Talk:Speed reading
|
|
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
| Contents |
Discoverers
What about the various discoverers of speed reading techniques? I think Evelyn Wood discovered speed reading initially.
Adraeus 23:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the previous article about speed reading was simply a regurgitation of self-help myths.
Speed reading is a confusion of reading and skimming. Readers can process a page of words at various rates. They change rates through a process of "gear shifting". An experienced reader will be able to preview a text by reading or skimming at appropriate rates, and then be able to read deeply and process the material at a high comprehension overall.
"Speed reading" is measured by how well you can skim. Skimming comprehension is measured using specifically designed materials and questionnaires which will differ significanlty from those which measure reading comprehension.
Reading comprehension has been consistently found to decrease when reading rate is increased. (Try and read a legal document at high speed). When "speed reading experts" were measured for true reading comprehension, it was found that their performance ranged from average to low, and their claims to being able to read at over 1000wpm were false.
- You claim this, but your claim isn't encyclopaedic enough to warrant a radical change in the article (which I am reverting on those grounds). What research, and where can we read it for ourselves? No matter the final content of the article, topical research like this should be included or at least referenced. — Saxifrage (☎) [[]] 09:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Research shows that competent readers will know the difference between reading and skimming. This distinction is crucial to understanding how to improve reading skills. Speed reading promoters generally do not even recognise the difference.
"I attended a speed reading course, and read War and Peace in 20 minutes! Its about Russia!" (Woody Allen)
-- original comment left anonymously by 144.214.54.82 who has also recently edited other related subjects (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=144.214.54.82) in a similar fasion. — Saxifrage (☎) [[]] 09:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi Saxifrage: Here is a good reference: Author: Carver, Ronald P.
Title Reading rate : a review of research and theory / Ronald P. Carver.
Publisher San Diego : Academic Press, c1990.
This book reviews a very large body of qualitative, empirical and field research conducted on a subject of long term importance to society and education (reading) and as far as I have studied, no susequent research has been produced that can contradict the main findings. Cheers Juniper
- That looks like an interesting opposing view on the subject of speed reading. Without having immediate access to that paper and without knowing how well-regarded Dr. Carver's work is in the general community, I will tentatively say that his POV merits covering in the article, at least as an opposing voice.
- If you'd like to add this material in an NPOV manner, please do. I'd encourage you to skim the NPOV policy and/or the NPOV tutorial. The practical advice I can give is to avoid removing content from the article when at all possible, instead making the POV of a statement plain. If you don't have time to read anything else, I highly recommend the Space and Balance section of the NPOV tutorial as the most pertinent to this situation.
- For instance, the first paragraph could be changed to something like "Speed reading is defined as ____ by proponents of the concept, although there are those who argue that the entire concept is invalid." This could be followed by a header (see Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Sections, paragraphs, lists and lines for how to format headers) such as "Supporters' Definition of Speed Reading" with the current article info, then followed by another header such as "Opposing Views" with some new info drawn from Dr. Carver's work. (If you don't want to mess with Wiki-style formatting, just putting in the info and plain-text section headers is fine too, since someone is bound to come along and make it pretty.)
- My rationale for suggesting this structure is that the commonly-accepted understanding of speed reading is the one generally described in the existing article, while the opposition to this view is a minority. Which one is correct is not so much the issue right now, as is structuring it in such a way and providing enough information so that the reader can investigate the relevant views of a contested issue. If you have an idea for a way of presenting all the information in a way that better fits the NPOV guidelines than does my suggestion, then all the better for the article.
Interesting POV, Saxifrage. But I do feel you have adopted an erroneous definition of popular psychology. I know that speed reading is generally promoted by popular psychology authors. But that does not mean that knowledge about reading gained through empirical research by experts in the field is held by the minority and that they are, therefore, unpopular:)
Arnold
- It's not a question of whether it's a popular or unpopular POV, it's a question of whether the experts agree, or if there is dissention. The article should represent the collective knowledge we have of speed reading, not the POV of one section of experts. I don't have any vested interest in one form of the article or another, as I'm not an expert in the field. All I can offer is advice on how to work with the existing article so that edits don't get reverted for the appearance of POV bias. — Saxifrage (☎) [[]] 16:33, 22 Dec 2004 (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. — Saxifrage | ☎ 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for details on Wikipedia's approach to bias. — Saxifrage | ☎ 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 Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia: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—in particular, Wikipedia:Requests for comment is designed specifically to help solicit outside views on disputes such as this. — Saxifrage | ☎ 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 (~~~~). 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 (http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=%22Speed+Reading%22+%22Rapid+Reading%22+whitaker&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&selm=alt.self-improve-2-790386007%40cs.clemson.edu&rnum=1)—would that make an appropriate reference, or was there a better version released without the extraneous points? — Saxifrage | ☎ 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 (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&selm=31a46d1c.38571094%40news.accessone.com&rnum=3) 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. — Saxifrage | ☎ 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)
- 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)
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)
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. — Saxifrage | ☎ 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)
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)
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. — Saxifrage | ☎ 08:35, Jun 10, 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)
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.)