How can I stop subvocalizing? I've tried those programs

>>8724369
A dog jumped over the net.

Read this again and again until you just imagine the scene instead of the sounds of the words in your head.

>>8724373
>just imagine the scene
most pleb thing I ever heard

even reading the sentence out loud would waste far less time than visualizing it

>subvocalization
>bad

Do you even understand how language and memory interact with each other?

>>8724373
and how do you propose reading things that deal heavily in abstractions, like philosophy

>>8724432
This.

Whenever I succeed in subvocalization I miss out on a lot and only gain a basic understanding. Personally, it takes pleasure out of reading for me.

What is good about moving "beyond" sub-vocalizing? What does it benefit?

>>8724568
Speed according to snake oil speedreading courses.

http://psi.sagepub.com/content/17/1/4.full

>Another claim that underlies speed-reading courses is that, through training, speed readers can increase reading efficiency by inhibiting subvocalization. This is the speech that we often hear in our heads when we read. This inner speech is an abbreviated form of speech that is not heard by others and that may not involve overt movements of the mouth but that is, nevertheless, experienced by the reader. Speed-reading proponents claim that this inner voice is a habit that carries over from fact that we learn to read out loud before we start reading silently and that inner speech is a drag on reading speed. Many of the speed-reading books we surveyed recommended the elimination of inner speech as a means for speeding comprehension (e.g., Cole, 2009; Konstant, 2010; Sutz, 2009). Speed-reading proponents are generally not very specific about what they mean when they suggest eliminating inner speech (according to one advocate, “at some point you have to dispense with sound if you want to be a speed reader”; Sutz, 2009, p. 11), but the idea seems to be that we should be able to read via a purely visual mode and that speech processes will slow us down.

>However, research on normal reading challenges this claim that the use of inner speech in silent reading is a bad habit. As we discussed earlier, there is evidence that inner speech plays an important role in word identification and comprehension during silent reading (see Leinenger, 2014). Attempts to eliminate inner speech have been shown to result in impairments in comprehension when texts are reasonably difficult and require readers to make inferences (Daneman & Newson, 1992; Hardyck & Petrinovich, 1970; Slowiaczek & Clifton, 1980). Even people reading sentences via RSVP at 720 wpm appear to generate sound-based representations of the words (Petrick, 1981).

>>8724432
Sometimes you can do this with philosophy. In fact I would say most of the time, with analytic usually it's the modalities and such and is a bit like reading one of those lego manuals or ikea flat pack furniture instructions in that you just need to know how it goes and how it can go together, and with a lot of French philosophy it's also quite visual. You should be doing this on some level anyway, it's too much to basically memorize the whole fucking work and work out shit with quotes. You have to conceptualize how something can work and that's part of learning.

It's not always the case though. Some philosophy signals like poetry, Nietzsche in particular does this. Heidegger sort of straddles the line between the how something works and how it can be said, and to a lesser extent Wittgenstein is like how something can be said and what it looks like.

>>8724605
Non-subvocalizer here. Not subvocalizing impairs some people's reading because they don't have a confirmation they have a finished or actually read a word in their heads, so they skip a bunch on accident. It's not something everybody does, though. I've stopped subvocalizing a while and even when I stop and take my time with a text I need conscious thought to start repeating words in my head.

>>8724369
Start by subvocalizing white noise instead of text. For instance, I used to fill my inner monologue with a neverending scream about how shit my life is. At first your comprehension will suffer because you are effectively multitasking, but as you gain experience it will improve, and you will have detached reading comprehension from subvocalizing. At this point it's much easier to wean yourself off the existential scream, because you have already learnt not to rely on subvocalization. Good luck, OP.

>Even people reading sentences via RSVP at 720 wpm appear to generate sound-based representations of the words (Petrick, 1981).
720wpm is impressive for subvocalization, but 1000wpm is somewhat effortless without it. I can't believe someone wrote an academic article about subvocalization clearly without speaking to or studying a genuine subvocalizer.

File: 1463999151606.jpg (103KB, 714x537px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 714x537px

I love these threads.

>>8724431
>>8724579

I'm smater than to fall for the "subvocalization is better than visual reading" meme

>>8724692
>I'm smater than to fall for the
than what boy??! wheres your big, speedy fuckn brain now lmao!!!

>>8724705
listening to 2 audiobooks and reading one while I expend the rest of my mental effort shitposting with typos. I don't subvocalize, but I'm only human.

Isn't subvocalizing necessary to enjoy literature that relies on style? And what about poetry? In most of those things the sonority of language is extremely important.