Talk:Speed reading

Spritz Promotional Text
The text in RSVP that refers to spritz is clearly promotional. No actual research results or evidence is offered for the claims. The only reference is to a blog post on their site, and the "science" otherwise seems made up. I will not change this because I am not an editor. But I suggest the editors check the validity of these claims, and whether such promotional text has a place on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.93.139.158 (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I figured when I wrote it (which is why my Edit Summary said as much). But there's no white paper in the public domain that they list, or link to; probably because they deem the technology proprietary. Any research paper that identifies and demonstrates the efficacy of ORP, would probably require an explanation of how the ORP is recognised - in order to be accepted for publication, and for peer review.


 * That said, I think the concept should find a mention in the article. In order to avoid "breaking" one of the domineering hegemony's .. aka Wikipedia Editing cabal's straitjacketing regulations - i.e. no promotional material, I had to "break" another one. I thought I threw enough weasel words in there, for I R Baboon to show up. But apparently not. Then again, maybe the baboons did show up. 123.237.156.169 (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, i am not a wiki editor. I came here looking for information on spritz and similar software. Right now there is a revolution going on with several new software being presented. Those software all follow more or less the same strategy of showing one word at a time from the text for very small time. Some software permit to present 2 or more words (i personally found this option not that effective, but that was my personal experience). Also some insert a small oause after commas and fullstop. Spritz is one of those software, but there are others. On the ipad I use flash reader. And then there was another one similar to spritz, which I cannot recall (and I came here to find it back). Basically i think it is VERY bad that no mention about those software and this strategy is present at all in wikipedia. They might not have a white paper ( but check also for patents, i think spritz might have patented their strategy). They should be mentioned here, and there should even be a page with all the different software compared. Like there is for other type of software. I would be willing to help edit it, (and I would have started) but experience have showed me that too often wiki editor tend to delete contributions (this is an example, but. I have observed the same in other ares) so I let you do it by yourself :-). Pietro Speroni di Fenizio @pietrosperoni  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.230.44 (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * (Not sure how do I sign, but the above paragraph was written by me) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pietro Speroni (talk • contribs) 20:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The Logox browser plugin already displayed single words in a very similar way back in 2004. It was comfortable that you hadn't to move the eyes, but 600 WPM is the limit. Both with or without eye movements. And already there, there's missing maybe 20 percent of the stuff. Of course you could turn it to 1000 WPM and it's nice to perceive how you almost understand sentences without having consciously read them. But for seeing logical connections between the parts of a text, you have to see it as a whole and not serialized imho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C6:E73D:5600:C906:90E8:69E4:4649 (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed
Category:Pseudoscience on the grounds that said epithet (a highly, and often unfairly, stigmatizing epithet, IMO) was unwarranted, based on the content of the article. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Types of reading
I mean... I use mental reading and I'm at 750 WPM regularly.... Should add in something there that says that those rules aren't so rigid, that those numbers are just average. 24.244.29.53 (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 700wpm reports based on Rapid serial visual presentation shows that content contains legit info, cant find a comprehensive source though.

Howard Berg mentions "schema". Anybody has a link to a wikipedia article on this and we have to mention that in the article hear
Herewith an assist:

Howard Berg - a fast reading and learning prodigy - mentions "schema" (psychology), as a factor that influences reading speed. The more you know about what you read, the more your brain can pull-up related knowledge and the easier facts stick in the memory. And for reasonings that are made in the article or facts that are mentioned, the (speed) readers can skim-read "jump" over those phrases and paragraphs, because they already know about them and scan the text for new facts to them or viewpoints and words or word-combinations not previously seen in the articles' context.

Anybody with time to weave mention it that in the article here. Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

fatma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.219.198.164 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)