Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Killing Subvocalization

By Juppon Gatana in Culture
Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 07:55:07 PM EST
Tags: Help! (Ask Kuro5hin) (all tags) 		Help! (Ask Kuro5hin)

So for about a year now I've been attempting to significantly increase my reading speed. It's been a very on and off process that hasn't received my full attention because I read at a reasonable pace already. At the same time, however, I am sure that if I find specific practice technique that works, I will use it diligently and often.

My chief problem is subvocalization. For those unfamiliar with the term, subvocalization occurs when readers pronounce internally what they're reading in order to grasp the meaning. For example, as I read this article, I hear the words in my head and from there I am able to understand what's on my monitor. My vocal cords do not move, as I can talk and read at the same time, and still hear the words internally.

The problem with subvocalization is that it greatly slows down the reading process. A subvocalizer has to wait to hear the words for comprehension to kick in, and this unnecessarily delays reading speed. Eliminating subvocalization is a key to faster reading. My goal is to wean myself off it and then gradually increase my speed through practice.



I have tried almost everything to eliminate subvocalization, but I remain unsuccessful. Here is a somewhat comprehensive list of my failed techniques:
  • Counting out loud.
  • Counting internally (through subvocalization).
  • Listening to various types of music.
  • Humming.
  • Making a drawn out noise, both out loud and through subvocalization. (In the latter case I hear both the noise and the words internally.)
I have also tried the often-suggested method of reading so fast that I can't possibly subvocalize all the words, and this has also been unsuccessful. While I am already capable of reading and understanding without subvocalizing every single word, after reading for half an hour to an hour every night faster than I was comfortable with (highly reduced comprehension) I noticed no increase in how fast I could read with normal comprehension. I don't expect a great difference to occur instantly, but I calculated no difference at all, which caused me to conclude the method I was using was unsuccessful.

Additionally, I consulted a number of books on the subject, and found no new exercises that worked.

So this is where k5 comes in. Are there any people here who have successfully increased their ability to understand text without subvocalization? If so, what methods of practice did you use? I am willing to devote time to this and am not looking for a "speed reading in two days" solution. I read a lot for my own edification, I would love to have the option of speeding up and slowing down whenever I want, without a loss in comprehension.

What I'm not interested in is being told that speed reading doesn't exist. I have heard numerous conflicting studies on it, some of which claim that the eye cannot possibly take in every word on a page faster than 900 words per minute. Even if this is true, it doesn't bother me. Reading at 900 wpm would be a fabulous skill to develop. However, I have a few friends who can read at between 1400 and 2000 wpm, and they do so with excellent comprehension (around 80%, which is way better than average), so whether they are technically "skimming" or not does not concern me. Also, I measured my own comprehension against theirs, to confirm for myself that it was a reasonably accurate test. Being able to read that quickly is a skill I would like to develop regardless of the technique.

For the curious:

Calculating your reading speed is a very simple and straightforward process. Just time yourself reading a page of a book at a comfortable pace. Count the number of words in the first five or ten lines, whatever you feel is representative of the page as a whole, and then count the total number of lines in the page. Then use the following formula:

the number of lines in the page divided by
the number of lines used for your word count multiplied by
the number of words in your word count divided by
the number of minutes it took you to read the page

The end result will be your reading speed. Obviously, if you increase the number of lines in which you perform the word count, or the number of pages you read, the accuracy of your calculation will increase as well. One page is usually enough, though.

The average reading speed is often held to be around 265 wpm, though I've heard estimates ranging from 250 to slightly over 300.

Thanks for your help, folks.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
At what speed do you read fiction comfortably?
o 200-300 wpm 9%
o 300-400 wpm 11%
o 400-600 wpm 16%
o 600-800 wpm 7%
o 800-1000 wpm 1%
o 1000-1500 wpm 6%
o 1500 wpm and above 6%
o Don't know 41%

Votes: 95
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Also by Juppon Gatana

Display: Sort:
Killing Subvocalization | 143 comments (138 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden)
Testament to Reality (4.91 / 12) (#4)
by snowlion on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 05:29:49 PM EST

My best friend Whit from college was visiting, and we were playing Lunar Silver Star Story ][ together.

What got irritating was going into towns with people to talk to. I would want to read the whole dialog, but Whit would be flipping through it.

After about 15 minutes of this, I shouted, "Gah! Whit! We're playing a game here! We've got to read this stuff!" He replied, "Lion, we are reading it." We started talking about subvocalization- both of us have a background in speed reading. BUT, I felt that it was just an illusion.

I said, "Okay- what did that guy just say. You zipped by it so fast, you may have gotten the idea, but you certainly can't tell me what he said word for word."

So Whit told me, word for word, what the guy we were talking with had just said. We checked it, and Whit was right- he had gotten every single word.

I was speechless. "Daaaaaaaamn..."

So, it's clear to me that it's real.

My thoughts on Speedreading, so far, are thus:

  • It's real.
  • It consists of collecting patterns of words into chunks, much like we collect patterns of letters into words.
  • It consists of "knowing where it's leading", and searching for deviations or variations from standard coarse.
  • Speedreading has variable speed. There are parts that are like a highway, and parts that are like a gravel road, or driving through snow. You don't go the same speed all over the place.
  • Things that require significant amounts of thought still require significant amounts of thought. You can't just speedread through a piece on mathematics, unless you are a skilled mathematician. You can't just speedread through an API doc, unless you are already familiar with the general problem domain.
The last idea may be wrong; People may build meta-knowledge facilities that allow them to quickly build complex knowledge structures in their mind, across subjects. But I have never seen evidence of it.

A good analogy is DDR players- you start playing with a hard time, but over time, you chunk collections of moves in your mind, and can just glance and perform. Speedread like you play DDR.

--
Map Your Thoughts

Subvocalization of Spoken-Word Foreign Languages (4.50 / 2) (#5)
by natael on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 05:32:47 PM EST

On a somewhat related topic, I am curious about people's experiences with subvocalization of foreign languages. After reading this article I realized that when conversing in French I am unable to comprehend what I have heard until I subvocalize an English translation. Is this common? Are there methods similar to the ones Juppon tried for reading that could help me break this habit? Perhaps it is simply a matter of familiarity. It would be interesting to see if there is a connection between the two.

"And now you're apologizing, not for insulting and denigrating people you don't

try this path (3.00 / 1) (#7)
by krkrbt on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 05:38:51 PM EST

some ideas for further exploration:
  1.  self-hypnosis & "Time Distortion" (application of self-hypnosis
  2.  Expanded Awareness (aka Hakalau, Photo-Focus, Angle Wide Vision).  Read while in your expanded awareness state.
probably ought to learn/do "imagestreaming" too.  (http://www.winwenger.com)

learn to subvocalize faster? (4.00 / 1) (#8)
by mveloso on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 05:42:31 PM EST

Faster subvocalization is one way, but the other trick might be to shut off the part of your brain that's trying to feed the text to your vocal cords/speech areas.

When I read this article I can subvocalize or not, depending on how lazy I am. Using a bit more detail, I can sort of see that I subvocalize for the first few words, but don't for the rest.

Try slightly constricting your throat when you read, and see if that helps?

poll problem (4.00 / 2) (#11)
by ucblockhead on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 05:51:15 PM EST

WPM reading what?

Mine varies tremendously depending on what I read. Your WPM is going to be vastely different while reading James Joyce from what it is while reading Terry Pratchett.

It is also my observation that many people who claim to "speed-read" don't have the reading comprehension that they should.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup

Comprehension (4.50 / 2) (#14)
by pyro9 on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 05:53:46 PM EST

Speed reading is a useful skill, but should not be used all the time. So called comprehension (as measured on most speed reading tests) simply consists ov being able to dump out the key facts from the text less than 5 minutes after reading it.

Unfortunatly, all I tend to get that way is a bag of unconnected facts that I still need to spend time mapping into the rest of what I know if it is to be really useful to me. That extra time (not coincidentally is about how much longer I would have taken to read the text without 'speeding' through it.

So most of the value is to quickly find what I want to know in a manual or to 'buffer' what I'm reading because the text will be snatched away from me :-)

It is still worth learning, however, since once you ralax again and start reading normally, it will still be a little faster than before.


The future isn't what it used to be
I only subvocalize when I read about it. nt (2.83 / 6) (#16)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 06:13:16 PM EST



I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
speed reading (4.00 / 1) (#18)
by zephc on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 06:21:46 PM EST

Something that totally kills speed reading is wide columns of text, which is about anything wider than one finds in a novel.  You can dump through text faster when its in narrower columns, like newspapers and textbooks.  When reading things online, like papers, I have to resize my browser windows so everything is nice and narrow, hoping images on the page dont mess it up.

Damn! That was kind of disappointing... (3.50 / 2) (#19)
by RareHeintz on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 06:23:09 PM EST

When I saw the title, I was really hoping you would advocate shooting people who grunt their way through conversations. (Of course, if we did that, America would run out of teenagers quickly - to say nothing of the speech-impaired Bush family!)

As it stands, though, you've written an interesting piece. My personal experience is that I switch between subvocalizing or not, depending on my situation. Reading a Tom Clancy novel on an airplane? No subvocalizing, 100-150 pages per hour. Reading something I want to remember in any but the vaguest fashion? I mentally "hear" what's being said, and that seems to me to engage the mnemonic and critical-thinking filters I'd have working during a conversation. It slows me down, but it's worth it for the added engagement to the material.

Anyway, just my $.02.

OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/ - updated kind of daily

Speed-reading (4.76 / 13) (#20)
by kaemaril on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 06:29:52 PM EST

I am reminded of a Woody Allen quote I once read:

"I learnt to speed-read, and read War & Peace in an afternoon. It's about Russia."


Why, yes, I am being sarcastic. Why do you ask?
Stop reading books for babies (4.00 / 13) (#21)
by the on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 06:33:08 PM EST

Look at what you are reading. Do you find you can't read it fast enough? That you are able to process the ideas faster than you can read them? Then stop reading that book and find a harder one. Try reading again. Find you can't read that fast enough? Then find a harder book. Eventually find a book that you can't read faster than you can process. Now you've found your correct reading level. Keep reading books that are this difficult.

If you're worried that this process might not terminate I have listed some books that you can definitely already read faster than you can understand:

  1. Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory
  2. Concluding Unscientific Postscript
  3. On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems
  4. Of Grammatology
  5. Superstring Theory: Volume 1, Introduction
Somewhere between the crap you're currently reading and these books lies something at your reading level.

Next problem please.

--
The Definite Article

I've thought about this (4.00 / 2) (#22)
by jcolter on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 06:34:07 PM EST

I am not sure that I can think much faster than I can subvocalize.  To be honest, I often find myself rereading certain things to try and fully understand them.  

Have any tests been able to show that comprehension does not fall off after a certain speed of reading has been achieved?  I am not talking about repeating something verbatim, but grasping the "deeper" meaning.

What is 80% comprehension? (4.33 / 3) (#30)
by GGardner on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 07:17:59 PM EST

What does 80% comprehension mean? That you understand 80% of the words you read? 80% of the concepts? 80% of the sentences? That you could repeat back 80% of the words?

Subvocalizing while thinking (4.50 / 6) (#35)
by khym on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 07:45:49 PM EST

For example, as I read this article, I hear the words in my head and from there I am able to understand what's on my monitor.
I subvocalize when I think. Are there people who can think without hearing the words in their heads? I sort of envy them...

--
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Speed Reading is *Work* (4.00 / 2) (#36)
by BenJackson on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 07:47:49 PM EST

If I try, I can read very quickly. But it does take effort. If I relax I slow down quite a bit. I always "read" about three words at a time, but to go quickly I have to keep my eyes moving ahead of my comprehension to have a pipeline of words ready to understand.

It works best with fiction, and I'm reading fiction to relax, not to set a land speed record.

In a way, channel surfing is like spead reading... (4.40 / 5) (#39)
by shigelojoe on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 08:21:38 PM EST

People (okay, just my parents) always ask me how I can know what I'm flipping past when I'm changing channels at about a rate of three channels a second. One time, my parents bet me that, flipping through the 50 or so channels we had in only thirty seconds, that I couldn't remember what was on a given channel (any channel) when I flipped past it. I was feeling lucky, so I told them I could do it with only twenty seconds, and without any thumb stretching beforehand. We shook on it. They had a stopwatch, I had the remote, and on the word "Go!" I flipped through all of the channels in about 18 seconds. They then proceeded to quiz me on what program was showing on each channel. I was able to rattle off each show that was airing and in some cases even the episode that was showing. So, yeah, it's like speed-reading; you know those people who can read dialog boxes and text boxes in a split second.

In a way, channel surfing is like spead reading... (2.66 / 3) (#40)
by shigelojoe on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 08:22:26 PM EST

People (okay, just my parents) always ask me how I can know what I'm flipping past when I'm changing channels at about a rate of three channels a second.

One time, my parents bet me that, flipping through the 50 or so channels we had in only thirty seconds, that I couldn't remember what was on a given channel (any channel) when I flipped past it.

I was feeling lucky, so I told them I could do it with only twenty seconds, and without any thumb stretching beforehand. We shook on it.

They had a stopwatch, I had the remote, and on the word "Go!" I flipped through all of the channels in about 18 seconds.

They then proceeded to quiz me on what program was showing on each channel. I was able to rattle off each show that was airing and in some cases even the episode that was showing.

So, yeah, it's like speed-reading; you know those people who can read dialog boxes and text boxes in a split second.

Opposite problem here (4.50 / 2) (#47)
by celeriac on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 09:06:32 PM EST

I've never subvocalized that I can remember. I guess this is a great help for getting through most ordinary prose and technical documents. But sometimes I get the idea to try some Kerouac or Shakespeare, the kind of beautiful stuff but usually doesn't make a lick of sense unless you hear it out loud. I start out trying to read aloud, or at least subvocalize, but it usually feels slow and bogged down, or my throat muscles get tired, or whathaveyou, and I go back to ordinary reading, only to realize some time later that I haven't understood a damn thing for pages. So I'd kind of like a hint for training myself to slow down at will without getting fatigued.

I suspect, and this is more or less wild speculation here, that for a lot of people who don't subvocalize, spoken English and written English are quite different languages as far as the brain is concerned. It's hard to learn a new language when one you already know is so conveniently available as a fallback (I know that watching, e.g., French movies with English sustitles does absolutely nothing for my comprehension of French). So it seems like the problem for someone trying to cease subvocalization is to find a way to make subvocalizing an unavailable option, while allowing yourself to go slowly enough to comprehend things through written English. Beyond that I don't have a lot of ideas.

I/O Errors and scanning (4.20 / 5) (#51)
by tetragon on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 09:33:57 PM EST

I can read at around 1440 wpm, but I generally go with 100-200 pages/hour (555-1110wpm depending upon the text and time of day). I find that whenever I read towards the top end of my reading speed, sometimes words occasionally slip their line position (a word gets swapped with the word in the same visual position on the line below it), which generally is not a problem, but sometimes it can drastically alter the meaning of a paragraph. Other than the problems that and turning too many (or forgetting to turn) the pages can cause, my level of comprehension is very high (I don't know any way to tell it exactly).

These speeds can be reached without skimming, but I can't go my top speed for too long, I occasionally get headaches from it; I end up reading and processing multiple lines at a time, frequently an entire paragraph. I never really payed attention to it before, but it seems like when I do read towards my upper speed limit, instead of reading horizontally across the page starting each line at the beginning, I read diagonally, mostly horizontal, but down at the same time, reversing direction of the horizontal scan when I reach the edge of the page.

As for subvocalization, I occasionally do it when I'm reading at only 100 p/h, with plays, or when what I'm reading has a beautiful verbal structure. I can't think of any actual practicing that I've done to reach my reading speed. All I know is that I've been reading at it since grade 6, but probably earlier.


Ceci n'est pas une sig

God damn it. (4.75 / 8) (#56)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 09:54:23 PM EST

I've been trying to figure out whether or not I subvocalize but every time I think about it when reading I start doing it whether or not I was before.... Blargh.

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."

Passwords and Pass Phrases (4.75 / 4) (#61)
by QuantumG on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 11:03:22 PM EST

Learning not to subvocalize passwords and pass phrases is a requirement for some security work I've done. The idea is that you won't be able to give up keys in your sleep or hypnosis.

Gun fire is the sound of freedom.
Subvocalization not issue (4.80 / 5) (#67)
by Eric Green on Thu Jan 23, 2003 at 11:54:48 PM EST

I can read a typical 120,000 word novel in two hours, and I subvocalize regularly, so I doubt that subvocalizing is the sole problem. More probably is chunking. I notice I chunk a lot of things, reading a couple of words at a time rather than a single word at a time. One thing that I do notice myself doing is painting "word pictures" when reading expository lumps, rather than subvocalizing the words themselves. For example, if the author is David Weber and he is describing in loving detail the details of a new frigate class for his Honor Hornblower In Space series, I'm seeing a mental picture of a frigate, rather than hearing the words. Dialog, on the other hand, always gets "heard". The reading experience for me is much like watching a movie, I have a mental image of what all these people look like and am listening to them interact with each other and use the expository parts to build an image of what things must look like.

In any event, try building mental pictures of what you're reading as you're reading it. That should distract you from concentrating on the look and sound of individual words. Once you get away from individual words, then your mind can start learning how to clump words and build these pictures in near real time.

-E
--
You are feeling sleepy... you are feeling verrry sleepy...

What I do (3.00 / 1) (#78)
by hans on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 01:17:30 AM EST

Depending on the situation, I can process a couple hundred pages in an hour or two.  Or I can take a month to read the same.  For faster reading where I have to learn most of what's going on, I tend to read a paragraph or group of sentences, and process them as a whole.  As in, I don't think about the meaning of every sentence or phrase, I think about the meaning of every larger point.  

When I'm really in a jam and need to read an entire book before a meeting that's in, say, an hour, I'll hit the table of contents first, then breeze through as fast as possible, mostly just scanning.  Every other page if need be.  I do this in the hopes that I'll catch the important bits and be able to recall them when needed, with a little help.  I guess it works better than not reading the book at all, as its gotten me through college so far.

subvoc: reading vs talking vs thinking (4.80 / 5) (#83)
by bolthole on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 03:46:01 AM EST

going through things "verbally" in your head, gets used more often than you notice, I bet.

When writing stuff (like this article) normally, you play through it in your mind before writing it.

When reading, often, the relaxed thing to do is internally sound it out

And heres the real kicker that almost noone notices: When plain *thinking*, there is a tendancy to do the same thing.

I believe they are all related.

To look at the extreme end: start thinking about a subject. At the same time, notice HOW you are thinking. Are you playing out a pseudo-verbal monolog? I believe most people do.  However, it is possible to "think" about something, without actual words. Many people probably just do this on an emotional level, sounding out how the FEEL about something. But it is possible to actually rationalize, without internal words.

The trouble with this is, you tend to lose a certain amount of processing on the info.

If you speak this way, it may result in the phenomemon of "opening your mouth without thinking", aka "putting your foot in it".

Similarly with writing.

For reading, if you get really good at it, you can sort of whisk through things, but you lose the texture of the thing. For example, if you read a novel this way, you're going to miss the major point of enjoyment of it - having your brain play around with mental imagery, etc.

I was trying to think of an analogy for what is happening, and I think I've just though of a really really appropriate one. (unfortunately, only techies will get it, but...)

It's like dropping the indexes on a database table, and doing "LOAD DATA INFILE 'xxxx'".

Sure, you "load up" the data really fast. But it's just data. You dont have all the interconnections, triggers, and fun stuff like that. It takes time to generate all that other stuff around the raw data.

BTW: the whole semi-"verbal" thing, is because we need the verbal side of the brain, to do the extra analysis of the subject matter, methinks.

pure thought, and also the base level of reading methinks , is the hard logic, symbolic manipulation part of the brain. The other stuff  is most related to the aural part of the brain, I think.

hugely variable (4.50 / 2) (#89)
by minimalist on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 06:55:20 AM EST

I've been working with a variety of speed reading techniques for a while too and subvocalising was one of my major problems. I seemed to get over it by just pushing a bit faster than I could form the words in my head.. this did not detract too much from my comprehension and, over a period, got me out of the habit of subvocalising everything. Over time I've found that I can read extremely quickly when reading "for enjoyment".. especially fantasy novels which I easily finish in one sitting, however, I'm also a network engineer and I find that when reading white papers or other such materielle that are work related my speed is less than a third of my "fun-reading" speed. I perform best where the text enables me to build up clear images, or where the plot means that the flow of language is easy to follow (or even predict). This is sadly rarely the case with work related material. Mini

Thank you. (4.00 / 1) (#100)
by nstenz on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 11:06:40 AM EST

My reading speed has slowed significantly in the past few years (ever since I stopped reading paperback books for the most part). The subvocalization issue had never even occurred to me before. I tried reading the article by just looking at the words, and realized I could indeed go much faster without pronouncing them in my head. I guess that's how skimming works, but the trick is to slow down just enough to actually understand each word while taking the group of words together as one thought.

With some practice, I could probably get used to this. It wouldn't work for crap while I'm coding, but it may be useful for K5 browsing.

I concur (4.00 / 2) (#101)
by RyoCokey on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 11:13:10 AM EST

Personally, I didn't even know thinking was possible in any form recognizable to me without subvocalization. I don't have any thought capability that doesn't involve it. Not that this hinders me in any way, I just can't picture an alternative method. All conscious thoughts manifest themselves as an internal dialog.

On the subject of the article, this doesn't appear to have much affect at all on my reading ability. I still manage about 750 wpm without skimming. Note that subvocalization is not bound to the physical limitations of your voice box and thus can go as fast as your brain can process it.



"Like all important issues, gun control is an emotional issue that will be resolved by politics, belief, and conviction, not by a resort to "facts'." -
in my case (4.00 / 1) (#103)
by loudici on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 12:30:55 PM EST

my first language is french, i learnt german in high school and english mostly in math and computer science books, so i learnt reading and writing english a long time before i actually spoke it. i never vocalize.

on the subject of speed reading, though, my position     is that if the actual reading time is significant compared to the time needed to understand what i am reading, then either the author is babbling unnecessarily, or i am reading something useless, or i am reading for my pleasure, but then that time is enjoyable, hence not wasted.
 
gnothi seauton

Apparently, (4.00 / 2) (#109)
by danni on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 02:53:33 PM EST

Your vocal cords may actually move if you are not talking at the same time as thinking or reading.

This forms the basis of 'Throat reading' employed by mediums and Derren Brown :P  I think it could be due to Idemotor action, the mechanism that makes a pendulum held between your fingers move if you imagine it moving.

Does this explain why subvocalization may slow your reading speed?

The same applies to thinking too (4.00 / 1) (#113)
by johnw on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 04:01:05 PM EST

It is just as possible to eliminate vocalization from thought. Although many think that verbalization is essential to linking concepts, common experience shows that this is not so. For example, if you are a mechanic or computer engineer, and I ask you to think about how a car or computer works, the subject of your thought is too complex and multi-dimensional to be expressed in linear forms. You are able to visualize and manipulate concepts -- and find answers -- to engineering problems without ever putting those thoughts into words. The same is possible with abstract ideas (which are also often highly complex and multi-dimensional), though it takes practice because there are no familiar "images" to fall back on. Like meditation, one tends to navigate these byways of thought using intuition and feelings of depth, which are no less pragmatic than verbalizing the same idea. In some cases, especially when the thought involved is particularly complex, removing the verbal component not only vastly accelerates the thinking process, but can even lead to intuitive leaps that verbal thinking might have restrained or prevented.

Verbalizing can be a useful form of repetition (5.00 / 2) (#114)
by johnw on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 04:03:07 PM EST

At the same time that verbalization slows you down, consider that it might also be helping retention, simply because it repeats the ideas as they are formed in your mind. Just as people might read aloud, or write by hand, information they really want to know better, so vocalization is not always such a bad thing. In fact, with particularly "thick" material it can help slow things down, where non-verbalization would leave you plunging ahead beyond your ability to keep up with the subject.

Take a speedreading class (5.00 / 1) (#115)
by epepke on Fri Jan 24, 2003 at 05:17:02 PM EST

This is somewhat obvious, but I'm mentioning it because I haven't seen much (any?) discussion of it. Take a speedreading class. That is, pay some money to a teacher for the use of his and/or her skill for the purpose of teaching you how to do this.

Self-help is fine and dandy, when it works. When it doesn't work, sometimes you have to rely on the skills of someone who has been trained in how to do it.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett
Since English is an analytical language (none / 0) (#119)
by omghax on Sat Jan 25, 2003 at 12:46:45 AM EST

don't build on words to comprehend ideas, skim through words and sentences and let the meanings coalesce.

Creepy (none / 0) (#122)
by Rhinobird on Sat Jan 25, 2003 at 07:57:43 AM EST

I heard all your words in my head, but I don't know what you sound like...uber creepy no? :-P
"If Mr. Edison had thought more about what he was doing, he wouldn't sweat as much." --Nikola Tesla
Switched topic! (none / 0) (#128)
by cdyer on Sat Jan 25, 2003 at 06:09:01 PM EST

I find it interesting that this conversation switched topics about halfway through. the original article and the first few posts are about trying to stop subvocalizing your own language to read faster. At some point it switches to reading in a foreign language and subvocalizing a translation in your native language.

I propose another shift to the phenomenon of subvocalizing one's own language into another language so as not to understand it.

Cheers,
Cliff
Scoop ate my subvocalized post the first time (none / 0) (#132)
by anyonymous [35789] on Sat Jan 25, 2003 at 10:00:07 PM EST

To sum it up again, I have noticed that I read at the same speed I talk because I subvocalize. I have noticed that when reading a good book with the stereo on I stop subvocalizing when I get deep into the story. I read a lot faster. I forget to subvocalize. So I assume it is something I taught myself to do at an early age. If that is the case it can be unlearned. You probably just need to practice.

interesting (5.00 / 1) (#139)
by ebatsky on Sun Jan 26, 2003 at 07:29:09 PM EST

I've never thought about this before, so when I read the article I tried reading all the posts here without subvocalizing. It wasn't very hard, and it did improve the speed about 2x (usually about 600 wpm, now 1200). The way I did it is just breath deeply while reading and scan the lines with your eyes faster than you could vocalize them. Could pretty much understand it as well as regular reading, etc.

The only weird thing is that after doing this for 15-20 mins or so, top of my head started to feel weird, kind of like if you smoked pot, the same type of feeling. This speed reading stuff might have more benefit than previously thought!

Anyway the best way I've found (in my 30 mins of experimentation) is to move your eyes from side to side as you go through each line, but quicker than usual. Works for me.

using subvocalization for comprehension (none / 0) (#142)
by benobo on Sat Jun 14, 2003 at 03:42:15 PM EST

Sometimes subvocalization allows for the apprehension of meaning that is communicated by phonetic constructs. A simplistic example: "The java men banged their four heads together." Some of us are predisposed by our culture and developmental experiences to the parsing verbal input for levels of meaning based upon the branching of meaning within phonemes and the possibilities of meaning within definite and indefinite phonemic derivatives. Slowing down to subvocalize may help one to find meaning, or, depending upon the source, subvocalization may only provide meaningless distraction. Sometimes it may be wise to choose to comprehend without listening. Sometimes, without listening, we may not comprehend.

Observations and Another Article (none / 0) (#143)
by thadk on Thu Jul 10, 2003 at 06:54:20 PM EST

Since I see that this article is up there on a few google terms I'm going to add a link and some things that have been helping me "Kill Subvocalization" before Rusty drops it into the archive.

I read in a book I came across somewhere that subvocalization has the feel of taking place in the lower part of your head (tongue, mouth). "Thought-stream" (for lack of another term) feels more like it is toward the top part (eyes).

After going back the technique I originally ran across (and rudimentarily mirrored when I had trouble accessing) I found that this was pretty much true. It made it a bit easier to maintain for me.

There was also another good article and more accompanying discussion on this topic here at K5 (a link of which may or may not be buried in the comments below).
How to Read Quickly Without Really Trying by CantSay.

----
For more interesting, community written and approved K5 articles like this one check out the Ko4ting Wiki.

Killing Subvocalization | 143 comments (138 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!