speed test (276wpm with 100% comprehension; it's over) and asked an LLM what the science had to say about increasing reading speed. I came across a concept I've never heard of before-- Subvocalization: the act of of "sounding out" words in your head. It was suggested that I eliminate subvocalization to increase my reading speed.THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE, YOU GOOFY MOTHERFUCKER. HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU READ ANYTHING WITHOUT MENTALLY COMPREHENDING THE WORD YOU'RE READING? WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS CLOWN WORLD BULLSHIT?!
>>23778419I'm going to firebomb a speed reading convention. This is outrageous!
yeah that's just called thinking
>>23778419You read the meaning, you just recognize the word and see the meaning which you add to the sentence being read. Everyone does this naturally on some level, when we see a stop sign we don't actually read the word "STOP," we just recognize the word and know its meaning. It is not a terribly difficult skill to learn but takes some practice. It is essentially the same as reading the intervals instead of notes in music, we can understand far more about the piece being played from the intervals than the notes even if we don't consciously know what a single note of the piece is. The notes themselves provide little beyond the note itself, in a sentence the word provides little beyond the word itself, its relation to the other words in the sentence is what is important. Your brain is more than capable of recognizing a word only based off the letter shapes and their order and it can be very fast at that, actually reading it and than connecting it to meaning is an unnecessary step, just connect it right to the meaning instead.
>>23778419Didn't this board used to have like 50 threads a day about "subvocalization" with people screeching at each other incessantly about it? I vaguely remember there being a period like that though I'm not sure when that was exactly
>>23778419>>23778460speedreading is useful for bragging and nonliterary nonfiction like journal articles. employers only want their workers capable of grokking booklength manuals, not true understanding, so they produce propaganda that incentivises uncritical consumption like this nonsense.
>>23778469>>23778460Speed reading is fake and gay and so are you
>>23778469Sorry you're not fake or gay, just the other one.
>>23778477don't lump us together mf how dare you
>>23778484Yeah my bad, I speed read the comments and made comprehension mistakes.
>>23778482ty apology accepted
I'm yet to see any of these speedreader speedread a math textbook, which takes me an hour a page.
>>23778469>>23778477Removing the literal reading of the word is not speed reading on its own and will increase comprehension of complex idea since most people do not actually think about the definition of a word when they subvocalize, they just assume. When you connect directly to definition you get all the definitions and uses of a word that you know. Most people who read a lot of difficult stuff or are required to read a good amount for work or what ever naturally develop this but often it is limited to the type of stuff they read and when they pickup something outside that niche the fall back on subvocalizing. Stemfag who code alot do this when they read code, it why some people can so quickly read and understand code.
>>23778497FakeAndGay
>>23778419The entire joy of reading fiction would be lost without subvocalization. The best experience is perfectly acting out every nuance of a character's voice during a scene. I can't imagine you can do that without subvocalization.
>>23778497almost like programming languages only carry procedural/symbolic meaning and not the vast palette of emotion afforded by general purpose language huh
>>23778519Got'em
>>23778503I'd go one step further and declare it impossible. It cannot be done. They're deluding themselves.
Not reading like a chinese person is subhuman tier. Pictures mean more than 1000 words. You should be getting entire stories in one little symbol.The alphabet was a mistake.
>>23778519Emotion is not carried by the word but by the context the word is used in. While we can have emotional reactions to a word it is rarely the emotion of the context it is used in, it is the emotion of your own personal context which almost all writers avoid relying on 99% of the time.
>>2377856699% of art is shit, and our personal responses should be situated in the broader context of historical usage if we're reading seriously, so agreed.
>>23778566>>23778574Well that veered off topic quickly
>>23778574Which is why subvocalization is actually a deterrent to comprehension. We don't process language and communicate that way and it is a crutch for learning to read. When you talk to someone in person you don't form each word the person you are talking with speaks, you connect it directly to meanings and contexts.>>23778586We can steer it back.
>>23778593functional comprehension is only part of the paradigm, and we don't naturally communicate via written text. subvocalization is part of the whole that is reading, not the entirety of it.
>>23778607So having poor comprehension is actually a good thing?We don't naturally communicate via spoken word either, we have to be taught that just like we have to be taught to read.
>>23778620having the capacity to reflect on multiple aspects of a text is actually a good thing. pretending that you don't need the surface level alongside the depths is sheer hubris.
Since so much good prose is good because of its rhythm, its rushes and pauses and little touches of unexpected emphasis, I think it is well worth lingering, in a book you admire, over the sound of the words and the feel of the sentences, even if it does compromise your words-per-minute.
>>23778624Just because you don't subvocalize does not mean you don't get the words, you just get to them through their meanings instead of the other way around. Can you not repeat the words people speak to you and quote them without issue? Are you even thinking about what you say?
I've been reading French and I'm trying to force myself to subvocalise by reading French aloudMy reading speed is about 5-6 times slower this way
>>23778632ironically the only way I can quote back what people say is by subvocalising, but to your point, no, they've already done the vocalisation, so there's no need for me to do it myself.
>>23778664You just contradicted yourself and avoided the point, not subvocalzing does not mean you don't get the words. Perhaps you should start subvocalizing your posts? You really are not making a good case for subvocalization or your comprehension. If you enjoy subvocalizing and feel it improves the experience for you that is fine but if you think it improves your comprehension you may want to spend some time studying this thread.
Imagine reading this and hearing silence in your head. 'Just the pure info for me please.'
>>23778708I did not contradict myself. conversations are not repeating what people say to you word-for-word, which I would need to subvocalise in order to cement the phrasing for.mechanics is not aesthetics. great works of art interface with both the comprehensible and the incomprehensible. therefore (for written european languages at least) the sonic aspects of language are inextricable from their real meaning, even if they are difficult to discuss and critique.tell me, what do you think of Joyce?
>>23778419Stop having your inner monologue say the word “out loud” in your head.That’s it.https://accelareader.com/
>>23778809Not possible unless you're an NPC
>>23778744Subvocalization does not make you hear the word, that is vocalization. Your entire argument is based on assumption and representing your subjective experience is objective. I like Joyce but when it comes to the musicality of language he somewhat fails for me, he scratches other itches for me. Read fw aloud with my first serious gf, good memories.You literally said that you need to subvocalize to quote someone back and then said you didn't because it had already been vocalized. You really are not making your case.
>>23778870my entire argument is that you are being reductive. objectivity has nothing to do with it, which is why some people enjoy different styles of prose, like how you enjoyed Joyce, but not his musicality.you really are ignoring the prepositional phrase that addresses your actual argument, which I offhandedly pointed out the irony that your question doesn't get at.>Can you not repeat the words people speak to you and quote them without issue?no, I need to subvocalise them first>Just because you don't subvocalize does not mean you don't get the wordsright, they were vocalised, so subvocalising them would be a waste of time unless I'm>repeat[ing] the wordsthey say.
>>23778419You can do it. The same way you can look at an image and understand what it means without speaking.Read faster than your internal voice, you'll see what I mean. Not that I think it's a goal worth pursuing unless you're reading textbooks or something or you're trying to find a specific passage.If you're reading for the sake of reading, I think you should read it aloud or with your inner voice. You should take your time with it, soak it in, think about what you're reading. What's the point otherwise? Reading a great work of fiction or even non-fiction isn't about flipping through the pages as fast as you can. It's about stimulating your mind in some way. Whether it's opening yourself up to new ideas or just indulgence of the imagination. Speed reading is a meme unless it's purely utilitarian reading.
>>23778870>Subvocalization does not make you hear the wordYes it does, you literally move your mouth and throat to say the word. That's how "reading" works: you train yourself to make sounds on command and then hear yourself in your head.
>>23778889I didn't say I did not like Joyce's musicality, I said it somewhat fails for me, quite different things, did you forget to subvocalize? Pretty much par for the course for you, nothing but failures in comprehension, assumption, ignoring the point and removing context to move the goalpost. Your inadvertent subtext is make a stronger case against than you are making for.
>>23778912>missed the pointSubvocalization would not work if you did not already have those sounds in your head and you don't need to subvocalize to connect a word to its sound and hear it.
>>23778931>I didn't say you disliked Joyce's musicality, I said you didn't enjoy it. did you forget to repeat back the words I said to you? how indicative of the lack of appreciation of word choice that comes with not subvocalisingthis is a bizarre kind of pathetic, anon. there is no goalpost here. I wasn't trying to trap you into saying you disliked Joyce, I asked an aside question and then said you didn't enjoy his musicality because it'd be weird to repeat your words back if I weren't trying to aggravate you.
>>23778954I never said I didn't enjoy his musicality. Are you incapable of parsing the phrase "somewhat fails?" Also do you not know what "par for the course" implies? It is a fairly common idiom in the English speaking world. If you did not know what it meant you should have looked it up.
>>23778973"somewhat fails" might mean "love but need to criticise for the sake of argument" or "hate but need to prove this idiot online wrong" or "have slight reservations", are you incapable of recognizing that relative terms in the context of controversial but highly esteemed works of art are extremely imprecise, and sometimes the person reading your words is going to slightly misinterpret you without resorting to mockery?don't even know where you're coming from with implying that I didn't parse "par for the course"
I agree with the others in this thread who think it's impossible to get rid of subvocalization and that even if it were possible it would suck a lot of the joy from reading. I don't believe the vast majority of speed reading claims, particularly because most either haven't been verified or have been shown to be misleading. Harold Bloom's claims in particular are obvious nonsense and part of the reason I cannot take him seriously. He's supposed to be an expert on Shakespeare and yet he claims he doesn't subvocalize? Utter nonsense. That's failing to mention his ludicrous claims about his own reading speed.
>>23778997Somewhat fails means it mostly succeeds, it is not difficult; a boat that somewhat fails still floats and serves as a boat, right? otherwise it would not be a boat and completely fail. That assumption thing again. If you did parse "par for the course" you failed to identify what is the course here, but I can imagine how one could do that if they actually parsed and understood.
>>23778931>Your inadvertent subtext is make a stronger case against than you are making for.kek. The dissonance is impressive.
>>23778419I'm more into domvocalization.
>>23779054>a boat that somewhat fails still floatswhat kind of boat? fails to do what? if a work 'somewhat fails' a purely aesthetic measure, then it does not satisfy the aesthetic measure, or maybe it does, and the speaker is just mincing words.oh nooo a rhetorical trap! I am turned to pieces, how will I ever recover from this?Dear Anon,It would be greatly appreciated if you would be more precise in that point which you were, as far as one can discern, implying one misapprehended in their response to yourself by questioning one's ability to parse the phrase 'par for the course', please. As one does understand the general use of said idiom, the questioning of one's ability to follow it does not quite lead one to grasp whichever particular detail of this conversation which one may have overlooked, and leaves little opportunity for an interpretation which is not simple bullying.Of course, bullying can be great fun, and one should scarcely desire to trivialise such a joyous pursuit, but when intermingled so haphazardly with sincere argumentation regarding the nature of communication itself, especially bullying which attacks precisely the subject of debate, it can only be interpreted as naked cowardice, an attempt to reframe the opposing side of a debate as fundamentally ridiculous, so as to protect the clown deploying such japery from actual consideration of the clown's own position in said debate.When one engages in such a strategy, they often regard the sincere attempts at disambiguation as yet another opportunity to strike out with further jokes, which may result in a jolly time, but only further cements the incredulity of their own position unless those jokes are delivered along with an outwardly sincere attempt at explication.Eagerly anticipating your reply,A. Anon
>>23778419You don't need to understand the word, just the sentence.
>>23779120Nta but you don't even comprehend your own words, you simply assume that the sentiment you write with is going to be apparent in the result, it's not. He is pretty concise, you are not.
Use your finger as you read for a 1.5x speed boost without sacrificing comprehension. Everything is a gimmick used for selling courses to marks.
>>23779178if communication styles are being critiqued, it'd be appreciated if they were more specific than assumptions of assumptions and "you don't know how to use words"
>THAT'S IMPOSSIBLEnpc
>>23779211He was specific, directly pointed out numerous examples and I addressed the likely cause.
>>23778466There are a lot of "trends" on this board that are just 1 singular anon (or a small group of anons) seething or shilling something. Once you realize this you start to notice the patterns in their speech and realize how pathetic they are.
>>23778419Um... just like turn off your brain dude.If you're trying to read le fast you're already halfway there.
>>23779253lol okay
Have you tried the existing literature on the subject?
>>23778419I've found that it's easier to increase my reading speed by increasing the speed of my subvocalization, like a person talking really fast. If I don't subvocalize at all, I'm not really reading every word, I'm just skimming, but I guess that's what speedreading teaches anyway.
>>23779008>his ludicrous claims about his own reading speed1000 pages per hour at his peak, so he's claimed. I don't believe it either.
>>23779008>>23779685If I had to guess he probably timed the speed it took to read one not-very-dense page and multipled it to get his per-hour speed. I'm not sure if anybody could read 1000 pages of a book in an hour and understand everything comprehensively on a first read.
people with inner monologues are brain damaged and cant read properly
>>23779870being able to comprehend text yet not having an internal monologue is peak midwit. destined to be a 110 IQ consoomer
>>23779256These threads, the publishing demoralization threads and one other which I am forgetting at the moment are all the same anon who probably wins hands down as most depressing person on /lit/.
>>23778419>I c-c-c-can't stop subvocalizingReminder that the illegitimate inner-monologue meme has always been NPC revenge for the legitimate aphantasia meme. The NPCs felt insecure about the fact that people can visualize and think at speeds faster than an inner-monologue would allow, so they concocted this inner-monologue meme to make themselves feel better. Normal people can use an inner monologue but don't depend on it.
I always found it weird that the "inner monologue" bros were exactly the people the "aphantasia" bros ridiculed. They can't visualize an apple, so they have to use an inner monologue to talk about an apple mentally.
>>23779705Not even mentioning that "per page" is an obviously terrible metric. He couldn't even use "per-word". I have a 100,000 page per hour reading speed if I'm reading Rupi Kaur.
>>23778534>I'd go one step further and declare it impossible. It cannot be done. They're deluding themselves.I agree. I actually bought a speed-reading book and tried all of the concepts - skimming the text first , then chunking words together, then eliminating subvocalization - and it RUINED my reading for a few days. the only true way to get faster at reading is by reading a lot, and it just happens naturally. you can get pretty fast and keep high comprehension but there's an upper limit on it, and that's fine. its actually a good thing. I mean imagine watching a movie on 5x fast forward. that's what speed-readers are trying to do with a book. imagine watching 10 movies in 2 hours on fast forward and telling people you're a speed movie watcher. that's how retarded it is
>>23778419>internal audiobookSame problem-- flashing things into your head serially without reflection as required may be fine for things that don't require thought (history).It's having an eye for extraneous syntax, solecisms (conceptual or otherwise), inefficiencies et. al. and tossing them out as junk to pass over. You don't waste time on people wasting your time in print-- truncate. Read as an Editor judging whatever's before you.
>>23778997>>23778973all right you two bitch ass niggas, let me split the difference for you. reducing subvocalization might be possible, and it might be a more effective way to read text faster, but reducing subvocalization just happens over time naturally the more you read - you can't jump straight to eliminating subvocalization, thats a recipe for disaster. and you can't eliminate it entirely. you cannot convince me that you can read an entire book without "hearing" some of the words in your head. there's no way, and if you claim that you can, you're a bitch. if you were able to eliminate subvocalization completely, then how would you recite a quote from the book to your friend when its not in front of you? you're telling me you would pull up a screenshot of the text in your brain and then, and only then would the sound appear. get the fuck out of here. on some level you always HEAR the text nigga, its just more quickly absorbed into your understanding than verbal speech.
>>23778740Kino
>>23779937Thinking is very much required for history if you want a comprehensive understanding of it. I know books are usually more comprehensive than documentaries, but I catch inconsistencies in history documentaries all the time. (I don't read history books). Your analogy would work better for a math or an exact science maybe where people all unanimously agreed on one thing. There's plenty of debate and controversy and things that require thought in history.
>>23779907That's not how it works. I have strong subvocalization and imagination, so I tend to think they go hand in hand.
>>23779992At least you can visualize, but you're still a semi-cripple if you can't separate the two.
>>23779998This guy bases his world purely on 4chan memes, look at him and laugh.
>>23779998I meant they occur together, not simultaneously. Not sure how you think the latter would work, and I doubt you could explain it.
>>23778419It truly is a blackpill moment, isn't it? The realization that there exist millions of people who when they are "reading" a book, are basically just pretending to read by going through the motion of letting their eyes fly over the page without actually reading or understanding a single word.
>>23779900visualization requires careful subvocalization though. Your brain doesn't have the time to paint a proper picture of any given scene in a book when you are basically doing the equivalent of watching a movie at x2 speed.
>>23778469>grokking is not true understanding
>>23778593>When you talk to someone in person you don't form each word the person you are talking with speaks, you connect it directly to meanings and contexts.This sounds like overcomplication to me. I see reading as secondary to speech, and subvocalization seems natural and common. It's just like imagining the sounds of the words you're reading. I can give two examples that I would think indicate it's extremely common. First, why does writing in all caps 'sound' like yelling? Because you're subvocalizing the tone of the text. If there was none of that going on, there'd be no reason to think caps are aggressive, they're just larger versions of the same letters.Second related example, haven't you ever been having a conversation in text or a messenger app and had a misunderstanding with the person? The lack of contextual cues might make a terse message or a certain choice of words sound harsh or impatient when that wasn't what was intended. Surely everyone has experienced this. We're subvocalizing the words in a different tone of voice than their writer did.
>>23778419>HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU READ ANYTHING WITHOUT MENTALLY COMPREHENDING THE WORD YOU'RE READING?The text doesn't say that. The text says that you need to REDUCE subvocalization, not eliminate it. Just reduce the volume of the words in your head. You will still hear them.
>>23780054but the volume of the subvocalized words doesn't change the speed of your reading. You'd have to cut the words short in order to achieve an increase in reading speed. Either way, for recreational reading it seems completely counter productive. One of the biggest benefits of reading is it allows your internet brain that is used to constant high speed dopamine stimulation to take a breather and enter an almost meditative state of mind. Speed reading is achieving the complete opposite of that effect. It's just a continuation of the usual screen activities where everything needs to move at the fastest speed possible towards the next dopamine hit.
>>23780059Nta I agree, although I've found the benefit of skimming as I've gotten older because I get impatient with parts of books I don't care about. I still rarely do it, usually prefer to just read something I like more.
>>23778460Reading without subvocalization sounds really miserable ngl. You don't appreciate the rhytm of the text
>>23778460the amount of mental gymanstics you go through to justify the fact that you have never actually read a book in your life is quite funny. You've held a book in front of your face, moved your eyes across the words and thought that is what people call "reading", it's hilarious. It's kinda scary to think how many people like you actually exist though.
>>23780009Ah, yes, the ol' "I'm too good for 4chan culture, and I'll let you know on 4chan" cringe.
>>23780014I've decided from your smarminess that you're likely a full cripple who isn't even visualizing properly. My bad for giving you the benefit of the doubt, you complete knob.
>>23780009I'll laugh at your comma splice on the /lit/ board.
>>23780032I'm sorry about your defective brain.Go pat the other "must inner monologue at all times" retards on the back.
>>23778419kek, "muh inner monologue" flyover retards strike again
>>23778419>the act of ofYour thinking has become so slow that you have time to forget you've already typed a word.
>>23778419I just tried. I don't think you can really eliminate it, but I was able to place less conscious effort on it. It made it so I could read your OP very quickly. The sounding out of words was still apparent, but it was very fast and I could still read and understand. So for example, in my head, this:>THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE, YOU GOOFY MOTHERFUCKERSounded like this:>THAT'SIMPOSSIBLE,YOUGOOFYMOTHERFUCKER.That was as close as i could get.
The way it works is that your brain only has a limited number of functions, and “reading” isn’t one of them. You are using the “speaking” part of your brain to read, but that’s not the only way. For example, ASL knowers use the “motor skills” part of their brain to read. They think out arm/hand movements instead of vocal chord movements.Try these exercises if you want to see what I mean:>try reading a passage in your head while singing a song>Count upwards (one, two, three…) in your head while reading a passage aloud. Now do it again, but this time imagine visually the numbers ticking up (as if on a clock or timer) instead of counting “verbally”.t. knower
>>23778419Studies find no subcovxalization leads to less comprehension
>>23778419It can be done, but you have to reinvent a bunch of things in an isomorphic form.
>>23781003I can get it so I'm only sounding out every 3/4 words or so while still understanding what I'm reading.Trying to shut the voice up completely is really hard though. I don't know if that's even possible or if it's just a habit that's hard to break.
>>23780660It's not "4chan culture," though retard. It's a meme that all the NPCs here, who are incapable of independent thought, spammed for one week and you're the only retard to actually hold onto it and integrate it into your core beliefs.
>>23778419>HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU READ ANYTHING WITHOUT MENTALLY COMPREHENDING THE WORD YOU'RE READING?you do it by pushing the comprehension of individual words to a lower subconscious level, just as you have almost certainly already done with letters. you don't need to consciously examine the shape of each letter, you just see what they are instantaneously and without effort. now do that with whole words.
