Linked at the end of the article is the short (15 minutes maybe) self-test: https://speed.readwise.io/.
Curious what results people here got. I got 23% faster with BR but I couldn't tell if I was just trying harder.
Curious what results people here got. I got 23% faster with BR but I couldn't tell if I was just trying harder.
I can't tell whether I was intentionally going faster because I had preconceived negative opinions about BR. It's a possibility.
My assumption is that I'm able to scan the words better with BR, but my eye gets pulled along too fast and I'm reading without comprehending.
(my results were 2% faster with BR)
i know a significant number of people here are probably already familiar with what bionic reading is, but still, could be an interesting control.
> We recognize this is clearly not a gold standard, double-blind RCT. Researcher and participant alike knew what Bionic Reading claims to achieve. We simply did not have time to (1) develop a mock Bionic Reading placebo that, for example, might bold the middle of the word instead of the beginning and/or (2) find a set of test subjects who are blissfully offline and unaware of this viral sensation. That said, we controlled for what we could and we think we've already gathered some fairly compelling evidence.
As the article says, a better comparison may be to have a fake version of BR as the control.
Edit: 2% faster with BR.