Re: speed reading

The Hurkle Beast <hurkle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"David DeLaney" <dbd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
I know there are people who have to read that way;

You know a _lot_ that isn't true.

There are people who have to read one word at a time. A lot of them are younger
- but it can persist into adulthood. Have you watched the general populace
around you in situations where they have to read, or ever interacted with
someone who has poor reading skills?

There are people who CAN'T read at ALL. And one does not jump straight to
"comprehends entire sentences at once" from 'can't make sense out of the
letters'. Therefore, your claim above that there is NOBODY who has to read
sentences one word at a time, one after another? Is extraordinary.

I also know there are people who have to read each _word_ one _letter_
at a time, one after the other, in fixed order.

Who are these paragons of bizarreness?

Again, you haven't paid attention to the general populace, or to how learning
to read works. Does the word "phonics" mean anything to you? Some people never
get past that stage.

Have you ever had children?

You also give the strong impression that you have very poor reading
comprehension indeed.

_Someone_ in this thread (sometwo, actually) certainly are.

Once again, you're making things up. Do you find this behaviour
helpful in making new friends?

....Have you actually said anything in this thread that would cause me to
think I -wanted- to be friends?

So as long as you (and dwight) can maintain that we can't possibly
be reading
for comprehension, then yes, we fail your tests for actually being
able to
speed-read.

You STILL insist on believing that we're making this up, eh? Well, at
least you seem to be taking your failure fairly well.

Oh, I'm sure you've found articles and research papers that claim this can't
be done. Just sayin' that, when you're actually doing science, all the
published papers in the world don't amount to anything if they contradict
existing data.

Wonder how
we're doing that, if we're not getting comprehension even at the 40
or 50%
level for what we read? Maybe someone should do a study on that, and
tell us
what we should think about it.

You do understand that the field is rather well researched, and firm
conclusions have been come to?

Ah. Ones that can't be changed by further data? I understand - you're reading
papers in some sort of pseudoscientific branch of publications.

Over and over, you keep throwing the
same fantasy at us, but refuse to even admit that you might be wrong,
let alone admit that you _are_ wrong.

It's possible that my watch is wrong, and that the clock on my computer and
the one in my car are too, as well as the one on top of the tallest downtown
building. I consider it unlikely.

It's also possible that I'm somehow subject to fugue states where I miss entire
chunks of time, days' worth - but if so I'd see evidence of it when I
reconnected with the real world.

It's also also possible that I can't actually read the page numbers on the
books I'm reading, and that when I think a book has 418 pages it actually has
150 or so, and that my 200-page books are actually 70 pages' worth. Again, I
consider that unlikely; it would require some sort of worldwide publishers'
conspiracy to use octal, or skip page numbers in mid-book, or something.

Finally, it's possible that I only THINK I comprehend the plots I'm reading,
that I only THINK I can tell one character from another or enjoy plot twists
or pick up on the scene-setting background details. And that what's actually
happening is that I'm hallucinating I do that, and only really seeing 1/3 of
the text or so. I also find that entirely unlikely. You appear to think I'm
deluded or lying or both; I don't know why, or what attachment you have to
physical laws making it impossible for ANYONE to read that fast with
comprehension, but your taking it out on this newsgroup started looking
ridiculous long ago.

I can do what I can do; if that means your collected research is wrong, then
so be it.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@xxxxxxx "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Classifying fiction as science fiction - the Kiss of Death?
    ... Are they teaching people to ... appreciate books or are they teaching them that reading ... reading for comprehension. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Semi-OT: Slate: Why Boys like Girls Books
    ... 300-400 words per minute with good comprehension. ... and has reading ... number of books I took out and back to the library every week as long as I ... pretty fast readers. ...
    (rec.arts.anime.misc)
  • Re: HELP:where can I find data for schumann resonance?
    ... mileage from reading up the papers cited in the Wikipedia page I said ... (this will probably involve using an inter-library loan service for the ... relevant researchers in the field (identified by your reading round the ... I would doubt that there's enough market to generate books on ...
    (sci.geo.earthquakes)
  • Re: ARC4 Modification
    ... I been reading lots of books and papers. ... I don't expect to do anything new with a hobby. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Rambling: the info (+ experiment on reader reaction)
    ... into writing her version of their stories. ... normal and nothing to object to for the characters, ... the fun of reading is the discovery. ... I come to books wanting to enjoy them. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)