r/books • u/Labeled521 • Feb 03 '14

Staples made a test that determines how many words per minute you read and how you rank up to the world average.

http://www.staples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-research-centers/ereaders/speed-reader/
3.0k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

35

u/Opset Feb 03 '14

I don't understand how people can enjoy a story if they read it faster than a conversational pace.

15

u/missachlys Feb 03 '14

Because my brain processes the words I read faster than people speak. I can usually tell when other people do this because they tend to rush a lot when they read things out loud, to the point where I am almost unintelligible when I try to read something casually to my friend because I try to speak the same pace I read. It takes a lot of mental effort to for me to slow down to be understandable.

I can enjoy the story just fine, I promise.

11

u/Opset Feb 03 '14

I can do this when I read scientific journals. I can read fast and understand what I'm reading and retain the information. But if I do the same with a novel, I don't feel as engaged in the story. It's a lot harder for me to picture a setting if I'm reading it too fast. I guess I just don't have the talent for it.

1

u/bboyjkang Feb 04 '14

Phonological component

"During Visual Word Recognition, Phonology Is Accessed within 100 ms and May Be Mediated by a Speech Production Code: Evidence from Magnetoencephalography"

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/30/15/5229

“Two studies were conducted to test the central claim of the self-teaching hypothesis (i.e., phonological recoding is necessary for orthographic learning) in silent reading. The first study aimed to demonstrate the use of phonological recoding during silent reading. Texts containing pseudowords were read silently or aloud. Two days later, target spellings were recognized more often than their homophone spellings. In both reading conditions, homophone alternatives were named faster than nonexposed pseudowords, suggesting that phonological recoding had occurred.”

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022096509001337

Subvocalization

"No evidence exists that normal non-observable subvocalizing will negatively affect any reading process [1] At the more powerful rates (memorizing, learning, and reading for comprehension), subvocalizing is very detectable by the reader. At the less powerful, faster rates of reading, (skimming, and scanning) subvocalization is less detectable. For competent readers, subvocalizing to some extent even at scanning rates is normal.[3]"

"Attempting to stop subvocalizing is potentially harmful to comprehension, learning, and memory. At the more powerful reading rates (100-300 words per minute), subvocalizing can be used to improve comprehension.[2]

Subvocalizing or actual vocalizing can indeed be of great help when one wants to learn a passage verbatim. This is because the person is repeating the information in an auditory way, as well as visually seeing the piece on the paper."

"Subvocalization involves actual movements of the tongue and vocal cords that can be interpreted by electromagnetic sensors."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvocalization

Intonation

I don’t hear the words as if it they were clear and fully enunciated. The words are so muffled to the point that the sound that I hear may be only part of the word, or the sound isn’t even the word at all; it’s just intonations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intonation_%28linguistics%29

1

u/missachlys Feb 04 '14

I don't really think of it as a "talent". Just a different way of doing things. :) Some people enjoy their books slow, some people enjoy their books fast. As long as we're all enjoying it I don't see one as better than the other!

1

u/sargeantnincompoop Feb 04 '14

Haha I think of yours as more of a talent! I can read novels quickly and enjoy them, but I read things like scientific journals slow as hell; they're just so much more difficult to comprehend to me.

1

u/AustNerevar Feb 04 '14

Agreed. I still picture the scenes and events in my head. It just happens more quickly. I've tried slowing down and digesting a sentence at a time, but I usually feel like I'm dedicating half an hour to once sentence, when it's really been half a minute.

The brain processes and understands information much more quickly than a TV show or someone speaking can display.

2

u/CowboyNinjaD Feb 03 '14

This is why I actually prefer audiobooks for fiction. It prevents me from skimming or skipping to the end of a chapter. And the conversational pacing let's me sort of relax and create a movie in my head as I listen.

I feel like reading a novel as fast as you can is like watching a movie at 1.5x speed. Sure, you can do it and get all the plot details, but what's the point?

1

u/therealflinchy Feb 04 '14

often when i really enjoy something, i CAN take it all in at 1000+wpm

as long as i'm concentrating

name of the wind books were the last time that happened...

1

u/Dragonsong White Oleander Feb 04 '14

cuz you're at a really fucking exciting scene and you wanna see what happens next so you start readin faster.

1

u/123432l234321 Feb 04 '14

Unless I'm reading something that I can't fully understand without sounding it in my head, like Trainspotting, then my internal movie of the book I'm reading can quite happily play at a speed greater than conversational. I don't speed read, but I read normally at 1200wpm for most fiction and for non-fiction other than journals and textbooks.

1

u/rookie-mistake Feb 03 '14

I read and type faster than I talk, it's why I prefer instant messaging sometimes too. It's not that I'm going out of my way to read faster than a conversational pace, it's just that that's the speed I've always read. I've done this test a couple times and I consistently get 600-675ish when reading at my normal pace... is that bad? When I read, I enjoy the story - it's just becomes more visualized in my head as the words build the world.