EPT70% Accuracy
Like many others, I can read very, very quickly and get the gist of what's being said. However, if I want to recall details, then I have to read much slower.
How quickly do you read? - Page 2
| Blogs > Hippopotamus |
|
Salv
Canada3083 Posts
70% Accuracy Like many others, I can read very, very quickly and get the gist of what's being said. However, if I want to recall details, then I have to read much slower. | ||
|
Cloud
Sexico5880 Posts
| ||
|
Mooga
United States575 Posts
On January 06 2009 10:05 Hippopotamus wrote: Also, I'm interested in your ideas of what a reasonable maximum average speed is for stuff that matters. Not like a newspaper, but say, something about this complex. This isn't Ulysses, but certainly if you compare it to most write ups it has more logical substance to take on, more explication than summarization. The above websites suggest it is possible to comprehend at rates over 1000 wpm. I'm almost certain that's impossible, but could you see someone getting 90%+ comprehension at 500 wpm? There is a wiki for speed reading. It has something to do with not vocalizing words as you read them, which increases your reading speed by a lot. Here's the wiki: http://www.wikihow.com/Learn-Speed-Reading And here's a web app to practice speed reading: http://www.spreeder.com/ | ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
On January 06 2009 12:05 qrs wrote: I think that there are two separate things involved here. One is reading at a level that allows you to see and remember the things that you read. Another understanding something that may require some thought to assimilate. In your example encyclopedia article, it may well be that some extra thinking time is required to understand what you are reading. It may also be that without spending those extra minutes, your retention will suffer because you don't understand it as well, but this doesn't mean that the extra time should be reckoned as part of the cost of reading. IMO, the paradigmatic test of reading speed should be anything where the details are important (i.e. it can't be skimmed without losing something) but where no thinking is required to actually understand those details. It's hard to entirely separate the two though. True. My inquiry isn't entirely theoretical in nature though. Your suggestion in the last paragraph would be useful as a reading analogue to the IQ test, but practical readings--useful reading--requires that thinking. A pure measure of reading speed would not help better understand the dynamics of reading fairly complicated material. | ||
|
ilj.psa
Peru3081 Posts
| ||
|
Tynuji
127 Posts
40% LOL | ||
|
decafchicken
United States20168 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
You scored 70% of the questions correct. im high though lol, ill try it again tommorrow maybe | ||
|
ketomai
United States2789 Posts
| ||
|
sqwert
United States781 Posts
i have already failed at life =[[[[[[[[[[ | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
80% | ||
|
Mastermind
Canada7096 Posts
| ||
|
Ganfei
Taiwan1439 Posts
| ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
On January 06 2009 17:26 NoobsOfWrath wrote: I read everything extremely slowly because I assumed the comprehension test would actually test something IN THE PASSAGE like what faction would disintegrate and why the Kurds would attempt to secede etc, and then the comprehension questions were total garbage. So reading slowly with the intent to 100% remember every tiny detail I got a 764. If I were just reading at a normal pace without trying to read every word carefully I get about a 950. Holy shit, 764 wpm is slow? Do you think you could read the encyclopedia link I have at at least 500 wpm? | ||
|
jgad
Canada899 Posts
| ||
| ||
