Improving Reading Retention

Off Topic
21

Scan the text quickly; then read it thoroughly. The scans tells you where the text is headed - allowing you to skim through points which simply are not very relevant.

Speed-reading allows you to get to the point of a paragraph BEFORE your brain starts to lose information. There are websites and books on speed-reading, and you should check them out.

Once you grasp speed-reading, you begin to enjoy reading for the sake of it. It’s really neat to zip through an article and find out you remember most of it.

22

[quote]nephorm wrote:
[bla]
Secondly, the many advocates of so-called “visual reading,” wherein sub-vocalization is eliminated and the words are understood “visually,” seem to ignore that much of the nuance of language is understood in it’s aural form. That is, we make sense out of a lot of information by hearing how it sounds. Sounds convey meaning. That is to say nothing of the ability to appreciate turns of phrase, puns, and other linguistic delights which are best appreciated by “hearing” the words. [/quote]

Linguistic delights are irrelevant in a technical book.

A business and a stack of books will eat into your sleep. There are times where linguistic delights fall at the bottom of your priority list. Far down the bottom.

I’m an engineering student. I know. Too many sleepless nights just to finish homework, projects, exams. If I learned one thing, it’s this: you’ve gotta know to read fast and smart.

Fact is, your brain DOES absorb information far faster visually. It’d be sad if it didn’t. You can look at a picture and in 5 seconds absorb a tremendous ammount of information that would take many paragraphs to describe.
We speak at the pace we do so others can understand us - not because we can’t think any faster. When we think ‘vocally’, we think at this rate or slightly faster.

23

[quote]nephorm wrote:
SwampThing wrote:
For instance, if you retained 80% of what you read. you would still have to be able to read twice as fast as everyone else, since you will be re-reading 100% of what you just read, to get that last 20%.

It isn’t only that… speed reading is based upon the questionable idea that the human brain operates much faster than our eyes can take in information. If the eyes were the bottleneck, it would indeed be necessary to make them work faster.

There is also the belief that sub-vocalization is using an inherently slower part of the brain to process the written word.

This is all bunk.

First of all, much of what we read, especially if we intend to learn anything from it at all, must be thought about to be understood. The goal is not to see who can move his eyes over the page the fastest, but rather to process and make sense of the information that is read. That takes time. If it doesn’t, then you’re probably not reading challenging material, and you might want to reconsider your reading program.

Secondly, the many advocates of so-called “visual reading,” wherein sub-vocalization is eliminated and the words are understood “visually,” seem to ignore that much of the nuance of language is understood in it’s aural form. That is, we make sense out of a lot of information by hearing how it sounds. Sounds convey meaning. That is to say nothing of the ability to appreciate turns of phrase, puns, and other linguistic delights which are best appreciated by “hearing” the words. And my last note on this visual style of reading is this: when you read aurally, you still process the visual elements.

So you are engaging more of your brain in the process, engaging more senses, and experiencing the work more fully. The more engaged you are, the more likely you are to understand and to remember.[/quote]

That’s pretty interesting. I’m not calling you a liar, but do you have any proof to back that up?

I have used speed-reading techniques with much success. At the very least it makes reading much less tiresome, which the original poster mentioned as a problem. And my retention and comprehension haven’t been negatively affected.

24

[quote]diesel25 wrote:
Linguistic delights are irrelevant in a technical book.
[/quote]

That may be true, but technical language has its own difficulties of syntax that must be considered.

I’m an engineering graduate. You read what you have to read to get the job done, in many cases. And if that is what the OP is referring to, fine. Otherwise, you’re going to have to read well and in-depth.

If you are trying to understand complex math or concepts, I don’t know how you could possibly speed read that to retain or understand anything.

Perhaps you speed-read my earlier post.
I wasn’t talking about diagrams, I was talking about visual reading without sub-vocalization.

Looking at a picture, diagram, or chart and reading words visually are completely dissimilar. The process of understanding a chart and turning words and phrases into meaningful bits of information are completely different neurological processes.

Please think about this. You say that we speak at the pace that we do so others can understand us. But if everyone’s brains are so fast and capable of processing information so much faster, why do we need to slow down the information? Surely it cannot be that just that one part of the brain that processes the spoken word is just naturally slower than any other part. Or is it possible that language processing is a more complex task than you are giving it credit for.

25

[quote]boonville410 wrote:
That’s pretty interesting. I’m not calling you a liar, but do you have any proof to back that up?
[/quote]

I prefer the old line that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I think the speed-reading teachers are the ones making the extraordinary claims.

At any rate, I don’t know what kind of proof you would like. There aren’t many well controlled studies of speed reading. Most of the ones I have seen over the years indicate that as speed goes up, comprehension goes down.

The problem is that you never know the level of familiarity the subject has with the material, which might influence the results of their comprehension tests.

[quote]
I have used speed-reading techniques with much success. At the very least it makes reading much less tiresome, which the original poster mentioned as a problem. And my retention and comprehension haven’t been negatively affected.[/quote]

Far be it from me to discourage you from doing something that works. It it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I think most people can improve their reading speed for normal texts without detriment, up to a certain point. It depends on what you’re reading and why you’re reading it.

At the very least, speed reading is a trade-off: time for comprehension.

26

[quote]nephorm wrote:
diesel25 wrote:
We speak at the pace we do so others can understand us - not because we can’t think any faster. When we think ‘vocally’, we think at this rate or slightly faster.

Please think about this. You say that we speak at the pace that we do so others can understand us. But if everyone’s brains are so fast and capable of processing information so much faster, why do we need to slow down the information? quote]

Nephorm is right- I have heard it from speech pathologists. If everyone’s brains could process things that fast, there would be no need to slow it down for them to understand.

27

This thread is incomplete without mention of Evelyn Wood. Now I can’t say if the program is worth the cost/time, but the book easily is.

Sure, the “speed reading” techniques you’ll develop aren’t quite optimal for dense, technical textbooks; but they really do work well for the other 98% of the time you’re reading anything else.

29

BBB, have you tried piracetam? If so, what was the difference in experience with oxiracetam? Personally, I found the effect of piracetam, even at higher doses, to be too subtle to be worth anything. I haven’t tried vinpocetine on its own, so I don’t know about that.

Also, I’ve said it before (and I’ll say it again): modafinil gives me horrible, tar-like shits and digestive issues. What are you taking of the modafinil, btw, 100mg? 200?

31

[quote]SamuraiWannaBe wrote:
one thing that always works for me is explaining/teaching what I’ve read to somone else, even if they really don’t care much about the topic.

If you tell them first that you want to tell them about what you read so you can remember it, especailly family close friends etc, they’ll be all for helping you out. Ifind this works for finding the holes in your memory, what you need to go back and re-read of look into further if you can’t explain it fully the first few times.[/quote]

yep, this is the trick. You don’t even have to really explain it but be ready to answer questions about the material. Read with the mindset of preparing for a lecture. If you’ve ever delivered one and led class discussion, you find that you get real intense real quick with your reading because you don’t want to look like a fool in front of your class.

Take a proprietary stance to the information, make it your own. Realize that each author has their own biases, strengths and weaknesses on a subject, try to see through the author’s presentation.