These days, I read more than I ever have in my life, both on and offline. As with several other areas of study, I'm finding that a personal motivation to learn has served me much better than the academic motivation to study. But the renewed interest in reading and learning comes with a price; the list of books to read becomes virtually endless!
Given such a situation than not few of us finds ourselves in, what is the proper course to take? Should we read and skim the books as fast as we can, devoting ourselves to the discipline of speedreading? Or should we still pace ourselves, methodically and steadfastly paging through the tomes in an effort to comprehend the text and think beyond the direct meanings of the words and phrases?
The subject of fast vs slow reading speeds has been on my mind for many years now, but has suddenly been brought to the foremost ground in my mind, as a result of my increased propensity for literary engagement. The thought has been particularly strong over the past year, and has recently been distilled to a theory: "We should read fast for information, and read slowly for thought".
In the case of reading, we should blaze through the text if our primary purpose is to mine information out of the streams of words and phrases. It's particularly useful when reading periodicals, research reports, and even certain kinds of instructional texts. There are times when we must slow down to think deeply about some of the core points, but our effectiveness is elevated by racing through the text in search of those key points.
Meanwhile, in material that requires introspection, critical thinking (ex: difficult concepts), or just plain reading between the lines, a slower, more methodical approach is suitable. We need time to think about these things, and a hasty attitude will prove to be counterproductive. If we happen to be reading a story, fiction or otherwise, primarily for please, it seems utterly nonsensical to rush through the joy of immersing ourselves in its prose.
These days I have come to see no absolute right or wrong in the choices we make: only suitability. The choices we make in reading seem to be no different.
It'll probably be more suitable to read slowly as time goes by. Machines can easily mine information for you as it is, fortunately humans seem to have the ability to think critically and use introspection.
I say read at whatever pace you get the most enjoyment out of. Don't blaze through the books just because you want to read other books, but don't take so long analyzing them that it seems like a school assignment, and not something you are doing for fun.
I naturally read very quickly and always have. My personal way of reading something introspectively has been re-reading. I personally think this is often a better way because you are able to go back and consider parts in relationship to the whole, and that this better informs your thinking.
For me, I don't think it's utterly nonsensical to 'rush' through a book you are reading for pleasure. If it is a good book, you will want to read fast to find out what happens! On a free day I may read 900-1200 pages of fiction if I hit up the library or bookstore. This is probably faster than many people but I remember stories I've read very well, even years later, so I can't see anything harmful about it-- furthermore, you will never run out of books to read, so the faster you read the more you can enjoy! ^^
As obvious as it sounds, I think you should read at the fastest speed that still allows you to absorb and process all the information that you want from the text. You reminded me that I haven't read anything of significant length for pleasure for a long time. Hopefully I'll be able to set aside some time to read a nice book this year.
Hmm, I read everything in the same pace which is kinda fast, but I'm no speed reader. But it goes with my learning I guess, which is vast consumption of material at once, from macro to micro if you will, but that wouldn't be quite accurate. Like building a frame of the tower first and then filling it, rather than from bottom to top one block at a time which seems to be the general preference.
That said I don't usually read the same piece of information twice, (unless it's mathematics, where I need an entirely different approach anyways), which implies I have quite large working memory. Often times I find myself building theories on what I read while reading onwards, sometimes trying to fit what I just read to earlier predictions. Sometimes this can continue for a long time after finishing the book.
The main thing is that if you want to read the book you will probably take it slower in order to get all its subtleties. It takes conscious thought to fast read, but if you want to be immersed by the book you can't think about reading fast. It's kinda pointless to read a book if you just skim through it because then you miss everything the author intended for. The exception of course is if it doesn't really take anything thinking to appreciate and if it's surface reading.
Also when you reread a book, you catch all the author's rhetoric styles instead of just what's happening in the book. You also get to know the text much more when reread, which can help with deeper understanding.
Reading should be used to understand what the author said not to just get through a giant list of books. You have to get meaning from the book or it's pointless.
I totally agree with your general idea and I would like to add that I read slowly for enjoyment (novels, figurative language, imagery, etc.) and read quickly for utility (facts, textbooks). It's a good balance to have imo ^^; I honestly don't appreciate a book's literary finesse unless I read it at close to speaking-speed.
"We should read fast for information, and read slowly for thought."
I strongly disagree. While this sounds perfectly fine for a note added in a book or as a quote in itself, the "proper" speed of reading depends mostly on whether someone knows how to read quickly or not and also on the density of the content.
The so called "speed reading" is a skill like most others and can be learned and improved. As with anything there are people who learn this stuff naturally (e.g. I know a few professors who can literally read rather complicated books in an hour and give lessons on them afterwards, though this is achieved by more than plain fast reading).
If we want to "digest" content, we should adjust our reading speed to the density of said content. The denser the content, the slower we have to read to achieve a solid level of comprehension.
PS: Someone who practiced reading quickly should still be able to achieve the same amount of comprehension in about 1/2-1/3rd of the time the average reader takes.
PPS: I see your name popping up in the sidebar on a daily (?) basis, but I didn't doublecheck the actual dates yet. How is one blog per day going along? I'd like to get a blog blogging about your habit-experiment. Blogception, please! <3
I think its pretty simple, when you just want the overview or basic information from a source, read fast. But if you really want to enjoy, learn and think critically about a piece, you need to slow down.
Unfortunately for myself, there are times when I do the opposite. When I really enjoy what I'm reading I speed up naturally. Like when I am getting to the climax of a novel, often the most important part, I blaze through it because I'm really curious to see what happens. Yet when I'm reading something dull and unexciting, I slow down because I'm not very interested in what comes next. For example, I naturally read text books really slowly because I do a bad job of consuming the information as I lose focus. However, when I become more aware of my pace, I try and push myself through textbooks much faster and focus more on the important points in the text while skimming the rest.
Usually, pace is not something I think about when reading, it just comes naturally depending on the subject.
"We should read fast for information, and read slowly for thought."
I strongly disagree. While this sounds perfectly fine for a note added in a book or as a quote in itself, the "proper" speed of reading depends mostly on whether someone knows how to read quickly or not and also on the density of the content.
The so called "speed reading" is a skill like most others and can be learned and improved. As with anything there are people who learn this stuff naturally (e.g. I know a few professors who can literally read rather complicated books in an hour and give lessons on them afterwards, though this is achieved by more than plain fast reading).
If we want to "digest" content, we should adjust our reading speed to the density of said content. The denser the content, the slower we have to read to achieve a solid level of comprehension.
PS: Someone who practiced reading quickly should still be able to achieve the same amount of comprehension in about 1/2-1/3rd of the time the average reader takes.
PPS: I see your name popping up in the sidebar on a daily (?) basis, but I didn't doublecheck the actual dates yet. How is one blog per day going along? I'd like to get a blog blogging about your habit-experiment. Blogception, please! <3
I only speed read when it's revision of information I already know and isn't very important. Anything worth reading is worth reading slowly. Studies, good literature, etc. You get very little out of reading quickly and I think it explains why a lot of people are so misinformed and why the quality of newspapers is so poor.
I tend to remember the details of information I've read for a very long time because I've thought hard about it and reflected seriously. I think if you speed read, you're probably not going to remember what you read for more than a day, only maybe the sparsest details like the emotional impact it had on you. It's the same idea as teaching an idea helps you to understand the idea. Thinking about an idea is basically the same process.
About a professor who can teach a lesson on a book he speed read: I can understand how he does it. When you have read and taught enough, even without fully understanding a book you can just look for key ideas and connect them, you can look for common themes, and you can even read summaries beforehand to know what to look for. I've written countless essays on books I never read using these methods. I would read the summary, read some key passages, and do a 15 page paper. But there is clearly a difference between doing this and understanding a book fully without contextual help. You can look at studies and skip some details and read the conclusion, but you won't really have the complete picture. You'll just be looking for information you think will help you with a specific task (saying a few random facts to others), which is different imo. I've written okay essays using these methods, but I've written my best essays on the stuff I actually took the time to go thru. That imo is enough to convince me there is a difference in quality of reading.
On March 21 2012 01:00 RedJustice wrote: I naturally read very quickly and always have. My personal way of reading something introspectively has been re-reading. I personally think this is often a better way because you are able to go back and consider parts in relationship to the whole, and that this better informs your thinking.
For me, I don't think it's utterly nonsensical to 'rush' through a book you are reading for pleasure. If it is a good book, you will want to read fast to find out what happens! On a free day I may read 900-1200 pages of fiction if I hit up the library or bookstore. This is probably faster than many people but I remember stories I've read very well, even years later, so I can't see anything harmful about it-- furthermore, you will never run out of books to read, so the faster you read the more you can enjoy! ^^
Re-reading is definitely something I've considered seriously in the past. Might be something I have to try a few times again to compare the merits. Something shorter is probably ideal... I just got "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster", so that might be a good choice to blaze through once
As for your reading speed, I'm certainly jealous . You've probably put in many multiples of hours into the pursuit of reading, and reading fast
On March 21 2012 01:03 infinity21 wrote: As obvious as it sounds, I think you should read at the fastest speed that still allows you to absorb and process all the information that you want from the text. You reminded me that I haven't read anything of significant length for pleasure for a long time. Hopefully I'll be able to set aside some time to read a nice book this year.
The problem is, we can read faster than this limit and get 80% of the information. There's merit in surpassing the 100% information processing point, so then it becomes a matter of choice (or so I seem to think)
On March 21 2012 01:29 Agama wrote:
Reading should be used to understand what the author said not to just get through a giant list of books. You have to get meaning from the book or it's pointless.
Isn't this a choice though? What if I consciously decide that I just want to blast through a book like "Monkey Business" (which isn't particularly deep), for the sake of the narrative and superficial layer of information? Sure, I won't get nearly all of the potential enjoyment/information/depth, but don't I get what I'm after?
"We should read fast for information, and read slowly for thought."
I strongly disagree. While this sounds perfectly fine for a note added in a book or as a quote in itself, the "proper" speed of reading depends mostly on whether someone knows how to read quickly or not and also on the density of the content.
The so called "speed reading" is a skill like most others and can be learned and improved. As with anything there are people who learn this stuff naturally (e.g. I know a few professors who can literally read rather complicated books in an hour and give lessons on them afterwards, though this is achieved by more than plain fast reading).
If we want to "digest" content, we should adjust our reading speed to the density of said content. The denser the content, the slower we have to read to achieve a solid level of comprehension.
PS: Someone who practiced reading quickly should still be able to achieve the same amount of comprehension in about 1/2-1/3rd of the time the average reader takes.
PPS: I see your name popping up in the sidebar on a daily (?) basis, but I didn't doublecheck the actual dates yet. How is one blog per day going along? I'd like to get a blog blogging about your habit-experiment. Blogception, please! <3
Hmm maybe the idea of "depth" is really what I wanted to say when I used the idea of "thought". The two are certainly related, and "depth" might be more explicit about the context.
As for the blogging, I've actually made a blog about my blogging a few days ago. As for the dates, best way is to click on the "archives" link on my main blog itself. http://blog.hkmurakami.com/archive
oh, I guess Jesung covered it for me.
On March 21 2012 04:30 Chef wrote: I only speed read when it's revision of information I already know and isn't very important. Anything worth reading is worth reading slowly. Studies, good literature, etc. You get very little out of reading quickly and I think it explains why a lot of people are so misinformed and why the quality of newspapers is so poor.
I tend to remember the details of information I've read for a very long time because I've thought hard about it and reflected seriously. I think if you speed read, you're probably not going to remember what you read for more than a day, only maybe the sparsest details like the emotional impact it had on you. It's the same idea as teaching an idea helps you to understand the idea. Thinking about an idea is basically the same process.
About a professor who can teach a lesson on a book he speed read: I can understand how he does it. When you have read and taught enough, even without fully understanding a book you can just look for key ideas and connect them, you can look for common themes, and you can even read summaries beforehand to know what to look for. I've written countless essays on books I never read using these methods. I would read the summary, read some key passages, and do a 15 page paper. But there is clearly a difference between doing this and understanding a book fully without contextual help. You can look at studies and skip some details and read the conclusion, but you won't really have the complete picture. You'll just be looking for information you think will help you with a specific task (saying a few random facts to others), which is different imo. I've written okay essays using these methods, but I've written my best essays on the stuff I actually took the time to go thru. That imo is enough to convince me there is a difference in quality of reading.
Sometimes you really have no choice though, such as an investment banker faced with a mountain of research (literally thousands of pages) to parse through in a few days. Although then the subject might be pure skimming / info mining rather than reading proper.
An interesting aside, one RL friend is adamant about speed reading and just searching electronically via kindle if he needs to remember a passage. Another RL friend is committed to reading as slowly and deeply as he feels he must to digest the subject. Two opposite approaches, both seemingly justified for their attitudes and the ends that they are after.
On March 21 2012 01:03 infinity21 wrote: As obvious as it sounds, I think you should read at the fastest speed that still allows you to absorb and process all the information that you want from the text. You reminded me that I haven't read anything of significant length for pleasure for a long time. Hopefully I'll be able to set aside some time to read a nice book this year.
The problem is, we can read faster than this limit and get 80% of the information. There's merit in surpassing the 100% information processing point, so then it becomes a matter of choice (or so I seem to think)
Yeah I do agree that sometimes people just want the basic outline of the text and won't read it too carefully. By "all the information that you want from the text", I meant that as a variable percentage, not 100%. It would be interesting to explore why two people of the same reading ability might choose to read the same book at different speeds. I don't know if there is an optimal speed to read for each individual (given the text, reading capability, and the context) but the way I currently approach different reading materials are: Novels - 100% of the information once Written study material - 100% once while highlighting new info and skim a second time while making notes (this is largely forced by my schedule). Then I review notes continuously since I need to write an exam for it. Video study material - 100% once while making notes then reviewing as needed to complete quizzes & assignments Online news - skim the text, 90% of the times just the summary
Clearly this is dependent on further context but I prefer reading slower and not going through the material a second time if I can help it.
On March 21 2012 22:41 infinity21 wrote: Oh and haji, what books would you recommend for fun but useful reading? I'm interested in philosophical or self-improvement stuff (or both).
I thought Dale Carnegie's "Stop Worrying and Start Living" had some great anecdotes in there that made it an entertaining read.
I'd also recommend "Free Culture" by Lawrence Lessig.
Sometimes you really have no choice though, such as an investment banker faced with a mountain of research (literally thousands of pages) to parse through in a few days. Although then the subject might be pure skimming / info mining rather than reading proper.
This is exactly what I went through. I'd have way more to read than I knew was actually possible and so I'd scan for typically important, typically worth writing about information, but I wouldn't really get a complete picture. There are techniques to help you appear to be competent in what was written, even for complex work, but always when I've gone back at a more relaxed time to read it properly (say after everything had been finished lol), I've discovered a great deal I missed and could have talked about. Whereas, of course, there's some things with almost no content or thought put into them that whether read slow or fast you won't get anything out of them. That's what I meant to illustrate, that there is always value in reading slowly what it worth reading. You will get less out of it if you have to read it quickly.
On March 21 2012 22:41 infinity21 wrote: Oh and haji, what books would you recommend for fun but useful reading? I'm interested in philosophical or self-improvement stuff (or both).
I thought Dale Carnegie's "Stop Worrying and Start Living" had some great anecdotes in there that made it an entertaining read.
I'd also recommend "Free Culture" by Lawrence Lessig.
I read books slowly. I read blogs, discussion, and opinion as quickly as possible. When I write stories I tend to use description and character background information between simple sentences of action so as to convey a sense of time between actions. The greater the length between actions, the longer the intellectual tangent.
EPT
