Talk:Speed reading/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Discoverers

What about the various discoverers of speed reading techniques? I think Evelyn Wood discovered speed reading initially.

• I am new to this link and would say I am a practiced "speed reader". I learned both the art and science of speed reading from an Evelyn Wood Course in Detroit, Michigan back in 1976. I was determined to learn and apply this 'skill'. After 30 plus years of successfully applying speed reading TTP's towards numerous scholarly academic accomplishments, work associated professional development requirements and teaching the concept of speed reading to countless others I am intrigued by the comments both on the main and discussion pages on the topic. This ability I consider to be the greatest gift I ever received from my parents. It has provided an untold advantage in my life towards multi-tasking and time management that others can only dream of. I accept it as part of day to day. I attempt to read on average a book a day on any given topic. As an example why am I on this wiki today...yesterday I read a book at the local Borders on Wikinomics. After reading the book I thought to myself of going in the wiki and looking up Speed Reading. Wah Lah! I have a passion of someday hoping of being part of a movement of instituting the concept of speed reading into the education system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmatkin (talk • contribs) 16:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC) --Bmatkin (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• I want to point out the reason for my comments in this forum is to continue to not only educate myself on current thoughts, ideas and methods related to the speed reading concept but to gain greater understanding of the viewpoint that this capability is related to psuedo science or voodoo magic reading. I would like to emphasize that the development of this skill doesnt entail any pixie dust or magic wand theories. The increase in both (1) speed and (2) retention is based on practice, practice and practice. Once an initial WPM is established by each student the speed reading concept is to establish 'riduculous' levels of incomprehensible WPM calculations, learning how to turn pages with no reading taking place. As one turns pages they should follow the page turning with their eyes being as focused as possible. NO READING. If you are reading or seeing any words while turning pages then you are going to slow. Turning pages as rapidly as possble is crucial and could take days if not weeks to truly appreciate and develop the skill. After a certain amount of time is established with practicing (1) speed) the student(s) begin to slow down the previously mentioned 'ridiculous' level of reading (turning pages) so the words that were previously nothing but blurs begin to jump out at an accelerated rate.

--Bmatkin (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.evelynwood.com.au/

Adraeus 23:03, 17 September 2004 (UTC)

As has been pointed out repeatedly in older incarnations of this discussion, there is currently no evidence that speed reading techniques can improve understanding or retention. I see no benefit from learning to turn pages as fast as possible; you could practice it for weeks without increasing your ability to read. Speed reading courses tend to say "try technique X for a few weeks - one woman at my seminar was able to read at 2000 wpm after only 3 practice sessions!", and when real people complain that technique X didn't help them in any way, they're told that they're just not applying the technique or sticking at it or cut out for speed reading. What you've said just can't be taken seriously in respect of existing evidence.

Destynova (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2009 (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 December 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.

What research? Give us sources. — Saxifrage (☎) [[]] 09:01, 21 December 2004 (UTC)

"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 in a similar fasion. — Saxifrage (☎) [[]] 09:01, 21 December 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.

— Saxifrage (☎) [[]] 12:03, 21 December 2004 (UTC)

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 December 2004 (UTC)

Removed NPOV reference-free paragraph from Software section

I don't know why it was there anyway, but here it is:

"Learning speed reading techniques in any venue is similar to learning a foreign language. It is more difficult when students are older and easier when they are younger. True speed reading abilities develop only over time and after frequent and continued practice. As a result, many people unfortunately give up before they have mastered the techniques completely. Some also complain that reading faster decreases – not increases – their comprehension. While they may experience an initial drop in comprehension, since users must re-learn and re-develop their reading approach, they can expect some initial difficulties. Once past these difficulties, however the payoff – increased speed and comprehension across the board - makes the effort worthwhile."

This seems very wishy-washy and full of assumptions, and is clearly biased towards the speed-reading techniques point of view.

Destynova 01:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A free web tool that should be mentioned

http://www.spreeder.com It is clear that it should be mentioned (or/and other similar to it) primarily because other commercial ones are already in the article. --Leladax (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is brimming with biased, unreferenced, and commercial information. I would argue against adding more such links as they clearly have no encyclopedic value for the specific article. D15724C710N (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

IP claims regarding speed test link

The anonymous IP left the following message on my talk page:

In reference to the Speed Reading page (www.wikipedia.or/wiki/Speed_reading) the link to the free online reading and reading comprehension that I have put up as a tool to guide users in the online reading process, has been repeatedly been pulled down with the claim that it is "advertising," and it is therefore not appropriate. I disagree that it's an ad (the link takes users directly to the test page, not the AceReader Home page that contains ads). If this is to be considered an ad, I do not understand why Reference Note 5, with the Evelyn Wood link leading directly to the ad-sponsored Read Faster page, should not be considered an ad, as well.

I copied this from my talk page because I would like other users to participate. I will respond soon. Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I also copy and paste the discussion from a similar (related) IP's talkpage and my reply there:

==Answer to your question==

"(Restore useful free online reading test tool. This is not an ad. Why is this considered an add when Reference Note 5 (Evelyn Wood) links directly to the ReadFaster ad page is not?)"

Because it is integrated into the text, and your link is not. So. What do you think you might do about that? Lol.

(I did look at your link, by-the-way, and decided it was marginal, but it should stay.) Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally disagree per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:EL and also on the basis that the ad is about testing for speed reading while the article is about speed reading not about teaching you how to test your reading speed. Wikipedia is not a manual teaching you how to do things per WP:NOTMANUAL. Therefore the link is irrelevant to the subject of the article and violates policies such as WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:EL, on top of being WP:SPAM marginally or otherwise.Dr.K. (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So we can have everything discussed here. Dr.K. (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC).

Additional comment. Other users have expressed similar concerns about this link in the past here. On top of that the user's comments were modified by the long-terrm edit warring and now banned user Wal2wal here. I saw this recently and reverted it back. Dr.K. (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I quote from Wikipedia:Spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer:

1. Review your intentions. Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place. Likewise, if you're here to make sure that the famous Wikipedia cites you as the authority on something (and possibly pull up your sagging PageRank) you'll probably be disappointed, because Wikipedia uses nofollow on all external links, thereby causing search engines to effectively ignore them.
2. Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia—not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? (If not, see #1 above.)
3. The References section is for references. A reference directs the reader to a work that the writer(s) referred to while writing the article. The References section of a Wikipedia article isn't just a list of related works; it is specifically the list of works used as sources. Therefore, it can never be correct to add a link or reference to References sections if nobody editing the text of the article has actually referred to it.

Need I say more? Dr.K. (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Update The IP's comment, at the start of the section above, about the Evelyn Wood citation was correct. I removed this citation as well because it was an ad and had nothing to do with Evelyn Wood. Dr.K. (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

DMOZ

I've corrected the DMOZ link to go to the actual speed reading page, but I'm quite dubious about including it at all - all the links are to sales sites. There doesn't seem to be any counter-claims or research sites that are linked. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at it myself and it doesn't have any value. Dr.P. (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Good 'nuf for me. I'll remove, if anyone wants it put back please discuss first. This'll leave no external links at all, which I'm OK with. The page really needs a re-write and some scholarly sources. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 18:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Reading Dynamics merged into Speed reading

The conternt of Reading Dynamics is almost already included in the Speed reading artilce, and Reading Dynamics is otherwise an orphan artilce. dolfrog (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Meta guiding, Skimming (reading), Reading Dynamics and PhotoReading have been merged into Speed reading. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

A bit of clarification needed?

The article should be careful to distinguish the highly-questionable claims of speed-reading courses (which are, appropriately, treated skeptically in the article) from the simple possibility of reading at that speed. 1000+ words per minute reading speeds are quite possible, but I've never heard of them being taught successfully. However, the difficulty of the material makes a huge difference in reading speeds. 128.194.250.113 (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"Strategic Services, Inc."?

"Berg’s schematic speed reading approach was tested in a double blind efficacy study by Strategic Services, Inc. in 1998"

I cannot find ANY references to this study apart from Berg's own website, nor can I find evidence that Strategic Services, Inc. has ever existed.

Given Berg's associations with that well-known crook, Kevin Trudeau, references to unconfirmed studies seem highly suspect and need to be removed.

Please restore only if you can find evidence of this study's existence APART from that reported on Berg's website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.175.205 (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Natural speed reading

I think an important aspect of speed reading has been glossed over. There are those who have always read fast and without the aid of a course or specialized training. I am one of them and was very surprised by the entries here which make speed reading out to be something you must be trained in. I don't consciously read quickly, its just the way I read. I also don't skim over words. I just see them quickly. I also don't internally vocalize(not that I notice)so that may be a reason for the speed. I was eventually tested at school and read 1500 wpm comfortably with 90 to 100% accuracy. I was then asked to read as fast as I could and I got up to 1900 wpm with 80% accuracy. However this speed wasn't comfortable to me and after testing was over I slowed back down to 1500. I was also able to recall 90% of the contents of the page in my head. I can definitely attribute my good grades to this ability. This wasn't taught to me - I was reading college level by 3rd grade (so my school informed my parents). My parents refused to send me to gifted classes so its not that I was "pushed" to perform well, by any means. I will admit that my speed varied depending on what I read but I think a bit more needs to be posted/documented about naturally gifted speed readers. As for the 90% recall, I met one other person with this ability and we both agreed that as we got older the ability to recall whole passages of what we had read diminished as we aged. ~~Kay Mohr~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by KayMohr (talk • contribs) 06:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but that really sounds completely made up. Many experiments and studies have been carried out on reading speed and comprehension, and none provide any evidence that anybody can read at 1500 wpm with 90 to 100% accuracy. An anecdotal report of claimed ability that is unsupported by any evidence is not good enough. If you could read that fast with such high accuracy and retention, you could easily become the most well-learned person in the world and change everything. But if you can, then please read all of the existing peer-reviewed studies on the subject, and particularly Carver's work, and let us know what we're missing. Destynova (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Physically it's probably impossible to read every word faster than 900-1000wpm. I'll dig up the reference that explains this.--Mr. Stein (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I too. Have always been exceedingly brilliant according to all measures. Was raised to be humble about this, and since the fifth grade have never once looked down on the people around me who aren't as brilliant. But like you, I, too, am naturally gifted. My earliest memory, at 2.5 years, is of reading the article on Orangutans from the Encyclopaedia Britannica aloud to my aunt. I to this day recall every word. Regarding speed, I read about 2,000 wpm with perfect recall. That is, I remember every word. When the writing is good, I have perfect comprehension, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Advertising

I just removed this from the article:

In the past few years, [quickeyespeedreading.com Speed Reading Software] has been made available to the general public and has been proven to be the most effective way to learn how to speed read.

It seems pretty obvious to me this has definitely no place in this article, let alone the introduction. First of all, HUGE citation needed on the claim that software, and this one in particular is "the most effective way to learn how to speed read", second of all, seriously, a direct link to a quite poorly made "buy now!" site, seriously? --AdrienE (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the re-added advertisement some minutes ago. It was the first time I read this article, but as a natural speed reader :) it quickly occurred to me that this advertisement doesn't belong there. Checking the history shows that the person is adding it again and again from different IPs. 92.224.237.192 (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It can be helpful in such cases to report the external link to WikiProject Spam so that the link doesn't come back onto this article and other articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Already done about a week ago :) We should see no more spam for that site at least. Destynova (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I really do not see the need to have the PhotoReading section in this article at all as it clearly is ineffective (at least according to what this article says). As it is it takes up much space but adds nothing to the subject of "speed reading" except a discussion of a product which does not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.52.160 (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Edits by (apparently) Howard Berg

According to this edit, Howard Berg is making edits to defend his "reading record". The edit in question however claims that a study proves that his system "worked", although the comprehension scores seem to suffer awfully in almost every single participant. Surely this is a conflict of interest, though? Destynova (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Zigzag Text

A few years ago zigzag text was mooted and reported on by an ABC affiliate. It is perhaps more to do with speed reading augmentation or assistance. e.g.: (to be read in zigzag fashion),

It was six men of Hindustan, inclined much learning To <-- Who went to see the Elephant, (blind were them of all Though) <-- That each by observation, .mind his satisfy Might <--

That was confusing for me to type in, but, to program would be simple. Would it catch on or just remain a novelty? Absolute zigzag may go like this:

"The quick brown fox revo depmuj the lazy dogs." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.66.30 (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that wonderful demonstration of uselessness of that method. --89.146.140.190 (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Most capital letters are symmetrical. The letters that are not symmetrical are easily mirrored. The reason for this is the so called zig zag text is actually how ancient Greek used to be written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.207.30 (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Zig zag text variation

Simple Gifts, alternative text presentation.

Could this be a way to put text on screen , selectively, to perhaps increase overall rate by avoiding return to each begining of line? SignedJohnsonL623 (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC) People would have to spend some time mastering upside-down reading though, to do a fair comparison. SignedJohnsonL623 (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This was used in the Rongorongo script of Easter Island. Something similar (mirroring every other line instead of writing it upside down) was used by the Ancient Greeks; see Boustrophedon. 59.108.42.46 (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Howard Stephen Berg

A person claiming to be Howard Stephen Berg has just posted an enquiry at the help desk, [1] regarding what he claims is inaccurate negative information concerning him in the article. Given that it seems to be based on primary sources, in contravention of WP:RS policy, and given the obvious WP:BLP concerns, I am going to delete the material for now, until we can find proper sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)