ShareThis1 |
I will follow the instructions <a href="http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/07/30/speed-reading-and-accelerated-learning/">here</a> |
2 |
I will measure my reading speed (with comprehension only, not without) before and after, and check it again periodically over the next few months. |
3 |
I will be done after I complete the steps listed in the instructions. If I feel like a re-application of the steps might help, I'll go through them again later. |
4 |
I am interested in the techniques outlined in the instructions. They seem like an interesting set of 'hacks' on the visual system, and I'll be paying attention to how they each work out. |
Create an Experiment
Brock Tice
- Member Since
- 08/10/09
- About Human, husband, father, (atheist) zen buddhist, tidy, good neighbor, thrifty, starting a cardiac simulation services company, doesn’t worry about current events, reads for pleasure, tries to keep his home and his things safe and sound, occasional home improvement DIYer, trying to keep ties to close friends and family despite moving all over the country.
- Web http://virtuallyshocking.com
- Experiments 19
- Observations 297
Comments & Observations
Brock Tice First experiment was a success. Baseline reading speed was 436.8 wpm (which apparently already puts me in the top 1% in the US). After training, my read speed was 977.6 wpm, more than double. I suspect the training will wear off, and so I'll try to spend half an hour training once a week for a while, with pre-and post-tests, and see how it goes.
Sep 01, 2009
Matthew Cornell Neat! I did two things to prepare for grad school when leaving NASA, and one was speed reading ("Triple your reading speed"). The other was sleep deprivation training in the astronaut area. (Actually, the second was learning to meditate.)
FYI here's my response to Tim's post:
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/07/30/speed-reading-and-accelerated-learning/#comment-47699
While reading all of a piece faster is a great goal, a significantly faster *effective* rate is possible by selective reading and non-method scanning. I.e., question what you want to get out of it, and apply strategy. FYI on-topic link: I’m told my article “How to read a lot of books in a short time†has helped a lot – http://matthewcornell.org/blog/2006/02/how-to-read-lot-of-books-in-short-time.html
Sep 01, 2009
Brock Tice Matt: I tried your method, and blazed through some books with it, but overall I felt like I was missing too much. It took everything I enjoy out of reading. I'm trying this technique as an alternative. I'm really trying, per a comment on Tim's blog post, to stop reading words aloud in my head.
Sep 01, 2009
Brock Tice My speed is rapidly dropping off. I'm clearly going to need regular practice. I anticipated this and already scheduled a refresher for next week, a few days ago.
I've been reading the way I have since I was in 1st grade, so I'm expecting to have to re-train quite a bit to get a lasting effect.
Sep 03, 2009
Matthew Cornell Re taking time to unlearn, I totally get it. I've done this with how I SIT AND WALK (Alexander Technique), and it's a big deal. Takes time, can be difficult, and deeply rewarding.
A NASA friend told me it takes ~1/2 the time to unlearn as you spent time reinforcing it, so 30 years reading -> 15 years to unlearn. Shit! That can't be right :-)
Sep 04, 2009
Brock Tice Re-trained today. Starting speed was 504, still 15% faster than my original speed. Ending speed was 627, a 24% improvement over my starting speed for the day.
I used a different book this time, with more words per line and a smaller font. This required more fixations than the book I used before, and I think it slowed me down.
It's also worth noting that Tim's instructions bias the results. His baseline instructions state to read at your normal speed and not try to read fast. The post-test instructions say to read at your fastest rate of comprehension.
Next time I do this I'll try doing both of those before any training and check the difference.
Sep 08, 2009
Matthew Cornell Good catch re: bias. Looking forward to your final conclusion, and also a post-test down the road to see how well it sticks.
Sep 11, 2009
Brock Tice Re-trained today. Baseline was 432 wpm, fast baseline was 696 wpm, post-training was 1320 wpm. Seems like the training is sticking with me a little bit.
Improvement over fast baseline was 206% today. Will try again next week and see how much of it sticks.
Sep 18, 2009
Matthew Cornell What are you testing on, Brock?
Sep 18, 2009
Brock Tice I've tested on a few different books, one fiction and one non-fiction. I suppose it would be better to use the same book, but I try not to repeat any text, lest I improve simply from having read something before.
Sep 19, 2009
Brock Tice I noticed I don't really care to run through these steps anymore. I'm already a pretty fast reader and I don't feel like I can really maintain proper comprehension at a faster rate. I met the endpoint listed in the experiment, time to call it quits.
Oct 09, 2009
Matthew Cornell Congrats, Brock. Overall: Thumbs up or down?
Oct 10, 2009
Brock Tice Overall I'd say thumbs up. It does seem to work, and I do have some lasting improvement, but I think my baseline was already around the limits of my cognition. I get the impression that may not be the case for most people.
Oct 12, 2009