Talk:Speed reading/Archive 1

To do
this page needs external links to free speedreading software and ebooks the supplied link gives hints as to how to learn speed reading but does not guarantee a workout program

Fake Reference
Reference 5 links to an advertisement. (which I purchased once upon a time, but that's another story)Geneven (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC).

Kamila Kornet is the fastest reading person in the world - 46482 words/min
According to internet, fastest reading man is Kamila Kornet from Poland and her record is 46482 words per minute - it's the world record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.193.221 (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This page seems very POV
I'm not going to throw down the information offered as some is good. However, most of the talk is myth talk. There are not enough scientific psychological studies going in depth about this. I did admire the military talk and introduction, but after speed reading I feel as though people are giving this article a negative connotation. Did wiki change the top bar? wtf? --Cyberman 10:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, clean this up: "at least in an informational point of view" very vague.

I've read through the entire discussion page (which I think is far more interesting than the article) and I agree with those who say this article is badly biased against the possible validity of speed reading concepts. In my eyes it needs to be rewritten from a more neutral POV --Sigi


 * If you can find statements that are both verifiable and notable, you're welcome to add them to the article with appropriate citation. If you find wording that sounds like Wikipedia is taking sides (excepting stuff that is attributed to outside sources, of course), then you're also welcome to try your hand at re-writing that with language that doesn't take sides. &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 05:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Distinction
It seems to me that there is a significant difference between reading at 400 wpm and 700+. Both are above avrage - and as such could [and should] be called speed reading. However, the 700+ level seems on the verge of bogus, or at least dubious, while the 400 level seems to be genuinely helpful. The article makes it quite clear that extreme speeds should be taken with a grain of salt but I fear that it paints the terms with a broad brush and should note that it is possible to increase one's speed above the avrage and still retain a high comprehension rate.


 * This is a good point. The answer to this is in the reading rate research. There is some overlap in wpm scores, dependant on various factors, such as reading ability, background knowledge, and verbal ability etc.  The figures quoted are taken straight from research, but should really be interpreted with an understanding of the above factors.  However, what is not clear, is quite how to determine what is speed reading (using the wpm measure), partly because the speed reading co's will never define anything, and partly because when they do state anything notable, it is in disagreement with the next bunch of speed reading advocates.


 * Some readers can read at over 400wpm, but are not actually speed reading, or skimming. They don't miss the same significant number of words.  But these cases are not representative of a population.  I believe the researcher's point is, it is possible for some people to reasonably and usefully increase wpm to a level slightly above 400wpm, but it is not speed reading.  Anyone can skim/speed read at over 400wpm, and it has its limited uses, but the comprehension issue bites, and trade descriptions people start suing the greedy charlatans again. I might try to write this point into the page, around wpm issues etc.  Regards D.Right 06:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

"How To"
I couldn't help myself when I saw this article and added a short "how to" that has proven itself a very effective way to "speed read" with hundreds if not thousands of people who have stumbled onto it reading the usenet self-improvement newsgroup FAQ entry on Speed Reading that I wrote about 10 years ago. It's not the Evelyn Wood method, and it is definately not skimming. Try it before you delete it.... -- Jim Whitaker


 * Thanks, but Wikipedia isn't a repository for How-Tos. I've removed it. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 02:23, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree wholeheartedly with that opinion. I have a considerable background in Speed Reading and teaching it.  Over 99% of people looking up Speed Reading on the web are not at all interested in some useless historical blurbs about speed reading and reading a seriously biased anti-speed reading POV which is what this article currently is.  THEY ARE INTERESTED IN HOW IT WORKS and HOW TO DO IT THEMSELVES.  There are about 50 different styles of speed reading out there.  Learning to read visually is the most basic of them all, and the one that produces the best results and the best comprehension.  I used to speed read for A.P. classes back in high school and at UCSC, and often got the highest scores in the class.  The speed reading methods taught by most speed reading classes do not work, and have given the whole concept a very bad name.  Your personal bias (which is considerable, given what I see in your profile) should not be the basis for this article simply because you want to delete anything inconsistant with it.  Clean it up if you want, but deleting the information that most readers are looking for is pointless.  -- Jim Whitaker


 * You may disagree if you like, but the fact, not "opinion", that Wikipedia is not a repository for How-Tos is not going to change because you disagree. Please read What Wikipedia is not for details. Most of our readers are not looking for How-Tos, they are looking for encyclopedia articles. How-Tos can easily be found elsewhere.
 * Everyone has personal bias. I simply have the forethought and integrity to disclose mine. Please see Neutral point of view for details on Wikipedia's approach to bias. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 03:44, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. I am new here, so my first impulse was to swallow my pride, and read.  So I have just sat down and read about 150 printed pages worth of Wiki-isms and how to post stuff.  Nowhere does it say anything remotely like "how-to's are inappropriate".  Therefore I conclude that you are citing your own bizarre opinion and claiming a non existant "authority" (rule) that does not exist.  What what you are calling a "fact" above is mere personal opinion, and an inappropriate one at that.  I am forced to suggest that YOU sit down and read them yourself.
 * I crack open my encyclopedia Britanica and World Book, and find how-to's in it. There are endless descriptions of how to do all sorts of things: even how to build atomic bombs.  In some cases, the style is not explicitly how-to, but the article nontheless is.  What I find repeatedly in the wiki guidelines is invitations to be bold in posting what you know.  When your opinions differ with others, or you post something that is biased, others are inherently invited to go in and edit your posts to make them more wiki-like in tone and genre.
 * Now, "How to's" for Speed Reading are very difficult to find on the web. Try it.  If you hunt long and hard enough you'll stumble into my 10 year old posting on the FAQ I mentioned, which has consistently been the only viable how-to on speed reading that I have ever seen on the web.  What you find out there on the web is a mess of advertisements and hype... and suggestions about reading speed from various Universities... useless for someone who wants to try it himself.  Useless for evaluating what speed reading is or what is likely to work and what isn't.  You simply have to pay your money for someone's program, and hope it's a good one.  Like I said, there are about 50 different styles...  A description here of what Speed Reading is really about and how it works presents a better option.
 * "Clean it up if you want, but deleting information that most readers are looking for is pointless". The whole article is a work in progress.  It even says so at the top.  It is perfectly fine to post something in an article in an infancy state like this one is to get people thinking in new ways about an article, or about new directions that an article should take.
 * It is far more productive to make suggestions about what you beleive is appropriate (style wise, content wise or whatever) and what is not than to simply delete the information that most people are looking for because you think the writing style is "off". -- Jim Whitaker


 * The fact that the Encyclopedia Britannica contains articles that explain how things, such as atomic bombs, work, does not mean it is full of How-Tos, it means it is explaining how things work. If you want to explain how speed-reading works in a practical sense, that would be appropriate. A guide for how to do it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry, though. Furthermore, why not simply provide a link in the External Links section to your 10-year-old usenet posting?
 * As for my "opinions" on what is appropriate and not for an article, I think it is adequately covered by "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base". It's also covered by No original research and Cite sources. You might think it isn't, though, and you might be right and I might be wrong. Since all rules here are based on consensus, you're welcome to solicit others' opinions and ask them to weigh in here. There are IRC channels and various fora for doing so&mdash;in particular, Requests for comment is designed specifically to help solicit outside views on disputes such as this. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 10:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * My primary beef with this article as it stands is that it promotes a rather extreme POV professing to be a world authority on the subject, and it says essentially NOTHING other than "speed reading is nonsense". As someone with 26 years experience teaching others reading skills, I am just going to assert my 26 years of experience as an authority in the field and rewrite it.  Hopefully guardians of misinformation and vandals won't corrupt it too badly.  The problem with posting a link to that FAQ is that it is HUGE, it seems to be getting garbled a little bit more each time someone copies it, there are no HTML markers in it for the different sections, and it moves around from site to site on the web. -- Jim Whitaker
 * I hope you can understand something fundamental to my point here, being that it is essentially impossible to describe the difference between reading by subvocalization and reading using visual processes without demonstrating it. Hence the "how-to" is back...  -- Jim Whitaker


 * I enjoyed reading your contribution. But I have to agree with Saxifrage that the How-to style of your writing is something we try to avoid in an encyclopedia. That said, I'd myself rather have your contribution there as it is, than none at all. So it's kind of a dilemma. But here's a suggestion: How about if you, instead of describing how the reader, "you", should move his finger, practice every day, be careful with eyeglass prescription etc, you document how a "speed reader" is doing all those things. You see the difference? It would make it sound much more encyclopedic. And maybe even acceptable to Saxifrage ;-). Btw, you can sign your name on Talk pages by using 4 tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;). Anyway, nice to have you here, and thanks for contributing to wikipedia. Shanes 14:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I made an attempt at cleaning it up. -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 05:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, looks much better to me, at least. I think some people will still find it a bit to much on the How-to side, but as you say, it's hard to write about these things without demonstrating. Anyway, I moved the history section to the top, since that seems like the natural place to have it. And I also wikified the text a tiny bit (bolding Speed reading in the first paragraph, and adding internal wikilinks). Shanes 06:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * This looks much better to me, yes. And thanks, Shanes, for saying constructively what it seems I was failing to say. What I didn't see what that Metaphorman wasn't wedded to inserting a HowTo, but wanted the essential information it contained to appear. Metaphorman, this revision (though it could probably use cleanup like any large addition) doesn't at all look like a HowTo pasted into the article. If I hadn't been here before, I couldn't tell that this interesting article was drawn largely from a HowTo. I'm sorry for mistaking your intention.
 * Incidentally, a References-section link to your original HowTo would be very good. If it was posted to Usenet, it has probably been archived by Google and would have a permanent URL from which to reference it. A search on some of the terms in your original edit and on your name turned up this Usenet article&mdash;would that make an appropriate reference, or was there a better version released without the extraneous points? &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 22:25, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's the one. Originally my "Speed reading made EZ" was a post to alt.self-improve in response to about 100 posts of people posting gibberish about speed reading and asking where to find a reliable method.  I got tired of reading it, so I posted my quickly written "how-to", which because a sort of cult-classic and unleashed a torrent of email questions directed at me for several years.  The FAQ is full of extraneous self help gibberish.  Unfortunately, I can't find an archive of the original post.  -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 23:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Some more digging turned up a more succinct version that doesn't have the extraneous FAQ questions. I've added it to the article as a Reference. If you can find an archive of the original, go ahead and update the link. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 23:40, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * This person extracted the whole Speed Reading section of the FAQ, and posted it. I dunno if that makes it "more" authoritative than the FAQ, which I think should be listed there as well.  With luck someone will find a copy of the original post.  I think it was in 1993 or 1994....  Somewhere I have tarballs of all my old netcom files, it would take a month to find the original posting sifting through all those (often corrupted) files.  -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 00:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say it's more authoritative, but it is much more to the point. I think it should be "good enough" for now, so long as the extract is accurate. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 00:40, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Re. the addition of a "how-to", it should be noted that how-tos are very appropriate for the wikibooks.org project. If Metaphorman wants a comprehensive description/lesson on how to use one reading technique or another, perhaps it would be more appropriate to link from here to a wikibook dedicated to the subject.

The "Detractors" section is completely lame and warped badly by my admittedly strong POV. Someone else who doesn't have my POV should do some research on this and write this in an unbiased manner. I think it also has something of an error in it, as the Carver research is mentioned in the journal article I mentioned, the article I cited was not by Carver. -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 01:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not even sure what the word "Detractors" mean in this context, but I took a shot at NPOV'ing it abit. Just revert it if I screewed up, and I'll leave it alone to those who actually know what they're talking about ;-). For instance, I wasn't quite sure wether it's the study by Carver, or the article in the International Journal of Instructional Media that is notable and much cited. Oh, well.... Shanes 02:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello all

As a How To/self help manual, this later “How To” addition to the speed reading wikipedia page is both completely unreliable and biased. It is also bad advice on the whole. The most comprehensive research shows that speed-reading is simply skimming. Skimming involves reading at about 700wpm with low comprehension (under 75%).

The only data in the How To section given about rates of reading and comprehension are that the top speedreaders skim at 1000wpm with 50% comprehension. If you read the empirical research into reading rate, you will discover that 50% is completely unacceptable as a comprehension level for rauding (reading for comprehension). It is non-comprehension.

75% is an acceptable level that is generally measured to reasonable comprehension. I believe most lay people would agree with this. I am certain that most people would consider the “humming to reduce subvocalisation” technique to be unacceptable. And research into reading rate actually shows that subvocalizing is normal and essential for good comprehension. Therefore, the 50% comprehension rate of top speed readers is a clear indicator that they are only skimming.

The Evelyn wood story, and the follow up describing more recent speed reading courses is very appropriate. It gives a good account of speedreading’s standing in world opinion.

Put simply, reading fast at 50% comprehension is skimming. Speed reading is skimming. If you can produce empirical research to show that humming while reading will produce rapid reading with good comprehension (any empirical research that contradicts Carver’s research), then please post the source.

Until then, this article, seriously needs reverting. Wikipedia could do without the wholesale advisory posting of “How To be satisfied with only 50% comprehension” (if you practice hard enough to be a speed reading champ).

Alternatively, one could say: Some contemporary speedreading courses even advise:

The total elimination of subvocalization through lengthy periods practicing humming while reading. Practicing diaphragmatic breathing techniques. Avoiding high glycemic index foods. Avoiding reading novels.

However, results show that in doing so, one will still reduce comprehension from a good 75% or more, to a significantly reduced 50% or less. One can achieve similar results by skimming.

Regards D.Right

Hi again

I added the accepted dictionary definition of speed reading, and reverted the first paragraph to the descriptive version, rather than the explanation of a single course's prescription or theory.

I strongly suggest the other lengthy "advice" be reverted also. Any particular prescriptions for practice can be placed in a reasonable sized "speed reading course prescriptions" section. This can be balanced with a very short section on "Empirical research into reading rate and comprehension".

The web is full of odd advice and self help. We really don't need more than just an indicator of it here.

Regards D.Right

Hello again I've summarized the prescriptions and given the article a more global context. I have tried to keep as encyclopedic as possible while taking into account research, parties with vested interests, and popular opinion.

Its all up for discussion though Regards D.Right
 * Where to begin.... One of the unfortunate aspects of wikipedia is that any anonymous person with an extreme and uneducated POV such as "speed reading is skimming" can show up and deface several days work of an expert in the field.
 * There is no standardized definition of "speed reading". This author makes the claim that he is providing a dictionary definition, which is overt nonsense.
 * The term "speed reading" encompasses a variety of reading systems and styles. Anyone who reads quickly is often called a "speed reader".  Anything that attempts to be encyclopedic in nature must address the various permutations of the concept rather than give a false definition of the term and then declare every possible permutation of his incorrect definition to be nonsense.  It is called a "straw man" argument, which has absolutely no place in an encyclopedia.
 * The author claims that the article as I wrote it is a "how to" that gives bad advice. It is a "how it really works for people for whom rapid reading systems actually work".  Anything that attempts to be encyclopedic and NPOV has to include such information rather than dismissing all such information as nonsense.
 * The mental processes that develop in an experienced speed reader are VERY different than those of someone skimming. The problem is the issue of memory limitations of the human brain, which produce results in many people that are similar to skimming when they are reading for clinical "comprehension" tests.  An experienced speed reader for whom the skills work is orders of magnitude more mentally active than a skimmer.  The difference needs to be clearly explained, as I attempted to do.
 * It takes time to develop the skills for visual reading, and it takes even more time to develop the skills for high speed reading.
 * What is in my version of the article is not the product of "one speed reading system".
 * The trick of humming is for beginners. It is not for increasing comprehension, but rather to kick the habit of saying words out loud or to oneself while reading.  This author didn't bother to read the article, obviously didn't understand it (which probably indicates that it needs some minor tweaking) and misquotes it.
 * The point of the article is not to teach speed reading but to explain how and why it works, and how and why it doesn't and what it's limitations are and WHY.
 * This author wants to come along and dismiss all information about how speed reading in experienced speed readers who actually use the skill on a regular basis find that it really works with his misinformed, niave, and extreme POV assertion that "speed reading is skimming". He claims research backs it up his extreme POV, but provides no sources.  What the research he claims is based upon a rather extreme behaviorist/skinnerian assessment of the end effects of poor quality speed reading systems as applied to clinical comprehension tests, not the accounts of people for whom speed reading systems actually work.  Speed reading skills are not designed or intended for acing comprehension tests, they are useful for developing high speed mental processes, finding and evaluation material that is worth reading, sifting through information, and assessing the shortcomings of the thinking of the author.
 * I could go on and on and on here, but there really isn't much point in getting into a contest with people who will just turn around and undo my reversion... I don't have the time to put into it anymore.    - Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 11:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Greetings Jim Witaker If you mean that I am uneducated then perhaps you should skim this: I have been researching speed reading and reading rate for quite some years and here is some of what I have found through library searches, database searches and meetings with reading experts:

According to the published literature on reading rate and psychology in general, there is no construct naming or distinguishing visual reading from auditory reading. Subvocalization does not involve two definitions. It is auding, pure and simple. A good deal of searching came up negative for the term “cognitive window”. It may well be a lay or concocted term for the purposes of marketing. A reference here would be helpful. On the positive side, context memory does exist. However, it seems to be completely unrelated to reading or speed reading. A reference here would also be helpful. A large section on context memory is unnecessary. There seems to be no such term as context pool in cognitive psychology or reading research. Until you provide solid references for the existence of these concepts, we may assume they are concocted for some purpose other than clarification.

Any passage about reputable or disreputable speed reading courses should be removed. It would be far too controversial to infer that your particular method is reputable. The only reputable sources are that of the scholarly articles mentioned below which do a good job of investigating speed reading. They conclude that that speed reading is skimming in disguise. No scholarly articles have been able to show otherwise. That, my friend, is not POV, it is fact. Speed reading books and courses will have another view. They deserve equal space. The present state of the speed reading wiki page needs a brief but wide range of how to's from a representative sample of styles. The advice of speed reading experts is appropriate, and the counter advice of speed reading scholars should not be removed as you have done. We would all benefit by working with a concise, factual, balanced, and properly referenced version.

D.Right


 * I just cracked open a giant encyclopedic tome (The Cognitive Neurosciences, Michael S Gazzaniga editor) sitting in my bookshelf on cognitive science. It is full of heavily referenced articles.  Something I notice right away is that the various authors introduce and provide definitions for numerous "odd" sounding terms in each and every article, rather like what I did.  They have to because the human brain is complex and nebulous.  It is impossible, for example, to define "short term memory" and "long term memory" because the terms are totally ambiguous.  What is in there is a whole bunch of coined terminology and acronyms that each author defines for the purposes of the article, or borrows from someone elses prior published articles.  When they try to borrow a term from someone elses work, they inevitably start qualifying it, trying to "bat it into shape" to make their own points, metaphors, and opinions somewhat clearer using a poorly recycled formal term.  When you go from one article to the next, you have to deal with each new authors unique or semi-unique vocabulary.   Without using "unusual" terminology, their articles make no sense.  This is an accepted way of writing, in the closest scientific field to "speed reading" that can be found.


 * Each of the terms used in the previous version of this article were explained through example so that the meaning of the terms was an unambiguous as possible. When you explain a phenomenon or proposed mechanism and how it works with one's own unique terminology, you don't have to make a lame attempt to recycle someone elses terminology.  This is the only way to describe some functions of the brain.


 * I have an article here called "Working Memory" that talks about what I called the "context memory", but this published scientific article calls it the STS (short term store). At the same time it references William James "primary memory".  It makes it painfully clear to the reader that there have been a plethera of terms all trying to describe roughly the same mechanism and that this author is settling on STS.  If you want to be a stick in the mud about precision of scientifically accepted vocabulary, you could fumble and try to use the term STS in place of context memory - however in the context of speed reading, it lacks a certain metaphorical quality that makes the function much clearer, which the description of how it functions coupled with the metaphorical quality of it's name makes as clear as english can be.  The only real way to make the functioning clear is through the mechanisms of metaphor, such as "context pool".  Metaphors don't always sit well with stick in the muds for scientifically precise vocabulary - in a field in which it is impossible to be scientifically precise to begin with....  Notice also that I stated "sometimes called cognitive window" and "sometimes called context memory".  I'll bet you could find 100 different scientific terms for each of those two terms mentioned in that single volume alone.


 * I was one of those characters that used to speed read entire textbooks before final exams at 10,000+ WPM and ace final exams I never studied for. I do not have an eidetic or otherwise freak memory.  I happen to know from direct experience that it is possible to have very high rates of comprehension while "speed reading".  In teaching others reading skills I have found that fundamental to the process is providing a functional understanding of how the various stages of human memory actually function, to understand how information sticks in the brain, and how it "decays".  These concepts generally come from the Cognitive Neurosciences... with a metaphoric "spin" to make the points make sense to people in the context of speed reading.  Once someone has a functionally accurate model in mind, he can practice reading by organizing information around his model, and apply these models at extremely high speeds that are the result of a lot of practice.  The single most significant problem for speed readers is memory decay, followed closely by overloading the context buffer, followed by the brain trying to fill in the gaps with false memories that it synthecizes because it "assumes" something should have been in the text.  If you don't address these critical concepts with active cognitive activity while reading at such high speeds that unconscious cognitive functioning cannot keep up, all you are doing is looking at words fly by on the page so quickly that they disappear due to what I called "context memory flushing" - ie: trying to repeat back 9 digits.  They have to be managed actively, such as by using that "powerpoint" preparation system I described.  If you don't actively and consciously model the cognitive properties of your own brain while reading, you can't manage thoughts quickly enough to do anything with the (usually) massive quantities of information coming at the speed reader's brain.  If a "speed reader" does not have a conscious, functional model of how the brain manages information, then the brain is skimming uselessly over text.  The only way to convey a such a functional model, because the brain is so darned nebulous and complex, is through introducing metaphors.


 * As to the two definitions for subvocalizing, I put that in the subvocalization article because it is a point of extreme confusion for people who are learning to speed read. Almost everyone who tries to learn to speed read and cuts out the serial process of speaking words to themselves finds that they are still acutely aware that the words they see on the pages have sounds.  About half the speed reading teachers and classes out there stress that you must completely knock out all "auditory" sensations associated with speed reading.  The prevalence of this misunderstanding on the part of both teachers and students requires some form of distinction between "being aware of the sounds of words" and "the serial process of sounding out words one by one".  I did this somewhat awkwardly in the subvocalization article by saying "definition 1" and "definition 2", which might not be widespread use amongst formal academics, but the distinction between the two forms of auditory association is often done in practice by saying that there are two forms of subvocalizing.


 * The term "cognitive window" is a heavily used metaphor. Everybody I have ever taught to speed read or who has had any success with speed reading in the past catches on to that metaphor instantly.  If you claim to be a reading researcher et al. and have never heard of it or some other term describing the same mechanism, then I am safe assuming that you are from a different planet.  When reading at high speeds, the brain creates a "window" on the text that is bigger than the human eyes vision span that consists of what has been read in over the last second and a half to two seconds, and processes the text through this "window".  If a reader doesn't use this mechanism of the brain, he can't do things like "read backwards" - his reading speed is slowed down to the speed that his eyes can read through a single line of text, bouncing around the words, one or two words at a time....  If you don't use this sensory record mechanism, you can't speed read, period.  If you have no idea what I am talking about based upon your own experience as a speed reader, then obviously you are a failed speed reader...  who should be seriously asking himself whether he is qualified to tell the whole world how speed reading really works.  Instead of saying "YES! that's the best description of that I have ever seen!" you are challenging it by claiming that it is not a term found in academic circles.  Note that, once again, I said "sometimes referred to by the term cognitive window".  There are other terms for it out there that vary quite wildly with the context it occurs in.
 * >>According to the published literature on reading rate and psychology in general, there is no construct naming or distinguishing visual reading from auditory reading.
 * Then obviously they are lagging hundreds of years behind reality.... John Stuart Mill used to complain that he read so fast that he could not turn the pages fast enough. How do you explain THAT as not being a visual process?
 * -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 04:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 04:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK here is a set of suggestions:

Your description of speed reading and the metaphors you use vaguely refer to a conflicting combination of the theories explaining reading, and the extra lay theories explaining why speed reading should be possible. The normal reading theories are a work in progress and it seems quite fine to add useful information to them on the “reading” wikipage and links, although I would suggest that you use the widely accepted terms as metaphors are often very ambiguous. In fact the functions of the brain that we know of can be explained well using widely accepted scientific terminology. You may have to slow down your reading rate to gain a comprehension of such richly conceptual text (50% comprehension is really not sufficient even though it seems to be high by your perception) and to see the clear distinctions between short, long term and working memory, for instance.

There are wikipages on such terms as working memory and short term memory etc. They are mostly quite well defined, and some are undergoing clarification. But for now, best to stick with those lovely hefty tomes.

There is a section in the present speed reading wikipage for concepts or notions that are specific to speed reading. A link can be made to the normal reading page so that the reader can see the distinction.

There may be some space in the speed reading prescriptions section concerning metaphors for instruction. However, I’ll have to admit that the wide array of speed reading manuals I have read are extremely varied in this matter. Most try to use scientific terms but do not like to show scientific findings. For example they will often muddle the concepts of perceptual span with peripheral vision as you have done (cognitive window). In response to your last point, they will also often use terms concocted in new age notions such as NLP to explain why some people complain when it doesn’t work. That seems to be the main source of the auditory or visual style notion.

A line or two to add to readers such as Kim Peak may be interesting. For example there are points of interest about Antonio Magliabechi, JSMill, George Elliot, JFK, the child of Lubeck etc. Reading rate research also does a good job of qualifying those myths.

Beyond that, the present wikipage explains the speed reading courses and book’s view, and explains the reading and speed reading scholars view. (Ie, the discerning public is told that speed reading increases speed with high comprehension, and the scientific view indicates that speed reading consistently fails to produce such a result in individuals and groups).

As regards length, if we include all the speculative and untested theories in detail of each speed reading “expert”, then we are going to have a ridiculously large wikipage. I don’t want to have to write in detail about the “psychic” theories of speed reading, for example. To provide equal space for each view, the scholarly space would also be the size of a PhD thesis, and nobody wants that.

I suggest, let's just stick with speed reading, reading speed/rate, and comprehension and its notions, and try to keep it under the umbrella of reading. (basically reasonable, and within wikipedia conventions) D.Right D.Right 12:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The concept of "cognitive window" has exactly zero to do with peripheral vision. (I don't know what you mean by "perceptual span", it doesn't seem to be in any of my "hefty tomes".  Do you mean what is described in vision span?) Trying to read using peripheral vision is just plain dumb.  The trick to reading every word FAST is to fill that cognitive window buffer and keep it loaded with information to give the other parts of your brain the ability to analyze the words in parallel.  If there is a "spot" on the page that contains any questionable material because of (usually) garbled peripheral vision information, you should pop your eyes directly there to double check the contents of that area of the page and "load that buffer" with valid information.  (the eyes only have a very small arc with sufficent cone cell resolution in the macula for getting good images of text)  Parallel processing is a hell of a lot more efficient than serial reading processes.  Most people seem at first to try to learn spead reading as a serial process, like a faster version of reading one word at a time, which does not work.  When you have that buffer filled and have trained yourself to use it, the brain processes the words in parallel just as if you are driving down the road and processing the sensory data of all the other cars, roadsigns, road paint and etc in parallel.  More than half of the processing takes place as parallel operations, with the brain coalescing the fragments of analyzed text into a seemingly linear whole.  While doing this, another "part" of the brain organizes that information into patterns such as creating hypothetical powerpoint cards as I described - putting some kind of use to that information to render it "meaningful".  If you ever have the chance to watch me reading at 10K wpm, you will notice that I use my fingers as pointers, literally popping around the page seemingly at random, the fingers leading my eyes.  All that bizzare eye movement is to load the cognitive window buffer with valid information.  My fingers popping around make a lot of noise and attracts attention of people around me.... usually people with bizarre know-it-all grins and shaking heads. - Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 07:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well thats a little clearer. Vision span and perceptual span are synonymous. I have made some clarifiers in the vision span section, but it still needs some work. Vision span is often confused in the speed reading literature with overall vision. What you are describing about window buffers is conceptually covered in the psychology of reading. However, it uses well known concepts such as working memory and schema theory and has already been tested. This is used in Carver's literature to explain why speed reading consistently results in low comprehension. There are also some papers in review that use these constructs, on how speed reading reduces cognitive load by removing the ability to judge comprehension whilst reading. However, most of this can be better dealt with in the reading wikipage and links. The term cognitive window may still be relevant on the speed reading wikipage as it still qualifies as pseudoscience. But I'm having trouble finding it in any speed reading manual. Suggestions to reliable references would be handy. D.Right 10:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Jim. I missed your reply to the large prior change- wasn't expecting it so soon! I have adjusted your additions as the claims of an advocate. You have quite a passion for the subject. I could, however, simply add your research publications at the bottom of the page and quote your name and year next to your quotes. I would love to read some research about reading and synthetic memory especially. This may qualify some of Ronald P Carver's studies. Would you please post your references? Also, if you know any research apart from Carver's that give an accurate account of speed reading courses as a whole, I would love to take a look.

Cheers Doug

Hello Jim. I don't wish any disrespect, but it does sound as if you have got all your theory from the most nebulous excuses in psuedoscience. If your book, the Cognitive Neurosciences, Michael S Gazzaniga editor, is your first attempt at basic psychology, then I suggest you have some catching up to do for all those years of instilling misconceptions into your clients. Teaching literacy is a worthy occupation, but it requires professionalism. EBlack 09:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It is pointless to say, but I'll do it anyway. I have literally thousands of books in my apartment, about half of which I have actually read at least 20% of.  A lot of those are on the field of psychology, neurology, biology etc.  I don't take clients for teaching speed reading....  there is not much point in doing it, I wouldn't make a living at it.  "misconceptions" as you seem to want to call them may not be ideas that sync with your ideas, but they work in reality. -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 07:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jim. Just another query! You mentioned: "Speed reading skills are not designed or intended for acing comprehension tests, they are useful for developing high speed mental processes, finding and evaluation material that is worth reading, sifting through information, and assessing the shortcomings of the thinking of the author." Surely high or good comprehension means that you would ace a comprehension test. And assessing the shortcomings of authors does tend to require taking into account assumptions and using the imagination to some degree. I believe this is where you misconceive speed reading. I really cannot see how you can compromise between these two factors. Or are we in agreement? We are both saying that: To date, speed reading has not come up to the promises made? Curious, Doug DoctorDog 16:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Speed reading per se does not make any assumptions or promises. Idiots trying to teach it used to make a lot of money off of bloated claims.  The fact remains that thousands if not millions of people utilize speed reading skills every day for a variety of purposes.  Most people who learn "speed reading" don't learn a viable system or a viable set of skills, and many of them simply do not have brains compatible with speed reading concepts.  But even more learn hype dressed up as a quickly learnable skill.
 * Now, comprehension tests test MEMORY, not one's understanding of the material as one is reading it. It is entirely possible to completely understand some topic in school in the spring quarter, and then come back in the fall, and to one's chagrin, has forgotten huge chunks of information one "should have" been able to remember.  The same thing happens to a speed reader except the time frame is highly compressed. -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 01:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quite honestly, regardless of whether you have 26 years or 100 years of experience in a field, unless you have been published by respected, controlled journals, you are not an expert. Or at least, you COULD be, but you'd have no way of convincing the rest of the world. I can't really see that there is a place in wikipedia for personal opinion which, if it is not properly peer-reviewed or fully cited, is what your How-To is. Then again, perhaps wikipedia is not what we all imagine it to be: a repository for accepted knowledge. ~Clandestine

Global Perceptions of Speed Reading
In reply to Jim who said: What the research he claims is based upon a rather extreme behaviorist/skinnerian assessment of the end effects of poor quality speed reading systems as applied to clinical comprehension tests Speed reading skills are not designed or intended for acing comprehension tests, they are useful for developing high speed mental processes, finding and evaluation material that is worth reading, sifting through information, and assessing the shortcomings of the thinking of the author.

I think we do need discussion on the common perceptions of speed reading, and also how it is sold. The term itself conjures images of someone reading fast with total comprehension, and speed reading courses do claim to be able to teach to read at over 1000 wpm with full comprehension. Also Carver's research covers this to quite a deep level. Does any one have a better idea than summarizing or posting lists of prescriptions and published research? Cheers Doug


 * I believe that the last changes are way too big to be done without sources and discussions here. So I reverted them. Please at least debate them and back them up. And make them in smaller portions with comments to each change so they can be reviewed and checked. Shanes 12:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kim Peek
To clarify an error that occured in an earlier version of this article, according to Peek's own article and the references it links, he has never read upside down. However, since he has an eidetic memory, after reading a book he has the habit of returning it to the shelf upside down or backwards so nobody will read it to him again (which would be in a sense a waste of his time). Apparently he has done this since early childhood. Pakaran 12:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

speed readers and advocates
I altered the line about speed readers. You can advocate speed reading without being a speed reader. Super reader is not a term that is widely used. It is only present in sales hype. Cheers Doug

Perhaps a page about the global view of speed reading would be more appropriate than a page about one speed reading advocate's set of prescriptions. There are recommendations, and there is a body of research about the actual effects of that research. I will work on the prior version of the page to make it encompass the whole gammut of prescriptions of speed reading. Cheers Doug

Starting Again
Perhaps the start of the speed reading page could involve a definition, rather than a pointer about what some speed reading advocates would prefer the speed reading community to emphasize? There is a definition for speed reading Just a suggestion Cheers Doug

OK, I re-read all the references and have pointed out the claims of speed reading advocates or theoreticians, and the results of research conducted on speed reading programs.

I did notice that there was a warning at the top of the page about the length of the article. Perhaps we could just list the prescriptions of both speed reading advocates, and speed reading researchers, with a just a little science and pseudoscience to back up either?

Just an idea Cheers Doug

A Concise, Balanced and Referenced Version
I have made a compromise on features of interest, brief but comprehensive coverage of the variety of speed reading systems, and scholarly research into speed reading practices and outcomes. The format seems to better fit the Wikipedia styles and rules. The warning about oversized article has thankfully disappeared.

Here are some more precise pointers for reference from the Buzan literature :Electrical Energy Posture (sitting upright) Page 64, Meta Guiding (making lazy “S” shapes across the page with a guide) Page 98' Metronome training (reading each line in time to a metronome)' Vertical Wave (Reading down the page rather than left to right),Page 97, Photographic memory training.Page 91 (Buzan 2000)

All up for discussion, Best regards, D.Right

Looks like an encyclopedia article again! I had a good read of the references posted and they are right. I also found some brief material on law suits taken out against speed reading companies concerning trades discriptions. I think believe are relevant, but I am not sure what the rules are about posting such things. They are all past successful convictions. Any ideas? Best regards Juniper

Yes it looks far better, more all encompassing and well supported with clearer referencing to both scholarly articles and armchair theories. I think you could include infractions of law as long as they are not just accusations. They would need to be supported by factual references to legal outcomes. Best to keep it brief. Most readers already understand that speed reading is a dodgy subject.Cheers, Doug

Hi chaps I also have some literature on lawsuits against speed reading claimers. I wouldn't worry about it. I think it is not that relevant, and being legal it is possibly not too interesting. People will be suing them long after we are gone. You know the difference between speed reading and normal reading? Reading sometimes involves skimming and scanning; Speed reading always involves scheming and scamming. Never mind. JuneD

Reading/speed reading theory
The new section on speed reading "concepts/theory" is quite comprehensive. I am going to work on a reading theory section in the normal reading wikipage. A clear link between may help the reader to see the distinctions between either sets of concepts and notions. If any of you deep readers has a very concise piece on normal reading theory, it may be a good time to post. ATB JuneD

I have added a concise section on reading theory in the reading/activity wikipage. It seems to be the most widely accepted version, but if there are any more comprehensive with a similar level of brevity, then it'd be nice to see posted. Regards D.Right 07:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Friendly reminder
Folks editing this article, which seems to be a subject of a bit of contraversy this week, should be careful to follow the WP:3RR policy, which states that editors may revert a given article at most 3 times in a day. Pakaran 04:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks much Pakaran. Useful pointer! DoctorDog 07:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Still disputed?
I was the one putting up the disputed tag in the article when things were running hot here for a while some weeks ago. But now things seems to have calmed down and I was thinking maybe we could remove the tag now. If the disputes are settled, that is. I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason things are calmer now is that those disputing it have left the building. And that wouldn't make the content less disputed. But on the other hand... it would be nice to get rid of the tag. So if anyone feels that the article is still biased, could they speak up? Preferably by listing what it is that they still find wrong. And then we'll either leave the tag there or maybe even actually solve the dispute and get an article that everybody finds fair. You never know. Shanes 02:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Shanes It all looks present and correct to me(IMHO). I do have some things I will probably add when they are properly checked out, but all the stuff on the present page checks out fine according to the references. Cheers Doug DoctorDog 08:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Images
Actually, I think the explanatory value of the image posted by JStrong was quite high. However, the political flavour is perhaps not appropriate. I have added an example of one advert promoting the claims of speed reading which was taken with permission from an internal trade journal. D.Right 06:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You may wish to provide evidence of the copyright status of that image on its appropriate description page to prevent its eventual deletion. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 20:13, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Japanese & subvocalization
I think this should be known:


 * Subvocalization in reading kanji: Can Japanese text be comprehended without it? (Matsunaga, S.)
 * The role of phonology in reading Japanese: Or why I don't hear myself when reading Japanese (Sachiko Kinoshita)

Unfortunately they're not avaible on internet.

--GLari 21:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

As a Chinese reader, it's often the case that we encounter characters we don't know the sound for. But placed in context, we wouldn't have trouble comprehending the meaning. However, this is nothing special as far as the process of reading goes. We all can read English fast enough that words are not subvocalized in full.

Oh, thank you, for this discussion page
Man, I feel better now having seen this page. I thought I was a total loser who couldn't get speed reading. It's so unclear especially the sub-vocalisation part. I kept feeling as if those authors were pulling my legs every time. Luckily, I never paid them a dime for their workshop. And borrowed the books from the library.

Because of everyone here, I have given up trying to lose that inner voice. I have been thinking about it all day. Do deaf people read faster? Are they smarter? Is removing the inner voice more harmful?

Oh, a note about that Kanji and Japanese and subvocalisation. I don't buy it one bit.

-Peace, Mark


 * Some people take instantly to the principals taught in speed reading courses. Others find it completely and totally alien and unworkable, something that their brains simply will not do.  I happen to be one of those people for whom speed reading techniques are more natural than subvocalizing techniques. Whether the techniques are harmful to your reading habits or helpful can only be determined after about 40 hours of practice. -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 13:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But there are those (usually committed researchers of efficient reading skills) who would say that speed reading is nothing more than skimming (reading at reduced comprehension). Subvocalization is less obvious, but still there. 40 hours of practice will make no difference. Your skimming skills will take a very short time to perfect (a few hours or less), and will lead to a better awareness of comprehension. Speed reading books and courses tend to train self delusion. However, a well researched book in efficient reading skills will generally give you more flexible and efficient reading ability, and will train you to accurately assess your own level of comprehension, memory, etcA.Turner 09:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--I would also like to offer my thanks to the scholars here. It is rare that so much bull can be so clearly put right. I attended two speed reading courses both of which were bad for my grades. They were both a waste of time, in that they trained me to reduce comprehension whilst trying to con me into thinking that it had improved. Suvocalizing does not matter, reading fast does not make any difference, subconcious processing is BS, guiding the eyes just looks silly, and concocted pseudoscience is only used to set up a bunch of lame excuses. Its an attractive ad, but it will get people nowhere. How you study makes all the difference. Learning strategies work, not hype, pseudoscience or overpriced courses in skimming. I will also work hard on fighting for a refund in both cases. I have real science from this page to add support. Thanks much Stoked2go 05:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Trying to use speed reading as an exclusive study habit is a foolish misapplication of the skill - the "classes" were probably taught by people who have no idea what they are doing, rather like the Mega Speed Reading and Evelyn Wood folks. Speed Reading is for digging through information in order to find what you need to know.  It is not compatible with human long term memory for reasons described in the wikibook 1.  -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 6 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)

Oh man! I’m foolish? I read your wikibook carefully and it contains the same nonsense as the worst course I attended, except they used more correct terminology whereas you are far more obvious about fabricating it as you go along. Your terms are tacky (window buffers, visual vs auditory readers, etc), and your excuses for why your teachings don’t work are incurably lame. Whether you make money out of teaching speed reading or not, you’re spreading misdirection, and that’s bad news. Your wikibook is entirely unhelpful and will send lots of busy and unsuspecting people (such as myself) round in circles chasing their tails. The wikipage article and links as they stand (especially the rate research) helped me read, skim, and scan better and more efficiently, helped me enjoy reading more, helped me to recognize when someone is trying to dupe me out of time and/or cash, and it is helping me pass my postgraduate exams. I think you should stop wasting people’s valuable time. And you definitely and seriously need to reassess your own comprehension level. Stoked2go 6 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)


 * I described what has proven itself over 26 years. Maybe in a few years you'll calm down enough to realize that it works for some people, and those are the people who will be the beneficiaries.  A surprising number of people have told me that my descriptions in that wikibook of how "natural" speed readers actually read is the first time anyone has been able to describe what is going on their heads as they read.  Their eyes light up like I was the first person in the world who understood them.  If people want to know what is going on in speed reading, they now have a free source of information available on the web (that is likely to get edited in the future by others...)  rather than paying someone money for a course.  I couldn't find that information anywhere I went looking, so I put it up here in the wikipedia, and then in the wikibook when I realized it was a more appropriate place.  The intention of the wikibook is not neccessarily to teach others how to do it (other than the most basic finger pacing exercise to eliminate the speed limit imposed by slow subvocalizing), but rather to tell people how it is done by those who can do it.


 * I would be very interested in knowing what you mean by "excuses for why your teachings don't work are incurably lame." I'll find some time to edit it to clean up or even wholesale delete anything that comes across as "lame".  The intention is to guide people away from things that don't work towards things that do work, such as keeping the brain from trying to process data in clumps that are too large.  Being aware of that alone is what allowed me to go from a state of constant befuddlement in my early attempts at speed reading to being able to cram 150,000 word clumps of organic biochemistry for exams in 20 minutes immediately before a midterm and then ace it.  Pure high speed visual processing in a brain with a seven+ sigma IQ.  Not everyone has the right kind of wiring in their heads to make speed reading work for them, and especially not to the level that it has worked for me.  However, now they at least have a source that tells them how someone else does it.  Some people, such as myself, are so visually oriented that speed reading skills as I described in that wikibook work much more naturally than plodding along subvocalizing every word.  Evelyn Wood reported that such was the case in most of the people she found who were self taught high speed readers.  If skimming, scanning and etc work better for you than speed reading or related skills, more power to you.  My impression is that you are reading the wikibook with the wrong intentions.  Good luck with your exams.  -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 6 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)

Seriously man there is a lot wrong with your wikibook. Specifically, you are very wrong about: 90% text being useless in general, non-subvocalisers reading at 600wpm, speed reading being an ambiguous term, “natural” speed readers, speed reading being superior to skimming, over 95% of peripheral speed readers giving up, Cognitive Window, Context Memory, and Context Pool being part of short term memory, claiming the ridiculous distinction between visual reading and auditory reading, subvocalizing causing a trance split state, eliminating subvocalizing reducing concentration drift, being equally distracted on the second or third reading, humming making it impossible to subvocalize, reducing fixations per line without skipping or skimming words, early morning practice, only some people not being able to suppress subvocalization, distinguishing between taking time to subvocalize and subvocalisation per se, being able to train the “cognitive window”, context memory being related to short term memory, the absolute time limit of anything in the long term memory being 20 minutes, absurd images being particularly memorable or emotional, comprehension being retention, understanding without needing memory, increasing speed whilst increasing active reading skills increases or maintains memory, experienced visually oriented readers in particular varying their speeds, 10000wpm speed readers appearing to read randomly, deep breathing for reading, glycemic index significantly effecting reading, speed readers rarely missing important points, skimming being more prone to missing important points than speed reading, speed reading at 500-1000wpm often being more effective and reliable than 240 wpm and subvocalizing, reading at 500wpm being most conducive to memory when technique is applied, controversy over speed reading deriving from an unstandardised definition, detractors of speed reading not trying thoroughly enough to speed read. Most definitely in all, you and your book are pretty darned wrong about all these things.Stoked2go 7 July 2005 10:52 (UTC)
 * Document pruned of manic-style rambling as per above. -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 7 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)

I don't see any pruning. And if you were interested in checking out your mistakes (which I doubt), you will notice the flow of your errors that I have pointed out here matches perfectly with the flow of errors on your wikibook. However, your basic assumptions about reading in general are wrong, so correcting the mistakes I have indicated here will be insufficient. Your wikibook needs a major brain transplant. Stoked2go 7 July 2005 15:36 (UTC)

Well actually that was quite some pruning. The subvocal stuff is not too accurate though. Still no reason to mess with subvocalising when reading. Normal readers don't hang around for their inner voice to complete a word as in talking. It just doesn't happen. So it's irrelevant. In fact your technique could be described as inner voice neurosis, or "Dumb Reading":)  Stoked2go 7 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)


 * OK, then, point taken. What do you think of the latest rewrite?   -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 9 July 2005 05:15 (UTC)

Its still inaccurate and absurd. But at least being more brief you will be wasting less time for the reader. Perhaps you could modify it into a self help-comedy book. Stoked2go 9 July 2005 08:10 (UTC)

Subvocalization vs Visual Reading
What is up with wholesale deletion of my attempt to put in something about subvocalization vs visual reading? The first thing they teach in a speed reading class is the difference between subvocalizing and reading visually. The whole concept of speed reading is predicated upon curtailing subvocalization habits.... *** NOT *** on skimming your eyes around to "judiciously skip" printed information as this article currently claims. How can this claim to be an encyclopedic article if it doesn't even describe what speed reading is? Lets face it, this article consists of useless "information" that makes pointless biased jabs at "buzzwords" introduced in speed reading programs without defining them or letting the reader find out anything more about them. (When I have tried to introduce such information, it has been summarily deleted!) The result is an article that is flat-out WRONG, intentionally deceptive, and of no value to anyone. The editors of this article whom I find it not worth my time to deal with anymore are making a seriously flawed assumption: that rapid reading skills are useless for all potential purposes, and useless for everyone. Like I mentioned above, I used to ace midterm and final exams in classes like organic chemistry and physics based on my natural "speed reading" abilities. It works WELL for some people, and for MANY purposes. The only real definition of speed reading is "Reading at a speed high enough to eliminate the habit of subvocalization or faster". What is up there right now is misleading balderdash.

Now, YOUR brain might have problems using the principals of speed reading. They guy next to you might cross his eyes due to his bad experiences with speed reading and the two of you who have no idea what you are talking about may then concur that the whole concept is fundamentally flawed. There might even be a "reading researcher" or two or three who come to the same conclusions. That does not mean that everyone is going to have problems with it. -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 01:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed, a description of what spead reading is and how it is supposed to work according to its proponents is a necessary part of an article on the subject. Material that is pro–speed reading and flawed by POV should be edited to reduce POV, not removed outright. Partisan deletion is almost always bad for an article. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 08:35, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Metaphorman, before you add any more sections I would urge you to read the page in order not to post redundant information. I do feel your ideas are being taken into account. I don't think there is any reason to put a prescription into the definintion, and the article does state that some speed reading promoters say that any subvocalization is ok. Your method is also represented without going over the top. It is a broad subject with lots of odd theories, so we really need to keep it balanced. There is no need to add whole sections that go deep into reiterateing a single prescription. Cheers Doug DoctorDog 05:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Functional Speed Reading Habits
Has it occurred to any of you who sit there poking barbs at speed reading skills and the speed reading abilities of others that you simply are not doing it right, never bothered to learn how to do it correctly, and thus have completely invalid opinions? This article currently claims that speed reading is about skipping words, which only applies to really shady "methods" taught by people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Successful reading techniques stress reading every word. This is no different than successful "normal" reading systems. You can't learn how to read from a book. You have to learn high speed reading techniques by developing high speed cognitive habits, most of which primarily concentrate upon the ultra fast visual processing centers of the brain. Anything else claiming to be "Speed Reading" are habits that are worthy of derision. You people are assuming that there are no viable systems. A viable reading system involves reading every word, forming cognitive models of everything that is being read by ACTIVE rather than PASSIVE mental processes, and habits that are compatible with human memory. The problem that most speed reading students get into is that they assume that the passive (unconscious) thinking and comprehension skills that work for low speed reading apply to high speed reading - which is a complete absurdity that results in 95% or more of "speed reading" students abandoning high speed reading skills as useless. -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 11:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you feel insulted by the style of writing in the speed reading wikipage, then you can make the appropriate edits within wiki guidelines. If the facts presented simply make you feel frustrated, then the solution may be to avoid reading the page. Presently the page gives a broad view of speed reading in practice and it does include information that is well documented and can be verified. Some of what you mention about your own theories about how it should be achieved is covered on other pages such as the reading wikipage, and some cognitive science pages. If you feel you want to add anything new and verifiable about subvocalizing, there is a seperate wikipage for that subject. If you can provide any evidence for why speed reading students abandon speed reading, that would be very helpful. I believe at the present, the information that is already there gives a good set of facts for the reader to make up their own mind about its efficacy. If people want to try out speed reading there are links to suggested sites, and if they prefer to try skimming to avoid training non-comprehension, it is enough to say skimming is free, very easy and better. I see it is appropriate to link "how to" explanations, so I may post a link to a set of rigorously researched and comprehensive study techniques for people who want to study books more efficiently. Regards D.Right 07:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed this section, and here is my rationale:A.Turner 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Successful speed readers are a minority (A.Turner 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)This is an odd claim and needs to be backed up with something more solid than stream of consciousness writing. In fact it sounds similar to “Yeh, but my mate told me he can speed read at over……”)

People who make routine use of speed reading skills typically acknowledge the primary weakness of speed reading, which is the inability of a speed reader to recall as much of a printed text as reader at a normal (200-300 words per minute) speed. (A.Turner 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)According to which source?)

However, they argue that not all reading material needs to be memorized, and therein lies the primary difference of opinion between speed readers and detractors of speed reading. (A.Turner 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)Comprehension is not memory, but the definitions are often deliberately confused by speed reading advocates)

Comprehension tests do not measure the reader's understanding of the text, but rather their memory of miscellaneous statements made. (A.Turner 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)No. Standard reading comprehension tests measure comprehension specifically. MOT (memory of text tests) measure memory of the text.  Speed reading style comprehension tests do not measure comprehension, but the people who devise them say that they do.)

Speed reading advocates typically argue that it is usually a complete waste of time and effort to try to memorize every miscellaneous statement made in text that one is reading, but that it is usually vastly more important to understand the overall message, or to recognize the existence of ideas that have merit which does not require "pondering laboriously over every word". (A.Turner 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)Skimming will do the same, as research has already clarified if you would like to read the research section of the wikipage. The statement is redundant as we have a section showing the conflicting opinions of speed reading “schools”. You seem to be siding with one faction of those “schools”.)

Most people who actively use high speed reading skills on a daily basis tend to agree with the idea of differentiating between Active Reading and Passive Reading. A "passive reader" is someone who attempts to apply the same mental habits used at slow speeds for reading at high speeds. (A.Turner 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)This belongs on the reading wikipage, but you could post a link.)

These are essentially the unconscious mental habits that occur when listening to spoken speech. Most speed reading schools and systems simply teach the reader to visually recognize printed words at faster and faster rates, and assume that the human brain will somehow adapt the reading comprehension skills of normal speed reading to the higher rates. This is a fallacy. There have been a number of studies that claim that subvocalizing, or taking the time to imagine speaking the words that one is reading out loud, is necessary for most people to understand what they are reading. (A.Turner 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)This is already far more concisely covered in the “speed reading prescriptions” sections.)

The more successful high speed readers (and who are they?) describe high speed conscious mental habits of juggling information. The more information that can be consciously connected with what the reader already knows, and consciously organized and associated with a potential use, the more of the information the high speed reader can retain. (A.Turner 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)This belongs in the reading wikipage, if anywhere)

This implies of course, that high speed reading skills are best applied towards information that is of a subject matter familiar to the reader. The ability to manipulate information at speed reading rates (typically 800 to 4,000 words a minute) requires practice, and mental abilities that are not shared generally across the entire population. (A.Turner 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)This claim could be condensed and placed in the “claims of speed reading courses” section.)

The fact that not everyone has the mental abilities to be a successful speed reader is typically used by detractors of speed reading to claim that speed reading is not a useful skill, or even a complete fallacy. (A.Turner 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)Please quote the source of this information. I would like to read it in full.  Till then I think we can say it is unsubstantiated.)

Many speed reading courses make exaggerated claims that anyone can develop high speed reading skills, and make bloated claims about the results. These bloated claims have resulted in a very high rate of failure of speed reading students. And this high rate of failure has lead to low opinions, and even actions by the FTC against false and misleading claims made by speed reading programs. (A.Turner 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)This has already been covered and is redundant.)

There do exist a large number of people for whom high speed reading is a useful skill. (A.Turner 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)Are they really a large number, or a minority?)

In most cases, these are people such as John Stuart Mill who develop speed reading abilities by themselves as natural extensions of their existing and developed mental faculties. John Stuart Mill was a nineteenth century economist who was well known for claiming that he could read faster than he could turn pages. (A.Turner 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)This is a common claim of speed reading courses. I am sure he never attended a course, but what he did can be more accurately described as skimming.  It could be made more concise and put into the inspirational stories section.)

Evelyn Wood, who started the speed reading movement back in 1957, dedicated years of her life to studying people who could naturally read at high speeds, and attempted to formulate a system of reading to teach "everyone" how to do it. While her "Reading Dynamics" program was a commercial success, and even acquired such advocates as President John F. Kennedy, most of the students (more than 95%) who attempted the program abandoned their new found skills as useless. (A.Turner 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)This really is just hyperbole. It has no place on a wikipage.)

Clan of the Cave Bear
In the movie "Clan of the Cave Bear", Darryl Hannah shows to the Neanderthal high priest that she can count to five. And even TEN! He tells her not to let anyone else in the clan know about it because they cannot conceive of anything past three. Why? Because it is arguing with a bunch of Neanderthals about a concept their minds cannot wrap themselves around. The concept that reading is more than passing comprehension tests is something that apparently neither the contributing editors of this article nor the authors of the studies they cite are capable of wrapping their brains around.

In the real world, each piece of material that a person picks up has a different significance, and that different significance governs entirely the approach the reader is going to take towards the information in that reading material. Not everything needs to be ploughed over like a lawyer scrutinizing a contract. Most reading material is 90% useless fluff and filler as compared the readers intentions with it. Why sit there and expend enormous ponderous effort to try to memorize 90% useless fluff when you have a goal in mind when you pick up the text? The plain simple reality is that different reading skills have their appropriate uses. This article tries to claim the contrary. Bunch of Neanderthals arguing with a Cro-Magnon about the number five, if you ask me. -- Jim Whitaker 4.228.93.29 30 June 2005 07:20 (UTC)


 * Interesting little fancy. So to help the cro-magnon, you and Ms Hannah could simply refrain from posting the 90% useless fluff and filler in relation to wikipedia's intentions. http://www.museum.upenn.edu/new/edu/outreach/Images/og.gif RegardsD.Right 1 July 2005 08:13 (UTC)


 * May I remind everyone that civility is not an optional rule at Wikipedia and will be enforced. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; July 4, 2005 03:03 (UTC)


 * Like when you enforced this? “Yeaah. Okay, cut the smart-ass tone of voice, please.” (Saxifrage 2005, on the mind map wiki discussion page)EBlack 5 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I'm not above the rules of Wikipedia either. Notice I've not been getting involved, because all the POV squabbling in here makes it challenging for me to remain well-behaved. It's better that I remain distant than stoop to incivility. Besides, I'm not an enforcer&mdash;the rules of Wikipedia aren't optional, and an enforcer is merely a page away if necessary. Don't shoot the messenger&mdash;obey policy. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; July 5, 2005 20:10 (UTC)

Indeed, we could do without the snide metaphors! Mr Whitaker, if you would like to read the page more carefuly, you will notice that some of your points have been taken into account already. They are placed pretty well within the realm of other speed reading advocate's prescriptions, who, similar to you, also state will work for the purposes of speed reading. This must be balanced with measured views of science, which indicates that is does not work at all to the promised level. It takes all into account and gives a pretty good encyclopedic account of speed reading. If you have any new claims or counterclaims to add, please make them concise A.Turner 4 July 2005 09:13 (UTC)


 * This “article” is offensive from the first word to the end. It begins with a distorted definition, and ends with a snide comment that has nothing to do with how speed reading is actually in use by the people who use speed reading skills on a daily, if not hourly basis.  Three sections of the article essentially present three laundry lists of undefined terms that are intended to make the whole concept of speed reading appear completely ridiculous.  For example "out of context of accepted reading theories" and nothing is given to NPOV such an extreme statement as to why such terms are needed.  Any attempt to put in the strengths or uses of speed reading have been deleted repeatedly.  There is a statement that says an unqualified and un-attributed "As a habitual reading rate, it is insufficient for comprehending newspaper articles, textbooks, and novels".  The whole gist of the article, the only "meat" is the scholarly research built around the notion of 50% comprehension is "unacceptable" and nothing in the article tells why there are memory issues, or theories about memory issues, or even that that the academic definition of comprehension is hotly contested or why practicing speed readers completely dismiss it (they are not reading for academic comprehension tests, not reading for memorizing, but rather using it for wading through information).  There isn't even the slightest hint of a definition of "comprehension", it is taken as a given that the reader will know what comprehension means.  The better speed reading programs teach the student to be aware of every word, phrase, clause, sentence, and idea in the text and to make rapid decisions about how to utilize the information before the brain loses short term memory of it.  This is far more than skimming.  Take a look at the wikibook (which by the way is climbing like crazy in the google search for "speed reading" because it actually contains clear and ([compared to this sad excuse of an article] unbiased descriptions of what and how and why and strengths and weaknesses of speed reading).


 * The Neanderthals could not understand the number 5 when it was presented to them. You people don't seem to have the first foggiest clue what speed reading is.  And you are collectively trying to enforce this confusion by this article.


 * Strong metaphors are one of the most useful and effective means of communication known to man. They make people squirm for at least a moment, typically with a knee jerk defensive reaction, but ultimately forces them to consider why the other person might possibly have his or her point of view and feel passionately enough about it to express themselves in such a way that conveys strong emotions so clearly.  And lets face it, speed reading can be a very emotional issue.  You insult me and other speed readers by this naively and ill conceived useless barrage of insults, it is only appropriate to demonstrate back to you just how offensive you are committing yourselves to being.  The sad part is that you are so wound up tight within your extreme POV that you all firmly believe yourselves and this article to represent NPOV.  You try to dig up more "reality" without a clue what that actually is because you don't have halfway developed speed reading skills yourselves.  Instead, the more I push, the more you point to naively conceived scholarly studies and words without definition, and the more offensive this article becomes.  It's not worth my while to edit this to clean it up because it just gets trashed by the same extreme POV exemplified by the insulting ending of the article being re-asserted more strongly and more strongly each time.   -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 5 July 2005 06:48 (UTC)


 * Jim, I sympathise with your frustration, but you can't change an article by waging war on the those holding opposing points of view. The only way to get anything done at Wikipedia is to bring (almost) everyone to a consensus as to how the article should be. Inflammatory accusations don't lead to this end. (That admonisment is deserved by a few other editors here, too.)
 * There are three ways to achieve consensus:
 * Bring the opposition around to your point of view by convincing them of the truth of your position.
 * Allow yourself to be brought around to the point of view of the opposition by finding what truth is in their position.
 * Dump a whole lot of previously-uninvolved editors on the article in an attempt to dilute the POV of the tiny warring factions currently editing the article.
 * Of course, usually it involves a combination of all three. The last can be done via the Requests for comment page, and that's what I suggest be done in this case. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; July 5, 2005 09:49 (UTC)

Metaphorman. Just keep it factual and encyclopedic, please. And if you are going to use metaphors, try to use the ones that are representetive of speed reading literature as a whole, and make sure they are well explained in relation to the correct scientific term. So far the speedreading wikipage is very well researched and referenced. Try to keep it to that standard. To use a very unoriginal metaphor; play the game by the rules.A.Turner 5 July 2005 15:28 (UTC)


 * Turner.... This article is complete gibberish.  It is based upon "well researched" but fundamentally flawed assumptions.  The only way to do it "right" is to rewrite the page from scratch, which would simply result in it being reverted.  The whole style and focus of the article as it stands is essentially to build up a straw man argument to conclude with "rather than trying to read 10 lines at a time, humming, or reading backwards."  The "facts" are distorted by bias and inexperience of the "researchers" quoted, and the ridiculous level of inexperience of those editing this page.  To get a good dose of what is actually going on in speed reading, take a look at the wikibook 1


 * The scholarship quoted is completely skewed by a skinnerian mentality. The realities of speed reading is that it exposes the brain to a lot of information very quickly and provides the reader with the opportunities to make many rapid decisions about what to do with that information.  From from a skinnerian/behaviorist point of view, only looking at what is happening outside of the reader, the "memory" of what the eyes seem to be looking at does not seem to be particularly effective when reading for academic comprehensions tests.  The "researchers" then spew their research results based upon this "unassailable" method of skills assessment.  Whenever someone wants to cast a bad light upon anything behaviorally related, they turn to skinnerian methodology and thinking.  That has exactly zero to do with why people use speed reading skills.  The skinnerian view is absolute nonsense and completely ignores the reasons people engage in speed reading and use the skill on a regular basis.
 * Now, in response to:
 * Bring the opposition around to your point of view by convincing them of the truth of your position.
 * this isn't likely to happen because it requires direct experience and some amount of success at using this skill in order to know what is really going on and what its strengths and weaknesses really are. Without that, the end result is people foraging around trying to dig up "scholarship" about it.  The only thing available with any semblance of reality is what is found in the wikibook and related materials.  It does not appear to me that anyone is interested in taking the time to read it or try to put it's advisories to use in order to bias their entrenched positions.
 * Allow yourself to be brought around to the point of view of the opposition by finding what truth is in their position.
 * I would have to backtrack 26 years into a state of dire naivete. The positions of the other editors are skewed by inexperience and "scholarship", which is complete nonsense and based on a series of flawed assumptions as described above.
 * Dump a whole lot of previously-uninvolved editors on the article in an attempt to dilute the POV of the tiny warring factions currently editing the article.
 * Sounds like a plan....


 * -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 5 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)

Hello Metaphorman. If you had read the research on reading rate you would know that it tends to take a cognitive approach rather than Skinnerian behaviorism, and uses rigorous subjective and qualitative perceptual measures rather than just objective observations. I have read your wikibook in its entirety, and (trying hard to be as nice as I can), it is as inconsistent and “pseudo” as all the other speed reading recommendations I have read. For example, you use a confusing definition of “comprehension” rather than a far more relevant and well accepted “reading comprehension” definition. Your point of argument fits very well with the other conflicting views in the “Claims of speed reading …..” section. So if you hurl insulting words such as gibberish, spew, dire naiveté, Neanderthal, and so on, don’t act surprised if people don’t take your alleged offense at the article too seriously. Scholars and researchers generally have far more opportunities to develop thinking and efficient reading skills than most. The heavy quantities of material they have to cope with on a daily basis varies from light and superficial to fathomlessly deep. They are certainly as a group, practically, measurably and in all other ways more successful and efficient at reading than speed readers. They will rely on strategy and real knowledge, not just glossing over material or the belief in your inconsistent 80%/90% fluff assertion. You may yet have something useful to contribute. Just make at least some effort to keep it off the warpath. A.Turner 6 July 2005 08:00 (UTC)


 * Just where can I find copies of the cited research? I don't have ready access to a library (maybe a public library somewhere around here...), and these references aren't on the web as far as I can tell.


 * So what is a definition for "reading comprehension" that I can use that would be more appropriate? It's a wikibook, you are free to fix it, (or at least attempt to fix it...).


 * "I have read your wikibook in its entirety, and (trying hard to be as nice as I can), it is as inconsistent and “pseudo” as all the other speed reading recommendations I have read." For some, it is a breath of fresh air.  It is impossible to express the ideas behind speed reading without using descriptions that fail to wax into scientific or academic mainstream.  The best that can be done is to attempt to describe phenomenon in the endlessly nebulous human brain in a manner that will synch with at least some of the audience.  I am curious what you mean by inconsistent - it is probably just writing that needs cleanup.
 * -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 6 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)


 * Hi, A Turner. Don't worry about it.  JimWhittaker Metaphorman clearly does not know what he is talking about, and judging by the whole discussion section he has no idea how to express himself outside of pontificating and throwing frustrated tantrums.  I guess you just have to put up with this sort of thing occasionally. EBlack 6 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)


 * "Pontificate"? I know what speed reading is because of 26 years of doing it.  I submit that anything coming from someone who has practiced anything controversial is going to appear dogmatic or pompous when someone lays down the gauntlet by saying what he believes in a lot of crap and he feels compelled to respond.  "Doesn't know what he is talking about?"  I have read just about every speed reading book that has been published in the last 30 years.  I have seen the full gamut of people learning and trying to learn it from the befuddled to the unsuccessful (like Stoked2Go) to those who take to it like manna from heaven like I did.  At the moment, I don't have copies of the references that are cited sitting next to me, but I do have the conclusions cited in the article and the tone of the article which are completely at odds with many years of direct experience.


 * Frustration? Yeah, you could say that.  It shows.  I find myself up against people who I feel have no idea what they are talking about, and they are trying to be a world authority by saying it's all a lot of useless crap for everybody.


 * Why don't you take a minute and reread this article from a truly neutral POV. It has bias written all over it, a bias that oozes from the first words to the last.  Talk about pontificating, this article is just plain arrogant with a very strong anti-speed reading stance!  It is almost as arrogant as EBlack above.  It essentially tries to make fun of the whole concept by taking fragments of speed reading ideas and vocabulary used to teach it, not defining them and thus making the whole thing look as absurd as possible.  That is a variation on the straw man approach.  The problem is that you people can't see it because the article is consistent with your views.  The article doesn't even make any allowances whatsoever that there are other views.  -- Jim Whitaker Metaphorman 6 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)

Hello Metaphorman. I suggest that further discussion about the inconsistencies of your wikibook should be conducted on your wikibook's discussion page. Perhaps someone could list a set of issues there to get the ball rolling. The reading comprehension link has been posted on the speed reading wikipage at least 5 times in various obvious places. The definition is more appropriate. However, I don't think it will do much for your argument. The references posted can be found in most libraries. There are many more references that are obtainable from these primary references that are obtainable from professional and scholarly journals. There are also more recent journal and conference publications that continue to verify the results of the findings of the posted references.

Nowhere on the discussion page or wikipage does it say that speed reading is crap. It states the facts that various speed reading advocates and trainers claim various benefits and recommendations (including yourself), and the scholarly research shows the actual results while offering recommendations and defining and clarifying between various concepts. It takes everyone's view into account very reasonably. The theories and recommendations of the speed reading advocates is specific to speed reading and distinguised from accepted reading theory, and it takes a representative sample whilst being concise. I very much doubt that you will get a better encyclopedic coverage of speed reading anywhere on the web. I understand some may feel frustrated at the state of the conflicting claims and pseudo-theories of speed reading advocates in the world. But I think you are going to have to accept that you are only one of them. They can all be represented. The facts are there so the reader can come to their own conclusions. I also think things are improving generally. A.Turner 7 July 2005 09:13 (UTC)

A bit biased
This article is a little bit biased against speed reading and doesn't really seem to offer much of the positive claims that have been made and backed up by advocates of the various techniques.

Someone who knows a lot more than I know at the moment should rectify some of it's negative leaning.

Response to negative bias and external links
I'm the one who added the external link that was removed on "18:42, 14 October 2005" by Saxifrage

I think this addition is valid for two reasons:

1) I had added the link to show a more detailed analysis of speed reading software. It's independent, and while it reviews specific software, it's not an ad for it, and it does show that the concept of "speed reading software" is not as scammy as late-night TV would have you believe.

2) The article is more positive, as the results (while not meeting the company claims 100%) were positive.

I still think it's relevant and helpful, but won't add it back unless I've managed to change anyone's mind. -- 69.128.66.178 07:14, 10 November 2005


 * I'm abivalent. It only talks about one piece of speed-reading software, and it's not really a source of high referential standing. Being a link to a review of single piece of software in a unnotable online column makes it rather special-interest to include in the general External links section of an encyclopedia article. If someone could work it into a paragraph that argued that speed reading isn't "scammy as late-night TV would have you believe" and cite it as a source, I'd probably be fine with that if it was done well. I just don't think it's really suited as some place to send our readers after they've absorbed the article. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 00:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough - thanks for the input!

NPOV
This article reads like a rant. It should be neutralized and brought in line with the higher encyclopedic standards.

Too much is written about marginal issues of speed reading's marketing and pseudoscience used by it. That's an unfortunate feature of most of the self-improvement books and courses, and not just something specific to the speed reading. This isn't the world of science we're talking about, and the relationship between amount of pseudoscience around some popular concept and its validity is quite weak.

What would actually be interesting is: Taw 05:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * what's the speed and reading comprehension of a typical reader
 * how much better can one get with "mainstream" techniques
 * what are the actual claims of various speed reading techniques (leaving all new-age'isms aside)
 * what methods of testing are available, both traditional and speed reading's
 * how well are various traditional and "speed reading" methods doing on each kinds of tests

Oh, and network-accessible references are about one million times more useful than obscure journals that most libraries don't even subscribe to. Taw 05:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Even some of the more moderate claims have led to successful legal action against speed reading businesses seeking to deceive the consumer (FTC report 1998).

They didn't lead to a successful legal action, like in a court verdict. In case of both linked reports, the result was out of the court settlement, without adminssion of guilt.

Quotation from one of them (the other is similar):
 * 5. This agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by proposed respondent that the law has been violated as alleged in the draft complaint, or that the facts as alleged in the draft complaint, other than the jurisdictional facts, are true.

Taw 15:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Although this would seem like a benifitial read for anyone about to persue speed reading courses, I don't think the POV makes sense for wikipedia. The tone of the article condemns more than explains.

I agree also. This is not a balanced article in its introduction but sounds like a "quackwatch" type of ideologically minded propaganda (it is not, but a cursory glance makes that impression). Even if most of the claims of the Speed Reading Courses are false, we should include in the introduction some results actually backed by science as the article itself contains. For example, while reading the introduction it seems to imply that it is impossible to read faster than median speed, period. Instead it should point out that while dropping to 50% or less comprehension, reading at speeds of 2,000 wpm permits the equivalent understanding of a person reading with 100% comprehension at 1,000 wpm!. Still kudos for writing it Dr. Gabriel Gojon 21:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC).

Regarding the changes in the article, even if the eyes moved randomly the second reading (at 50% comprehension)statistically it is highly probable that half the information would be old and half new, which gives a final comprehension of 75%, not bad for a 1000 wpm speed (2,000 wpm reading the text twice, thus the halving). Please notice that I did not add anything new to the article, but hopefully made it less biased. Here is an interesting excerpt from Reading (Wikipedia entry): "In normal reading, humans do not actually "read" every word, but rather scan many words, filling in many words by what would logically appear there in context. This is possible because human languages show certain predictable patterns." So all reading is skimming! (And the only difference is the degree). It is also stated in the article that: "normal reading involves the rates of "rauding" (or normal reading), skimming, and scanning which should be understood as having very different purposes and consequences" so even after the clarification of "should be understood as having very different purposes and consequences" it is still defined as "normal reading". To top all of this off this whole article was apparently taken from: http://speed-reading.helpdesk-station.com/speed-reading.html so the people who defend it are not defending the product of scientific consensus but just of something they read on the internet (I could be wrong on this last point). Dr. Gabriel Gojon 23:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to add a few more positive references into this speed reading arena, because I know its an essential skill... Try maintaining 3000 Webpages without the ability to read at a good speed. I think the problem here is that there are plenty of people teaching all sorts of rubbish and we forget that there are valid techniques that increase reading speed, but they might be at the expense of comprehension. What I'd like to see is a section on Purpose of reading... But I don't know how to do it without doing a very major edit... And I don't want to step on anybody's toes...(EslWeb)

Scholarly References
I think it might be worth linking to the studies references that prove the claims of speed readers to be false, I tried finding the 1983 Homa study with little luck, finding only references from wikipedia clones and other sites with no links to the study. If such references are going to be included, I think it's neccessary that links be given to the studies themselves so that readers are able to judge fairly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.131.94 (talk • contribs)


 * Many peer-review studies are only available in the actual journals they were originally published in and aren't online. That doesn't make them invalid sources, only difficult to get a hold of. A good university library should work. For instance, through my university, I have access to the Homa study via EBSCOHost. &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 11:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Questionable NPOV
What do you wikipedians think?

I feel the article should emphasize more on the "myth" talks in order to stay NPOV and present it in more details and just wait for experts to add further to studies and slowly edit the credible sources in to be on par with the questionable claims instead of totally eliminating them.


 * Emphasising one side or the other when there isn't agreement among experts would not be neutral, it would be favouring one side. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on what I've read of A. Turner's reasons for removing a bulk of Metaphorman's posts, alot of those reasons may easily be used against the topic of speed reading itself and thus if the article editors/writers want to stay this current path of NPOV, you must choose to delete this entire article on speed reading simply because it's impossible to be NPOV on a topic where the community supposedly in the know don't even have a singular concrete consistent POV on what speed reading really is. By forcing NPOV, I fear that it enforces a socially constructed hive of misinformation comparable to asking the next person besides you if snake oil is real and then questioning that person's credibility because they can't cite sources.

If the article should stay, may I propose that there be a shift of NPOV?

Due to a lack of categories to differentiate effective methods from ineffective methods why don't the wikipedian editors/writers create their own categories for speed reading?

One view would fall under unverified claims. Another on possible ways to detect how speed reading is used as a scam and another on the credible/scientific studies done so far.


 * This last paragraph sounds reasonable. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

For starters, may we all agree that speed reading is not a method? That it is a loose term used to classify a wide range of subjects ranging from a marketing term used for scams to claims that might fall under pseudoscience to even a simple term used by skimmers to brag that revolves around the idea of being able to read very fast?

Is this not more NPOV than claiming that Speed reading is a method?


 * There are those that say it is a method, there are those that say it is bunk. We can't favour either because there's no solid evidence one way or the other. Your suggested wording is problematic because it does not allow any room for speed reading to be a legitimate skill, instead suggesting that it is merely a marketing term, and a term for questionable things no less. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that these entire group of words be removed or re-edited:

'''Speed reading or rapid reading is a selective reading process in which a reader increases their reading rate while attempting to retain as much comprehension of the text as possible. Courses and books on speed reading, often sold through popular psychology literature, tend to promote skimming habits rather than comprehension or retention. While this method increases reading speed, it results in a significant decrease in reading comprehension (under 50%) compared to normal reading for comprehension (over 75%). This may not be appropriate when studying or trying to learn new material, but when researching, searching internet text, or reading novels, this level of comprehension is considered sufficient by advocates. (Abela 2004)'''

Reason: I think comprehension should be left off as it's own category. Anyone remotely interested in speedreading + comprehension could go to almost any speed reading link via google and spot comprehension tagged along with speed reading.

As it stands, I think to be NPOV to this subject matter: a person reading different materials at different times will have different comprehension levels regardless of how fast they seem to read and that doesn't even take into account other perks an individual may possess.

That or tackle this in the reading comprehension wikipedia article.

I also believe that stating what may or may not be appropriate is PoV.

'''It has been demonstrated that reading with the equivalent of 1,000 words per minute (wpm) with a 100% comprehension is possible (at least in an informational point of view) by reading at 2,000 wpm with 50% comprehension. (Allyn & Bacon, 1987) It is debatable that the end result is the same (for example by reading the same book 2 times in this fashion).'''

Reason: If it's debatable then shouldn't we scrap the entire wpm evidence entirely? I think that it's better to simply state that any claims of high wpm ranging in the 1000 wpm range above while still retaining high comprehension is debatable in effectiveness and remains to be a subject of controversy.


 * It's a well-sourced statement, though I do think it should be reworded to remove "demonstrated" since it is, in fact, debated. As a well-sourced statement, it ought to stay in the article in some form to represent the pro–speed reading perspective. (Note that WP:NPOV is not about removing perspectives, it is about fairly representing all significant perspectives.) &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone who speed reads is called a speed reader.

Reason: Duh. Totally unnecessary info.


 * Fair enough. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

'''Businesses selling courses and manuals on speed reading claim that it is possible to increase the rate of reading to beyond 1000 words per minute with full comprehension, provided the course is followed and that the exercises are constantly practiced. However, a good deal of these courses and manuals are conflicting as to why and how speed reading should be adopted as a method. Some courses claim that reading at over 1000 wpm is advantageous for all types of reading material, whereas others say that it is best for only novels. Some say that speed reading is not appropriate for reading poetry and others say that it is [citation needed]. Some sources go even further, claiming that speed reading will increase IQ, memory, and comprehension ability. Other sources claim that it will only improve rate and comprehension.'''

Reason: I think even with sources, the claims are best left to those who aim to claim and has no place in an encyclopedia.


 * As I've said above about NPOV, the whole purpose of Wikipedia is to document what people claim even if documenting all relevant claims about a subject end up in having an article that contains a lot of contradicting (but attributed) claims. Wikipedia describes controversies, it does not participate in them. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

'''Speed reading courses variously claim that not all information in text needs to be covered whilst speed reading. Some claim that speed reading involves skipping text (exactly as has been measured during studies on skimming), whereas other speed reading promoters claim that all of the text is processed, but with some or most becoming subconciously processed. Similarly, some courses claim that text should be serially processed whereas others say that information is processed in a more haphazard or ad hoc fashion.'''

Reason: Unneccessary claims.


 * As above, it is the purpose of the article to state what various proponents and detractors claim, and the passage clearly attributes the claim to a source. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Terminology such as vision span and subvocalization are often used as explanations, but findings of research into these terms is not presented.

Reason: I feel it's more convenient to list a glossary of terms used in speed reading and what they mean instead of citing only a few examples. Maybe even listing what research has been done on them rather than stating that they are no findings have yet to be presented or insufficient research has been done. I think the idea that a reader is reading an encyclopedia does hint that we want these terms presented to us.


 * This passage is not about what terminology there is and what it means, but about the fact that there exists a lot of terminology that has not been well-defined. A glossary would serve an entirely different purpose and this passage could happily co-exist with it, serving a different purpose. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

'''Speed reading computer application programs are available such as Speed Reader and Vortex Speed Reading. Vortex Speed Reading was the original; however Vallier, the creator of the program, did not update it and it would not work in Windows XP.

Since Vortex Speed Reading dropped out of line, replacement programs are available on the Internet.

Reason: I find it contradictory that the software that was dropped is included in the article with no mention of the other softwares.


 * Fair enough. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to request a table of sorts similar to the ones used here: http://www.speedyourread.com/ to compare the different features of each speed reading software vs. another.


 * No, this is not what Wikipedia is for. You will occasionally see such comparison lists at Wikipedia (such as Comparison of BSD operating systems), but those exist because the subject category is so very significant in the real world that a comparison of them is relevant enough to deserve its own article. Speed-reading software is mostly non-notable and a comparison of them would be even more relatively non-notable. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

'''Speed reading programs use a different approach to the usual 'speed reading' tips where a few words are grouped together to be read. The software presents words to the reader one at a time in the same position, stopping the eyes from having to move around as they would on a normal paragraph.

'''The programs present the data as a serial stream as the only way the brain handles text is breaking it up into a serial stream before parsing and interpreting it. Speed reading programs pre-processes and serializes text, so the brain does not need to do so.

Usually, commas and semi-colons have a single break and periods, question marks, exclamation marks, and speech marks have a double break.

Reason: This sounds more like an ad if anything else.


 * Agreed, and I further think it is more detail than the subject deserves. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The reader is deprived of information on the method's effectiveness and it does not provide a possible explanation on which method works better or even if the difference in approach does make a difference.


 * Since there is substantial disagreement about what works best, Wikipedia is not allowed to say or suggest which works best. It is a neutral, tertiary reference work. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally it ignores the fact that EyeQ uses other methods and so far as I know, EyeQ is the most widely talked about speedreading software.


 * Is it the most widely talked about? A citation is necessary for that if it appears in the article. The fact that EyeQ uses different techniques is arguably notable, but I feel it is very borderline. In fact, the entire speed-reading software subsection is borderline I think. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Without any mention of this, a wikipedia article on speedreading software does feel incomplete.


 * Note that this article is not about speed-reading software, but rather about speed-reading itself. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

58.69.34.45 18:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you have some good points. I do think that you misunderstand the meaning of our NPOV policy though: it is not about eliminating viewpoints or providing facts, it is about documenting what's going on in the real world with references to reliable sources and attributed claims. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that might be it. I'm sorry, I should have read the NPOV policy before editing anything.

Since you understand the NPOV policy, might I at least request that you could re-edit the negative PoVs into something that would fit the NPOV policy of Wikipedia?

I believe readers should at least be warned about how high wpm results from softwares might be evidence of scams despite positive reviews from other sites they may encounter from search engines and also the part of how most advocates would easily dismiss such softwares without going much into specifics of why.

I agree that speed reading softwares are borderline and I think the readers of the article should be able to gather a borderline conclusion from reading the article unfortunately without presenting the two opposing negative PoVs, I don't think they could come to such a conclusion solely from reading this article. Something that I think the discussion page has presented in much more clearer details.

For EyeQ being the most widely talked about:

Based on what I found using Google, this is the case.

There are forums I've encountered who talks of speed reading and EyeQ is most often mentioned as being used, usually with no discussion of other software brands.

This site also lists EyeQ: http://www.bruceeisner.com/mindware/2006/02/_im_going_to_po.html

One other name that I've found most often mentioned is Rocket Reader

Coincidentally going to http://www.speedreading.com/phpBB2/forum43.html&sid=0eff42e303d4c37e042fbfffd964bd20 presents a RocketReader vs. EyeQ

Going to http://www.speedyourread.com/ also yields a mention of EyeQ.

It could be that EyeQ is the most flawed among the softwares or the ones most easily attacked by other brands. That I do not know.

On the other hand, searching for reallyeasyreader or speedyourread yields little to no result outside of their main site.

Another sign of EyeQ being the most familiar is by using torrent search sites for speed reading, the software torrented the most is EyeQ with no signs of Rocket Reader or any other speed reading softwares.

Maybe there's an obscure list out there that lists other speed reading softwares that are being torrented or maybe other speed reading softwares are better at preventing their softwares from being cracked. Again, I don't know.

Unfortunately, I don't think any of these can be used as citations. If the article is going to start listing software brand names though I think there should at least be a mention of EyeQ or Rocket Reader as these 2 are probably the ones people will encounter the most.

Maybe search engine results can be cited?

Harvard and Princeton research in September 2006
This edit by Ecojackie seems to be the one that introduced the text on the Pronin/Wegner study, along with a plug for speedlearning100.org. This is Ecojackie's only contribution. It is also highly suspicious, not least because the site contains the name "Dr. Jackie". The text also mischaracterizes the article somewhat and is highly biased. The speedlearning100 link has already been removed but I think the rest of the text from that edit should also be removed. Difference engine 05:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right. Reading through that contribution and the reference that's now accompanying that text, it doesn't actually have anything to do with speed reading research. I'm going to remove it all. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Typo?
"Research conducted on speed reading experts who claim to be able to read at over 1,000 words per minute with full comprehension has found that their claims are false (Homa 1983). Even speed reading rates of between 1000-2000 wpm have been found to result in comprehension levels at around 50% or lower."

What are the numbers supposed to be? Jobarts-Talk 01:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

World Championship of Speedreading
The "World Championship" of Speed Reading mentioned in the article was an open event with five to eight participants each year. It shouldn't count as evidence. http://www.msoworld.com/2003/results/speedreading.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brutha (talk • contribs) 15:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Plagiarism
I'm not sure who copied what from whom, but http://www.k12academics.com/speed_reading.htm has much of the same material (from an earlier revision of this page). If this was their original content then the remaining bits should be rewritten - much of the wording is still identical. I don't know what measures if any are taken if another site copies content from Wikipedia without a reference. Dhawkins1234 09:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * k12academics.com has extensively plagiarized numerous Wiki articles. It should be reported at Mirrors and forks.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)