Are people who oppose 'subvocalisation' just autistic

>>8301228
yes.

also a study was made that showed that speedreading retention is as shit as scimming through a book

>>8301228
autistic stemfag here

I thought it was something you autistic literature people did, since this is the only board I hear about it on. I think we all agree it's worse for actually absorbing information,

>>8301228
>>8301241

I'm not STEM, and I read for prose, but I don't speed-read, neither do I subvocalise. Ideally you should be going faster than your voice would.

>>8301241
I don't know what you define as speedreading, but I know people who read over 1000 wpm that have incredible retention. I only read at 350, but i think some people are just able to read much faster.

>>8301228
idk i read out loud to myself and to all the character voices and inflections. sometimes i repeat passages when i'm not satisfied with my performance of them or i make a slip-up.

>>8301228
>tfw ywn reach Heracles mode

I want to know how it would feel to be that hench

>>8301228
Cellini likened this sculpture, with its emphasis on musculature, to "a sack full of melons".

>>8301228
/lit/'s taste in art is like really fucking gay, yo.

Anyone saying they don't subvocalize at all is a liar. Even speed readers do it, but the idea is to do it to a lesser extent. So, you wouldn't subvocalize sight words like the, is, in, etc.

>>8301777
Found the subvocaliser.

It is possible to not subvocalise.
Source:me

I do this extensively. Is this bad?

My girlfriend reads like 3x as fast as I do but I feel like she doesn't retain information as well as me.

File: image.gif (447KB, 245x179px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 245x179px

>not savouring every word

>>8302026
this guy gets it