[maximus_01]

So you have decided anyone who can read faster than you is a fraud? Meaning you think you are in possession of the fastest non-fraudulent human reading abilities possible?

Do you have any evidence of this beyond the fact that if you sped up your own reading you would lose comprehension? The person reading at 150wpm could make the same case against you.

[Nadya]

After wasting the better part of a decade on speed reading as a teen and using speed reading tools I can only find myself to agree with them. Remove multiple-choice questions and ask questions about the material and speed readers comprehension crumbles apart to such a degree it is difficult to call what they do to be "reading".

There are quite a number of studies on this, but I'll reference a blog that does all the referencing for me [0] since their experience and thirst for knowledge that led them to later be an advocate against - rather than an advocate for - speed reading is basically a 1:1 match of my own.

500-600 WPM is the upper limits, 99.99% of people claiming otherwise are bullshitting, I always leave that 0.01% because some people are literally just built different and are truly one-of-a-kind (or one-of-maybe-a-dozen people on Earth). Anyone claiming such speeds is going to be under a lot of scrutiny the same way I'd be skeptical of anyone else claiming to be in the top 0.01% of anything. If someone tells me they're a Top 10 Challenger ranked League of Legends player I'm not just going to take their word for it without some solid evidence.

[0] https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2015/01/19/speed-reading-re...

[btilly]

That's a healthy attitude.

All that I have to say about it, is that in a place like Hacker News, you do encounter the top 0.01% on a fairly regular basis. Particularly among those who were here early on. Being too skeptical of it when you see it doesn't sound like that good an idea.

I mean seriously. Why would I lie? And why would I risk the fake reputation on this account on a lie about something stupid, when I have friends who know me here?

[ACow_Adonis]

It's not that I've decided based on no evidence, it's that I've never met someone in the flesh able to do it where observations are consistent with claims.

Ignoring five minute Reddit or hacker News messages where people say "oh I'm so fast at reading" once you actually have to put them to the test: i.e. oh cool you're a fast reader: so here's a thing we've both not seen but are required to read and we'll discuss and analyse them in the morning. And you can judge how fast they are based on their understanding of the text and how far they've gotten compared to you.

Eventually you start to realise that there's a mysterious absence of observations to the right of what appears imo to be an almost biological barrier.

Then you start to look into their history: well I presume you've read a lot? And you try to talk to them about things... And they're generally not that well-read.

Then you correlate it with other high-performers: PhDs, professors, learned people, people who read all the time and have a history of reading. And you see that these best readers who read a lot also tend to read at a maximum speed of about 300-600 wpm with any comprehension.

So you come to balance these two hypothesese: there's speed readers out there, but they're generally not well read people and don't have a history of reading and they can't discuss much and they don't tend to turn up to discuss things when there's actual reading involved... But they can read really fast I swear!

And you compare them to the people who professionally read, read all the time, are verifiable strong readers... And you clock them between 300-600 wpm.

Beyond the whole "proving a negative" what's a rational person supposed to conclude?

/This is making some minor possible exceptions for people like Kim peek, but aside from having never met him, of such people exist, my understanding is there's also genuine philosophical questions as to whether what those people are doing can neurologically be considered the same act of reading as what the average human being is doing in terms of whether they can then discuss the themes, contents and implications of what they read.

Edit: and this is in context of people like me LOVE reading, so of course we've looked into methods and communities that propose they can increase reading speed, make people read faster, and are filled with fast readers

[devilbunny]

I don’t have a good cross-reference for wpm on this, but I can read uncomplicated stuff at about 100-120 pages per hour. Most people don’t believe me until they see it.

My wife reads at roughly double that speed. She’s the only person I have ever met who reads significantly faster than I do. Met a few who are 10% or maybe 20% faster than I am. But she’s in an entirely separate category, and yes, that is with 100% comprehension, not skimming.

When we were dating, and I first saw her do it, I just said oh, you read really fast. She said, so you don’t think I’m faking it? No, I said, you’re just the first person I’ve ever met who is noticeably faster than I am, but it’s obviously real.

Then I asked the question: what color is the number 5? She stared at me for a second before giving her reply (I don’t remember). “How did you know?” Because I’d read about synesthesia and a qualitatively different form of pattern recognition seemed the most obvious conclusion. Someone might be a little faster than me with basic reading skills, but I’ve been around enough fast readers to know that I’m pretty damned fast, and that those who are faster are usually just a bit faster. Not double.

[btilly]

I have no particular interest in subjecting myself to whatever testing you think is needed. Reading it something that I do for pleasure.

The other person I met with the same speed I discovered by sending her an article, rereading it because I was bored while waiting for her to read, then finding that I was done around when she began commenting on it - having finished at about the same time.

You don't have to believe me. As far as I'm concerned, it's a party trick. But a trick that means that I prefer the written word over other forms of entertainment.

[rramadass]

Good write-up. And i completely agree with you.

I had long since come to the conclusion that "speed reading" is a hoax and just another name for "skimming". They are not fooling anybody but their own ego.

The technique of Reading varies widely based on content and our own interest in it.

For example, i have spent hours upon hours reading/re-reading the Sherlock Holmes canon dozens of times because i find the language phrasing/stories/deductions highly appealing and hence want to savour/understand every word of it. On the other hand even though i love Charles Dickens' novels i don't spend as much time on it and skim through large parts which are not appealing to me. The result is that i can literally write essays in my sleep on Sherlock Holmes but can't do it for Oliver Twist/Great Expectations/etc. Thus the meaning of the word "read" is not the same for both.

I have a huge personal library consisting of a large number of "hard copies" and an even larger one in "soft copies" and love skimming/reading them. Skimming to note the larger main points and coming back to Read them if and when i feel like it.

[maximus_01]

I don't entirely agree, but thank you for elaborating. I see at least where you are coming from.

[PaulHoule]

There are people who sell "speed reading" courses which is not the same as being a fast reader.