Why do people even want to speed read/get rid of subvocalization?

>>9411798
>plus it usually comes along with comprehension loss.

90% of any book is just useless filler, so this isn't a problem.

The point of speed reading is to get at the most important information. Either I can speed read 5 books and learn 5 new ideas, or I can spend the same time reading one book spending most of it wading through useless garbage.

>>9411807
>doesn't like books
>posts on /lit/
Seems about right

>>9411807
If that is the case I might aswell read a summary for a book.

>>9411807
>90% of any book is just useless filler, so this isn't a problem.
I think this is very subjective, if you want to ignore pronouns and connectors then sure, but when it comes to aprecciating the prose of a highly acclaimed book you just can't skim though the pages
>The point of speed reading is to get at the most important information. Either I can speed read 5 books and learn 5 new ideas, or I can spend the same time reading one book spending most of it wading through useless garbage.
The thing is, that as i said, speed reading usually comes along with comprehension loss, so you will have skimmed through 5 books with not the optimal comprehension versus having read a single book with a good comprehension level.

Btw, i'm not trying to plainly shit on speed readers with this thread, but i posted it because i became disillusioned with speedreading after trying it for a while. What i pretty much learnt is that it can be useful for getting information from light stuff such as news articles, but when it comes to real books (pretty much any work from the western canon) it just kills your enjoyment and fucks your comprehension, especially when reading dense, non-fiction works.

>>9411834

That's true, you can. But true patrician literature has no summaries online, and the wikipedia pages are either very slim or non existent.

>>9411798
I don't care about speedreading, but subvocalizing is for children.

>>9411847
You're a retard for even replying to him
>90 percent of any book is useless filler
What? Only a low IQ fucking idiot can believe this

>>9411847
>I think this is very subjective
No, it's objectively wrong. "90% of any book is just useless filler" implies that every book would still be just as effective if that 90% was taken out, which is so fucking stupid and wrong that I don't believe that he genuinely thinks that.

File: 93663d1985e70a628abd371ea4949357.jpg (49KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 720x720px

>>9411874
>>9411879
Did you have a bad day anon? Cause your posts seem to denote a lot of anger.

>>9411861
Am I a brainlet? How do you avoid subvocalizing?
What's the point? It just seems so natural to me when i read a word to say it in my head.

>>9411925
>This is a natural process when reading and it helps the mind to access meanings to comprehend and remember what is read, potentially reducing cognitive load.

There is nothing wrong with doing it if you minimize it (which is accelerating your "inner voice).

>>9411798
the worse a book is, the faster i read it

>>9411925
>>9411925
Honestly I never knew of the concept of subvocalizing until I started coming to /lit and I was surprised that this is a thing.