Comment by evanmoran | Hacker News Reader

Comment by evanmoran | Hacker News Reader

I'm all for this. You can talk much faster then you can type and that is at a normal human speaking pace. We can actually talk much faster then that and still be pretty understandable to us, and there is no reason a computer couldn't understand us talking faster then that.

I've recently been testing this theory out by talking to computers as fast as possible to see if they can understand, usually through customer service lines, but some with Siri. The last time was when I activated my credit card and had to read off the numbers. It had no trouble understanding me at a pretty ridiculous speed, something much faster then a person could write down or remember.

In the interest of science: I tested out Siri just now, talking as fast as I can. I asked for: "directions to a violin", "make an appointment for 2:15 am", "what is the temperature". 3 for 3. That thing can handle some pretty fast input!

Interesting data I found surfing around:

Typing speed: 40 wpm Talking speed: 150 wpm Reading speed: 250 wpm (up to 1000 wpm with 50% reading comprehension if you believe speed reading websites)

Clearly pictures are worth a thousand words, so words per minute don't hold a candle to maps, charts and other visualizations. This makes me think reading will still be a big part of interfaces of the future. Perhaps we input with voice and but will have to receive results "on screen." Haha. Ok, maybe Star Trek jokes still aren't mainstream yet. When this is all a reality, will they be funny then? =)

Maybe it's because I'm from Minnesota, but I can type faster than I can talk.

> (up to 1000 wpm with 50% reading comprehension if you believe speed reading websites)

My effective WPM (meaning take the reading comprehension as a coefficient and multiply it by the raw WPM) ranges between 800 and 950.

Why do I keep running into people doubting speed reading is a thing? I had to practice at it above and beyond a love of reading.

> Why do I keep running into people doubting speed reading is a thing?

I don't think anyone doubts that it exists. What remains doubtful is whether there's any retention of what's read.

"I took a speed-reading course so I could read 'War and Peace'. It's about Russia." -- Woody Allen

Exactly. It's easy to trick yourself into thinking you're reading, when all you're doing is scanning through a lengthy passage and skipping past words you assume are insignificant.

The "effective" part is a measurement of the retention. In my case, we're talking about 95-98%.

I don't understand why people are so scornful of speed reading :\

Maybe because some have tried it and discovered they didn't really retain what they read. This might easily be a personal thing, not an indictment of speed reading at all, only that some people can't absorb printed matter quickly.

In other words, the same training with the same goal, but completely different outcomes.

Another issue is content. Some of what I read requires great concentration and repeated scanning of complex passages. Other content can be read quickly simply because it doesn't require much from the reader. So one might say that not all reading is created equal.

Example: how quickly can one absorb "It was a dark and stormy night"? I would guess pretty quickly. On the other hand, "Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana" might take a little longer. :)

The rate at which I can consume material definitely varies depending on the material. I read philosophy a good 2-3x slower than literature.

It's a little bit disingenuous to suggest those speaking of speed reading are saying, "1,000 WPM ALL THE TIME ALL THE ABSORPTION IRRESPECTIVE OF MATERIAL!" - I don't think anybody is saying that.

meh, I hit about 400wpm without "speed reading" techniques; I mean, that's just how fast I read. If I don't really understand the material or if my short term memory isn't working well, I'll go back and re-read it.

The thing is? slowing down between words hurts comprehension, rather than helping it. The bottleneck in my system is short-term memory. The translation of letters to words to sentences to concepts is largely automatic; but if I have a pause there? that automatic process stops. If I'm talking in person with someone, and they say half a sentence, then stop and 'uhm' for a while, I completely lose the thread of conversation.

I find it pretty believable that others are twice as fast as I am at the letters on a page->concepts translation.

That bit about re-reading? that is the primary reason that I think reading would be superior, even if I could speed speech. saying "what?" is /way easier/ when you are reading than when you are listening.

(as an interesting aside, I know blind people often use text to speech software set to run, well, much faster than a normal human can talk. Apparently they start out at a normal speed and then slowly increase the speed. I've been talking for quite some time about getting me some of that gear and learning how to use it, but I have not done so yet. I suspect it would suffer from the same "difficult to repeat just the bit you want" part, but I haven't tried.)

You can physically speak faster than you can type, but the feedback and editing loops of typing are faster overall.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com