PepperFritz said:
That makes sense to me. I've never met anyone who has successfully learned to "speed read", and tend to be skeptical about the claims of some of these "methods". However, I have no personal experience of it, and could be completely wrong. I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has benefited (on a long-term basis) from learning these techniques.
To clarify, the way the article was written - and what I meant to convey - was not that at such a time it was set
unchangeably. (ie. I meant the word "set" in the sense of "To put into a stable position" rather than as in "To fix firmly or in an immobile manner") The article claimed that replacing this mental habit with training is possible, and gave the earlier-mentioned learning not to vocalize internally and to take in groups of words at a time as examples of achievable changes. The latter (a couple of words at the sides along with that in the center) I actually do now (it pretty much came by itself) - the problem is just that the vocalization, when active as it almost always is, acts as a great "bottleneck" in the process of reading, slowing me down in that after I take in one group of words in parallel, I still vocalize them sequentially before moving on. So if only I got rid of it, I think my reading would speed up significantly.
PepperFritz said:
Some might call that a "photographic" memory, but my ability to do that is not consistent, so I don't think of myself of having a "photographic memory" like those people who are able to retain EVERYTHING they read indiscriminately. Like most people, I retain best that which interests me and/or that which I am motivated to retain. I wouldn't have a clue as to how to "teach" anyone else how to read like I do, as a "technique".
I can't do that, but I can recall select interesting snippets of information from different sources, and cross-reference them (and they often combine more or less automatically into new snippets in the process of thinking - ones that then linger along with the rest) - even some read quite a long time ago - in my head. This makes my head a glossary where pieces from all over the place come together - sometimes I do not remember where all originated - sometimes into fairly encyclopedic collections of information where thinking, synthesizing (from thought) and integration of the pieces has been particularly active. On the other hand, I am quite poor at rote memory in less interesting things, and often I end up with disconnected fragments of information where the previously mentioned process is not so active.
PepperFritz said:
Another idiosyncrasy I have is an almost perfect "aural memory", and it may be related to the reading ability. I remember things that I hear on an almost perfect word-for-word basis. (A very unfair advantage to have when arguing with one's spouse!) The key common element in these abilities seems to be WORDS -- something that as a life-long bibliophile and professional book editor, I have had an ongoing love affair with.
Mine is somewhat above average, but not exceptionally so. Exception: remembering names - that's usually the last thing I memorize about a person I'm getting to know. As such, I may for some time chiefly recognize them by voice combined with looks. Names written down are significantly easier, however - for some reason (so I remember every nick commonly seen on this board).
PepperFritz said:
The downside is that I have a remarkable lack of visual memory, and no sense of direction whatsoever. ... I also have a highly embarassing inability to remember people's faces and other visual "cues" about them. I can meet someone one day, see them the next, and not recall having met them at all.
These things for me are somewhat below average, but not exceptionally so. (exception: particular visuals can stick around quite well - this may be part of my ability to memorize small snippets of text and names in text. I seldom remember visuals rich in technically significant detail well, but rather things of artistic interest and/or that are small and/or simple) But in my case the problem with my visual memory is more often that it is more or less "vague". As such, I only get vague inklings about people I haven't seen often - and people I never took interest in that I used to see but haven't seen in a few years or so.
PepperFritz said:
But if they were to repeat some aspect of the conversation we had, I'd instantly remember them!
This is true for me, too.
3D Student said:
I thought, like watching TV or a movie, reading a book is dissociation because you are "into" it and kind of unaware of your surroundings.
I meant dissociation from the process of actually working with the information. You move some brain-focus and power from cognition to meaningless vocalization as well as internal considering connected with said vocalization.
3D Student said:
This is a useful "I" though, right? Although you can have inner monologue about fantasy and trivial things, if you're reading something worthwhile, this "I" helps you to accomplish a useful goal of obtaining information.
The point is that the little "I" - like all other little "I"s - is a pretender, a fake. "It" thinks it is what understands the words and obtains the information, but it is no more than a parasite sucking juice from the real process of doing so.
3D Student said:
It seems it isn't necessary for this inner vocalist to actually produce mentally the sounds of the words though. I've wondered before how a person who has always been deaf would read without ever having heard the words.
Exactly! It only does something with data that is
already there - brought in by the genuine process preceding it.
.
actually a good read with lots of helpfull psychology in there. In this book it says to affirm what you are doing ie. reading a book, to make your subconscious more congruent with what your consciously doing.
