Speed Reading Is Real

I’ve seen a lot of skepticism and etc on this topic, so I wanted to comment. I have personally met two natural speed readers in my life(natural meaning have always done so, never had to be taught). Both of them are of unusually high intelligence, though I haven’t concluded that intelligence is the sole cause, or even has anything to do with it. I suppose it could be coincidence. Anyway, I have witnessed proof that their speed reading is real. One of them tested at 1149 WPM, and the other at 1369 WPM. In order to ensure it was real, I personally wrote out of body of text that was around 1100 words, so that I knew they had never read it before. I read with them side by side to compare reading speeds. Both of them finished in under a minute, while it took me around 5 minutes to finish. I made sure they put down the text as to not continue reading after claiming to have finished. They both had 100% comprehension, and both also comprehend far more efficiently than most people. In fact, one of them is a musician, and she can read a lyric sheet once and never have to read it again. She remembers the first time and never forgets.

Due to this personally witnessed information, I conclude that true speed readers read at 1000+ WPM. The only thing I cannot conclude is what gives the ability. It seems strange to think that someone naturally does this without instruction, does it not? Neither of them could conclusively explain how they do it, but were able to give me clues. Both of them said the same things though. I think the best explanation I got was when one of them told me that they see one or two sentences all in one shot, and take it all in at once, instead of one or a few words at a time. She said to think of it like seeing a prohibition sign, like a circle with a line through it. A sign like this has many different parts that make up the picture, but one doesn’t look at each part in order to interpret its meaning. They see the sign and just know what it means all at once. An example she gave was the sentence “I love you.” She said imagine not seeing three words, but instead seeing a heart. Seeing a heart would be much faster than seeing three words. Obviously that is an overly simplistic example that would roughly be incompatible with the concept of taking in entire sentences the same way, but it’s similar nonetheless. I have watched her read two and three sentences in one glance and tell me word for word what they said. One glance meaning one millisecond. Speed reading is real, even if you don’t understand how it is possible.

2 Likes

As a mnemonist, I am interested. But as a psychologist, I am unconvinced.

Give me a novel and I can read it at 1500 WPM, give me a Stephen Hawkings book and I might read at 100 WPM. That is one problem with speedreading, just because you can do it with one text doesn’t mean you can with the other.

I happened to have met a girl who is an autistic savant, she could hear a sing she never heard before and play it on the piano, so I am not saying that it is impossible. Never forgetting however, is. Everyone forgets. Your friend might have a good memory, but she will forget, alter or mix up things regardless, unless she is a computer.

Everyone has 100% comprehension if you ask them, their comprehension might just be wrong. People often say “I know what I saw,” which is cool and all but while you know you saw X with a blue hat, someone else will swear that he wore a red one. But I am sure you have tested it under decent circumstances so lets say that they did remember what the text is about. You never mentioned how you tested that, which makes the statement invalid, contributing to me not being convinced.

That is how people say speedreading works. Too bad that the eye doesn’t work that way.

Lets go with the thought that our perception works with 30-60 frames per second, 50 to give it a nice number. That is one frame every 20 milliseconds. If your friend’s brain is capable of making sense of every single millisecond, watching television must be hell, with all the flickering and still images. Brains take time to make sense out of things, if a brain has to do that every millisecond, I imagine your friend would melt from all the consumed energy. Which is why the brain doesn’t do that. It takes chuncks of 50 to 100 milliseconds and merges all the information, which it then analyzes.

Speedreading is fun and a cool party trick, but when tested in controlled settings, I have yet to see someone pull off things like 3000+ WPM on an encyclopedia. 1000 WPM is not impressive, especially on easier texts. Tossing intelligence into the mix doesn’t solve that. Based on the things I have seen so far, I even believe that higher intelligences often lead to less focus, which doesn’t help when speedreading.

5 Likes

First let me start off by saying I don’t expect you to just take my word for it. If I were in your position and never saw the proof for myself, I’d be just as skeptical. Probably more so, in fact, as I’m a very skeptical person in nature. That said, let me respond to what you’ve said(I don’t really know how quoting works on this forum as I’m new to it, so this may seem weird):

"As a mnemonist, I am interested. But as a psychologist, I am unconvinced.

Give me a novel and I can read it at 1500 WPM, give me a Stephen Hawkings book and I might read at 100 WPM. That is one problem with speedreading, just because you can do it with one text doesn’t mean you can with the other."

They both did tell me their speed is significantly lower if they’re not focused and/or aren’t interested in what they’re reading. I doubt it’d be as low as 100 WPM since even I never read that slowly, but yes your point there is otherwise valid.

“I happened to have met a girl who is an autistic savant, she could hear a sing she never heard before and play it on the piano, so I am not saying that it is impossible. Never forgetting however, is. Everyone forgets. Your friend might have a good memory, but she will forget, alter or mix up things regardless, unless she is a computer.”

I’m sure if she went long enough without singing a particular song, she’d forget. She is in constant practice, since she’s a career musician, so she never does. The significance of my point was mainly to point out that she only has to read it once. I am a fellow musician. Primarily a vocalist. So, I personally deal with learning lyrics. There has never been a time where I can read a set of lyrics only one time and remember them well enough to sing them without hitch. So, her ability to do that is extremely significant in that context. It implies extraordinary comprehension skills.

“Everyone has 100% comprehension if you ask them, their comprehension might just be wrong. People often say “I know what I saw,” which is cool and all but while you know you saw X with a blue hat, someone else will swear that he wore a red one. But I am sure you have tested it under decent circumstances so lets say that they did remember what the text is about. You never mentioned how you tested that, which makes the statement invalid, contributing to me not being convinced.”

I asked them several questions about the text I had personally written for them. They remembered it even better than I did, and I was the one who wrote it. Both of them have extraordinarily accurate comprehension, which is all the more shocking due to how fast they read it.

“That is how people say speedreading works. Too bad that the eye doesn’t work that way.”

Apparently it does. As I said, I witnessed it. Being the hardcore skeptic that I am, I wouldn’t be convinced had I not seen proof.

“Lets go with the thought that our perception works with 30-60 frames per second, 50 to give it a nice number. That is one frame every 20 milliseconds. If your friend’s brain is capable of making sense of every single millisecond, watching television must be hell, with all the flickering and still images. Brains take time to make sense out of things, if a brain has to do that every millisecond, I imagine your friend would melt from all the consumed energy. Which is why the brain doesn’t do that. It takes chuncks of 50 to 100 milliseconds and merges all the information, which it then analyzes.”

She looked at it for one millisecond. I’m sure it took longer for her brain to actually process and interpret what she saw. She literally glanced at it and looked away, and was able to tell me what it said word for word.

“Speedreading is fun and a cool party trick, but when tested in controlled settings, I have yet to see someone pull off things like 3000+ WPM on an encyclopedia. 1000 WPM is not impressive, especially on easier texts. Tossing intelligence into the mix doesn’t solve that. Based on the things I have seen so far, I even believe that higher intelligences often lead to less focus, which doesn’t help when speedreading.”

I’ve never seen them read 3000+ WPM so I can’t speak to that speed. But how is 1000+ WPM not impressive? I couldn’t even dream of reading that fast. As far as intelligence goes, I did admit it could just be coincidence. I pointed it out because it seemed worth mentioning that they both have unusually high levels of intelligence. However, my IQ is 172, and I don’t speed read, so that suggests that being of high intelligence does not mean you will be a natural speed reader.

1 Like

If you are watching a film and there is a three or four second shot of scenery, this is something a writer could write three or four pages about. The human eye will have taken in as much data from watching the three or four second shot as it would by reading about it over those four pages. Even emotively -

  • except, in the movie those emotions would be catching up a lot faster with the pace of the shot. I therefore think that you need no long amount of time to catch a subjective emotional simulation of what you are reading. I am quite a soul-less individual and that’s because of my relationship with sin but I have trained my eyes to understand text at near the speed of movies by correctly photographing the paragraph optically. See like with the autistic people, the less access you have to your emotions the better with this type of thing…

Tony Buzan (The Speed Reading Book) talks of an experiment where they showed people a word on a screen that lasted 1 4000th of a second in duration and every test subject saw what the word was and was able to repeat it.

Numbers is slightly more difficult but I did some practice with lisence plates.

To sum this all up, eye speed is not a question. The question then becomes of how to look.

Try ‘metronome reading’. Read five or six words in groups as a rhythm like, tick. tock. tick. tock, throughout the page. You will be surprised at how much your eyes are able to take in and it still be all legible.

I’m no expert on the matter, I just did Buzan’s book and have made significant developments in the way my eyes read and understand text. It’s not like having powers either it all just feels very standard. So yeah, try the metronome style of reading sentences or clauses, and enjoy yourself a more optimised normality!

It isn’t about how interested they are in something. If you have a text that is both written in a confusing way and also contains concepts that are difficult to understand, it becomes impossible to speedread effectively. I highly doubt you can read Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason at 100 WPM if you have never read it before. It is impossible to read something like that and understand it without frequent and lengthy pauses to think about what the philosopher is actually saying. My argument is that speed reading isn’t all that useful in day-to-day life because whenever you care about what you are reading, what matters is if you can understand the content inside and not the words.

1 Like

The way I see it, speed reading doesn’t solve the problems you actually need to solve. You can read and even comprehend words faster, yes. But can you understand the concepts you are trying to get from a text? That has nothing to do with comprehending words. Words are a pre-requisite to understanding the content of a book but you won’t get significantly faster at reading a deep scientific, philosophical, mathematical, or anything like that by reading words faster.

1 Like

Likewise, if I am reading a novel, some might argue that it is possible to go faster. However, I don’t want to! I enjoy taking my time and savoring the words the author so carefully constructed. When I read a novel, it’s not just about finding out what happens in the plot, it’s about enjoying the experience of the journey. I have a friend who even reads slowly and won’t finish books right away for the same reason. She does not want it to end too quickly when she really likes the book.

I’m not consuming novels. I’m experiencing them.

2 Likes

Clearly as everyone here is saying, the bottle neck is not your reading speed. It’s your comprehension speed and perhaps your enjoyment. Perhaps you give yourself permission to linger over some beautiful prose. Your comprehension is going to depend on your intelligence, your memory, your familiarity with the subject and the density of the information. Newspaper articles and ordinary speech are so light in actual content and predictable in structure that you can finish their sentences for them.

While I have repeatedly expressed skepticism about the promises of speed reading, I do believe that there are people who can consume text at over 1000wpm and retain the info. But this founded on a very high intelligence.

An anecdote about Fischer. Bobby wasn’t born knowing chess nor was he good at it when he started. He worked hard for many years even to become strong but he didn’t stop there.

This was an American chess master player who had won an important tournament. He showed the “score” to Fischer. This was a list of 30-40 moves in chess notation 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3… Strong players can actually replay a game in their heads from such a score.

Bobby apparently just glanced at it and handed it right back. Saying “Nice”. The master was miffed, “Gee Bobby, I’m proud of that game. I’d appreciate it if you looked at it.” To which Fischer replied, “I did. You missed a win on move 25”, and rattles off the combination.

He must have read that score the way you or I would read a single English sentence. It just came right off the paper into his brain without even being aware of the process of reading.

2 Likes

You should’ve tested them with random words.
If they can really read 1000 wpm then they can also read random words in random order at a rate of a 1000 wpm. Next time, make a story of a 1000 random words with weird continuations, example;“Bobby went shopping but the garage was closed so he had to bycicle all the way to the swimmingpool first…” and have them recite the whole story back to you after 1 minute of reading, word for word. You could add very difficult words to remember in that story too. Another good way to test them is to make a list with a thousand random words and tell them to recite all the words after 1 minute of reading time. If they recite every single word of the list (which I very much doubt they can because even memory champions would have a hard time pulling that off) and they recite the whole made up story with weird continuations both word for word back to you after 1 minute of exposure then you might be inclined to believe that they are not using methods to speed read. Otherwise, keep testing them.

The thing with innate abilities is that they are consistent and as soon as they show inconsistency, scepticism has a good argument.

1 Like

That’s why I dislike the common speed reading techniques. I absolutely hate to miss details.

The problem probably is that eyesight is only clear in the foveal area. Peripheral vision isn’t good enough to read text (at least for people with a normal retina).

3 Likes

Is there a reference to this experiment available? I would believe 1/40th of a second.

As someone who worked in high speed optical recording that number sounds wrong. You have a basic energy problem like with all high speed photography. If you squeeze enough light to be visible, into 1/2 of 1/1000 th of a second you will be burning things. Like your eyeball.

In that time the image has to travel from the retina to the vision center in the brain. If that’s just a 2" gap, crossing it in 1/4000 th of second requires a speed of about 700mph which is far faster than nerver signals.

Also, simply, the retina has a persistence of a about 1/30th of a second. It takes that long for the previous image to fade a new one to overwrite it. This why movies work. The flicker blends together into smooth motion. To suggest that an eyeball can register an image in 1/100th of that time sounds far fetched.

Could be, but at first sight it invites skepticism.

1 Like

That is also assuming that you have hardware that can project it at a minimum of 4000 frames a second, in display terms that is 4000Hz or 4kHz. I believe that in practice, that would result in a 3840Hz screen as I always see higher framerate screens in a 2^n multitute of 30.

About a year ago, I also learned that a 960Hz monitor reached the consumer market for the price of a new car. I dont want to say that getting a 4kHz display device is impossible, but it is not likely to me.

But before people mention it, I do know there is another way to do this: create a shutter that only reveals an image for 1/4000th of a second. My camera, which is a simple DSLR, has a shutter speed of 1/4000 in its options so those speeds are possible.

The problem there is another aspect of the mind: on vs off.

This is a small experiment (small = the size of a baby ant’s little toe) I did about 15 years ago for a school paper using a simple 60hz display and video software. So dont take this exact thing as fact, but do keep it in mind. I called it on vs off at the time.

If I had a 5 second video of 299 black frames and 1 white frame, it was incredibly easy for everyone to spot the white frame. Turning it around, 299 white frames and 1 black, some people noted that they didn’t see it.

Regardless, 1/4000 is fast. A single blink lasts a third to a tenth of a second and on average one blinks once every 3-4 seconds if I remember correctly, that means you have can have up to 10% chance to completely miss the entire frame that showed the word. You cant have seen the word, as you literally had your eyes closed.

1 Like

I like your analysis. You could also use a strobe, a very fast light pulse. Let’s do another back of the envelope calculation:

I estimate It takes about 10J of energy to form a clear image on the retina. To deliver that much energy in 1/4000 sec requires a 40kW source! That’s the kind of power you find in naval laser weapons, and even then it’s applied to a much larger area. An eyeball would not be happy to receive that much energy.

It’s an extraordinary claim. It defies common sense and physics. There’s an enormous amount of information processing that goes on between the time the image lands an a retina and the time the brain ‘sees’ an image. You can’t see an image in one look. The high resolution patch in your eyeball is very small, the rest of the field of vision is mostly imagined based on a true story, constructed by the brain from scanning the environment. There is practically no depth information on the retina, this is all inferred by the brain as it builds up an image. That all this can happen Something like that is not justified by ‘a study’ Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Furthermore, this would have made big waves in neurology and researchers would be all over it.

Certain processes do happen fast. If the eye detects motion, that has a direct, unprocessed path to the amygdala where the fight or flight response starts. But actually forming an image is a very complex process.

I know people think highly of Buzan but when I hear stuff like this, I lose respect. I consider it dishonest.

2 Likes