I can do neither of these things. One voice dominates, self speaking, reading, listening to another person talk to me - the rest of them get 'left behind'.
I can do neither of these things. One voice dominates, self speaking, reading, listening to another person talk to me - the rest of them get 'left behind'.
I'll give it a try.
“Micro-muscle tests suggest that full and permanent elimination of subvocalizing is impossible.”
I know this is true for me. If I press the tongue to the roof of my mouth while reading, I can’t stop the muscles from moving very slightly as I read.
I haven't hooked myself up to electrodes and measured nerve response, but as far as I can tell I don't subvocalise when I read. I can also turn off my internal monologue; I don't have to hear the words in my head as I read them though I typically do.
I feel like that experiment would be easy to contaminate..
Sometimes if I'm stuck in speech/subvocalizing mode it can take awhile to get out of it.
I think the easiest way to tell if I'm subvocalizing or not by checking my current reading speed. Subvocalizing can slow things down.
Also I think I'm more liable to subvocalize during fiction, with lots of dialogue involved. Acting out the characters in my head slightly.
For me it's a little bit of a struggle to read like that, I need to count in my or use my inner monologue otherwise to accomplish that, otherwise my reading slows down automatically. I'm sure you can train both ways of thinking.
Just start looking at text and don't let yourself say the words in your head.
Maybe I haven't tried it enough.
Most of the time, I speed read and seem to somehow use another system to take in the information. I usually just absorb the important bits. When speed reading I can definitely simultaneously carry on other conversations much more easily than when I'm internal monologue reading, but one or both is still going to suffer to some degree, for me. That's super impressive if you can really maintain both at 100% simultaneously.
I work in information security, and often rely on the speed reading approach when trying to determine if something is legitimate or not within a sea of noise. For example, there was a malware alert that triggered on a giant JavaScript blob. These alerts are often false positives (or "benign true positives"). My co-worker prettified it and asked me to help take a look. In total, it took up about 20 or 30 screen heights. I took his mouse and just started rapidly scrolling and scanning for anything suspicious-looking, and after a few seconds he looked at me like I was insane and asked how I could possibly analyze the code like that.
I was able to vet it as "very likely clean" in about 10-15 seconds, while it took him several minutes of mentally processing every character in every line. That said, this is kind of like an inverted bloom filter: if there's a match, it's definitely a true positive, but if I don't see anything suspicious, there's some small chance of a false negative. So I "hit the bloom filter" first as a kind of efficient cache. If there's a match, then I've saved a lot of time. If there's no match, and if it's important that I need to be 100% certain with my conclusion, I make the full "database call" (line-by-line read).