Re: [wwbc] Speed Reading
so, in your opinion, when it is recomendable to use speed reading?
2006/12/18, cmartin336@... <cmartin336@...>:
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> for what purpose do you want to train speed reading ?
> If you are at school or at university, then I doubt, that speed reading
> helps, because you have to understand what you read and you have to form as
> many accociations as possible, with the facts, which you study. And that
> needs time.
> If you read belletristik, then it speed reading does also not make much
> sense, because in general one enjoys to read belletristik and why shorten
> that enjoyment ?
- Great post, Steve. The course I took in college, which
only upped my speed by about 25%, was based on the
Woods technique. This is why, when it came time to
take the Woods course, it just didn't resonate:
nothing offered there was new.
The Berg course that utilized the visual centers of
the brain's capabilities, as well as encouraging
analytical thought, really played into things that I'd
already begun to discover, or knew from Psyc courses.
It also FELT much more natural than the other courses.
If I'm not comfortable with a thing, I know that
chances are I won't use it, unless there's an
extremely pressing need for it.
There's a fair bit more to it than the things I
covered in my post, too. And, he gets to the meat of
his subject really fast, as opposed to taking weeks.
One thing I make a practice of doing that I don't see
taught anywhere, is that I try to find a way to make
info that bores me interesting to me. I don't think
you can teach this, though, since people's interests
differ. We kind of have to find our own way on that.
All you can do is make others aware that this can be
done, and that it makes study much easier.
This is an area of interest for me also.
First, let me say that I agree with Claus in that you
can read and learn,
and then not be able to recall every written word, but
still be able to
access the general fund of information. Having said
that though, I must
say, my university courses which buttressed reading
discussion, projects, etc. did "stick with me" better
through the years.
I just got SpeedReaderX. It had good reviews on the
net, and I must say
that it's a nice tool. I have many speed reading
books. I find that most
are based on the Wood stuff. (Evelyn Wood?). THe most
far out one is
"Photoreading" where you don't even focus on each
word--or even each line.
Just let your peripheral vision "photo glimpse" the
page and then over night
the content of the material is supposed to crystallize
knowledge--at least that's what the author claims.
Actually I'm a school
psychologist, so much of my university course work was
on teaching/learning reading--not speed reading, but
beginning level reading
skills. It's actually sortof ironic that the bulk of
(and there's a TON of it!) suggests that teaching
phonetically (little bits
first; bottom-up) is more effective than whole
top-down) for acquiring reading skills. But as many
speed reading books
point out, this is antithetical to speed reading.
Anyway... Last thoughts: Basic cognitive psych 101
tells us that verbal
info has to be ATTENDED to and ENCODED to get past
sort-term memory and into
long-term. If we read word by word (with little voice
in head) I would say
we're encoding 'verbally.' However, IMHO, we don't
always need to do this
for the written word. For example, if you're skimming
the newspaper and
your first name is in it, it's likely to 'jump out' at
you. Similarly, the
words STOP, LOVE, DANGER, or MOM might be ones that
your brain could
associate/pair with whatever behavior or feeling they
correspond to BEFORE
you're even really aware (at a verbal level) of what
the word was.... If
this is true, then the info must be getting encoded
the language centers of the brain (Werneckie's Area in
Lobe??). This shouldn't be too surprising of an
occurrence considering that
the visual parts of the brain are way way bigger than
the language parts
and, from an evolutionary perspective, are much much
older. Given these
half-baked meanderings, it seems like, in as much as
you are so familiar
with the words of a given text that each word can be
non-verbally, then you can move to visually encoding
combinations of words
DANGER (one word) DO NOT ENTER (combination) .
Okay last thought--really: Don't forget the previous
poster who indicated
that level of interest in the subject, prior
information, energy level, etc,
etc, are all extremely important in "getting" what you
===SteveK321= ========= =======
T5, WindowsXP, PocketMirror, Anagram, MacrosExpress,
pToolSet, Hi-Launcher, Pedit, MyKbd.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around