Exactly this.

I tried to learn speed reading and got pretty decent at it, I can still do it to an extent. In all honesty, I remembered more about texts that I speed read than texts I would read normally.

The only real difference was that when speed reading I didn't have the feeling that I know the full text, but when tested the knowledge would just magically appear out of nowhere; knowledge I didn't know I had.

Eventually I stopped speed reading because it's too much effort. Usually when I'm reading it's to relax the mind, give it a low effort activity to keep itself busy while I rest. Speed reading seemed counter productive for that sort of thing.

Also, speed reading is rubbish for fiction books. You get none of the pleasant pictures in your head and watching the book like an imaginative movie, but all of the feeling of consuming information at a breakneck pace without much time to take pleasure in it.

PS: my main issue with normal reading is that it isn't taxing enough. Especially when I'm trying to study something. Then my mind starts looking for a distraction and I suddenly realise I have no idea what I'm reading. Or simply get bored of it. Speed reading very effectivelyf orces you to focus on what you're reading (probably why I have a higher retention rate when speed reading)

Yes, when you read novels/fiction book etc. Skimming texts seems to make no sense, you read novels to get entertained. Most speed reading books etc. recommend skimming or a quick glance say before actually going to attack, while it makes sense for reports and the like, most of short readings,news and the other thing one comes across may not fit in this category

As an anecdotal counterpoint, I tend to read fiction very quickly compared to non-fiction, and enjoy it / retain it well enough for me. When I try to read most non-fiction that quickly, I usually don't get much out of it.

Same thing here. When reading fiction (and some types of non-fiction) I can do away with my internal monologue and absorb the text directly, with full or near-full comprehension. [0] With textbooks etc. I need to actually subvocalize the words for full comprehension.

I'm skeptical of the claim about subvocalization made here as well, but I'm realistic enough to know that I'm not different enough to fall outside the realms of the study referenced.

[0] My reading speed in this `mode', so to speak, ranges from 300-750 WPM, depending on how engaged I am in the material. I measure comprehension by testing myself via asking others (with a copy of the material in question) to quiz me on the content after such a reading session.

Strangely enough, I find that retention is always better (for me atleast) in casual reading of novels etc; I'm ok there with ~400-500 wpm. I do skim through reports actually, well mostly that happens when you approximately know the content so there just may be higher speeds may be achieved as you know what to expect. I think for me it is mostly prior knowledge that maybe makes a difference of 100-200 wpm

Me too. What varies my speed in fiction reading (beyond plain badly written fiction) is the level of detail the story forces my mind to create to envision it. In a fiction book I really enjoy I'll spend more time 'dreaming' it then reading.

I think another way to test to see how well someone speed reads is to have them pick out a concept out of non-indexed data. If someone speed reads beyond their ability they will skip over it, if they are not a speed reader it will take some time for them to find it.

> (While reading in English there are some words I don't even know how to pronounce, so how could I "subvocalize" them...?)

Easy, you just mispronounce it. You either break up the syllables that you can pronounce, hoping it forms the correct word, or you just read it as it would sound in your mother language.

i think this comes down to how different people perceive the world in very different ways... ways much more different than we realize.

for example, here[1] Feynman talks about being able to count verbally in his mind while reading, but being unable to speak (since he is using his 'speaking' to count). and his acquaintance is able to count visually in his mind while speaking, but isn't able to read (since he is using his 'eyes' to count).

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj4y0EUlU-Y

These sorts of quirks are fascinating; I tried it and I can count while reading, but can't talk and count at the same time. I can listen to music with words while reading, or while writing, but not while doing math or non-trivial programming, which seem to place greater demands on my parsing center.

If anybody is deaf, how can he read?

It is actually exceedingly rare for someone who is "profoundly deaf" (cannot hear at all) to learn to read. Most of the deaf people with high levels of schooling completion are people who began life hearing, or who had moderate deafness and considerable support from a family who were capable in sign language.

Having gone to RIT in New York, which contains the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, that seems a dubious claim. I lived with and went to school with a lot of deaf people, many completely, utterly deaf (no hear aids of any kind), and even took classes taught by people who were completely deaf. While reading and writing English was difficult for some (due to learning it after American Sign Language and a frequent de-emphasis of English at many primary and secondary schools that admit deaf students), being unable to hear at all was not an insurmountable obstacle to reading and writing proficiency.

Apparently those who learn a sign language as their first language think (and I would assume read) in that sign language. Rather than "saying" the words in their head, apparently it's more like feeling the motions their hands would make if they were actually signing.

That is a great response.

The next thing that entered my head is: How does the reading speed of deaf-from-birth compare to those who learned to read and then became deaf?

I had trouble with the "You can't read without subvocalization." part too.

I can't understand if by subvocalization he means moving your throat/mouth or simply repeating the words you are reading in your mind without moving any muscles.

Wikipedia says "subvocalization is defined as the internal speech made when reading a word"[1], which further confuses me.

I don't move any muscles while reading, but my internal monologue repeats the words I read, does this mean i subvocalize?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvocalization

From your Wikipedia article: "Subvocalization involves actual movements of the tongue and vocal cords that can be interpreted by electromagnetic sensors."

Apparently the signals are very weak, but they do exist and can be detected.

I would be fascinated to hear if subvocalization (either motor signals or internal monologue) has ever been studied in the context of reading code or mathematics, if anyone happens to know.

I know I basically need to translate mathematical statements to English in my head to comprehend them -- at least the first time I see them. But I'm also not a mathematician. As a programmer, I know I sometimes do it with code -- but I'm not sure how often -- I don't know if I've ever really thought about it. I suspect I'll become a little bit more self-conscious about it now, until I find out.

I found it a little confusing too, but my understanding is that it refers to just repeating the words in your mind. When you do this, apparently the signals actually get sent to your tongue and vocal chords as if you were talking out loud, but those signals are so weak that you don't really move the muscles in any noticeable way. You do move the muscles very slightly though, and this can be detected with certain tools.

Proof that you can read without subvocalization are ideographic languages such as Chinese (especially the traditional variety), where the written text and the 'vocalization' are not directly related - it is possible to understand a passage of text based on the relation of the characters to each other and the appearance of characters themselves (e.g. the radicals used and the parts within) without actually knowing how each character is pronounced.

My personal experience studying Japanese for a few years makes me skeptical of this claim. Granted, the radicals, etc in the symbols can give you a hint of their meaning, but ultimately a writing system is created to communicate vocalized words.

In fact, many of the "hints" in the written symbols are based on words that sound similar to other words when pronounced (their actual meaning being unrelated), which is fully lost if you cut out the vocalization. As another point, most words are written with multiple symbols, and the meaning of the overall word may be rather different than the words you would get if you read the symbols individually. At that point, I don't see any difference from a word written with an alphabet like English.

You and the poster below mention Japanese as an example. I counter by saying that Japanese use of Kanji is very different than the Chinese use. I am a native Chinese speaker and have taken Japanese classes, and their vocalization in the language are very different. Japanese places a heavy emphasis on how the characters are pronounced because their language is not purely ideographic; rather they use a hybrid phonetic and ideographic system which forces the reader to vocalize sentences including the Kanji characters.

I posit that if you were a native Chinese speaker, you could skim (or speed read as claimed in the article) without any subvocalization and still understand the given passage.

Hm...fair enough. I'm still skeptical, honestly, but I don't know enough about Chinese specifically to argue with that. I do see your point about Japanese being a mixture of systems.

This is not proof.

Come back when you've hooked up NASA's subvocalization detector to a Chinese man and seen it register nothing while s/he reads.

That was my first thought too. I learned a few kanji, and it seemed magical how meaning could just appear in my head. But there is a comment[1] on Wikipedia, citing a book saying that the process is still there in full effect for native users.

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Subvocalization#Subvocaliz...

Even if you don't know how to pronounce a word, you might subvocalize (I do) using an incorrect pronunciation.

I also found that hard to believe.

When I am reading aloud, I typically read a few words ahead of what I'm speaking -- and sometimes as much as a sentence or two! It's really necessary to get the emphasis right; I like to comprehend a whole sentence (or at least a clause!) before trying to verbally reproduce it.

I find it hard to imagine that I'm trying to 'say' two things at once. Certainly, I wouldn't know how to do that on purpose.