# The Professor calls out Unkotare on speed-reading and logic classes.



## The Professor

Unkotare, you started a thread about learning foreign languages, and the subject matter expanded into other areas.  I made a comment about the importance of speed-reading and logic, and apparently I upset you greatly.  Here is the link and a recap of what was said:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/education/312472-speaking-of-speaking-3.html#post7826732

*The Professor:*

&#8220;However, there are two subjects that should be taught in every school: The first one is is speed reading. This is one of the most fundamental courses of all. Speed readers can easily achieve reading speeds ten or more times faster than average. That means that with respects to printed information they can learn ten times more, not 10 percent more but ten times more, than others. Can you imagine where our country would be if most students knew 10 times more than they do now?&#8221;

*Unkotare:*

&#8220;Maybe you should take a course in logic and then reconsider your 'brilliant' speed reading idea.&#8221; 

*The Professor:*

&#8220;I have taken courses in logic and speed reading.   I am fully aware of the benefits of each. But if you cannot see the advantage of either, there is nothing for my to say. 

&#8220;In public school, I took a course in plane geometry. In college (I have an MBA and JD) I also took courses on logic. I took a non-college course in speed reading which increased my reading speed to 3,000 word per minute, not a record, but not too shabby either (actually it is slightly above average for speed readers).

&#8220;OK, I am done with you and this thread.&#8221; 

*Unkotare:*

&#8220;Wow, so the answer to improving education is to require courses that just happen to be exactly the ones you once took? What a coincidence. 

&#8220;If you had actually learned something in that logic course you'd see what's wrong with your 'brilliant' idea. But, I guess you also took a speed retreating course...&#8221;

*The Professor:*

&#8220;I said I was done with you and this thread, but apparently you didn't understand. Would you care to meet me in the bull ring? &#8220;

*Unkotare:*

&#8220;Have you figured out yet why speed reading isn't the great secret to improving education?&#8221; 

Regarding your last comment, I never said speed reading  was "the great secret to improving education."   You saw words I didn't type Speed reading has been around for decades (over half a century) so it is hardly a secret, and although it is not a cure-all there is no doubt that  increased reading speeds and comprehension will improve the educational system.  How much, I don't know.   In my opinion this country needs to RE-focus on reading skills.  Shamefully, many colleges today offer remedial reading courses to incoming students and I can assure you they didn't do this back in the 1960s.   The focus should be on reading, and not just average reading skills.   The emphasis should be on maximizing each student's capacity to read and comprehend.

 I must apologize for one  thing:  I said, &#8220;Speed readers can easily achieve reading speeds ten or more times faster than average.&#8221;  While trained speed readers can achieve such speeds, and even greater speeds, not everyone can attain this level.    The average reading speed is about 300 WPM, and most people should be able to easily double and triple their speed.  

Unkotare, I take issue with the following  statement:  &#8220;Wow, so the answer to improving education is to require courses that just happen to be exactly the ones you once took? What a coincidence.&#8221;  That makes no sense.  I don't want these courses taught simply because I took them.   I want them taught because I know how important they are.   Apparently you don't think the courses are necessary because you never took them.  If you had taken them you would know their benefits.  I believe in speed reading because I received the training, and without it I never would have been able to accomplish my educational objectives (an MBA and JD while working full time).   

So far I have discussed only speed reading.  After we debate this issue through, I will talk about the necessity of teaching logic.  Those who cannot think logically are easily manipulated, and some of the greatest tragedies are the direct result of illogical thinking.    I will talk about these things at another  time  but here's a teaser:  in the early 1900s, tens of thousands of people in the United States lost their lives because the entire medical profession spent a decade looking for a non-existent microbial cause of a disease.   Logic alone should  have told them that  microbes were not involved and the  disease was not contagious.  More on that later.

PS:  If you Google &#8220;speed reading&#8221; you will see there are over 276,000,000 sites. I'll let you do your own research.  I will give you one site, not the most technical, not the most statistically significant, but a good one nonetheless.  Forbes reported  a speed-reading test given by Staples.  According to the test, the average speed reader read 5 times faster than the average man and 2 time faster than the average college professor.

Do You Read Fast Enough To Be Successful? - Forbes

Note:  Forbes was wrong on the world record. which is around 28,000 WPM.  I think they were referring to the record for reading a Harry Potter bock.


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> Unkotare, you started a thread about learning foreign languages, and the subject matter expanded into other areas.  I made a comment about the importance of speed-reading and logic, and apparently I upset you greatly. .







Here we see that you don't read very well.


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> Unkotare, I take issue with the following  statement:  Wow, so the answer to improving education is to require courses that just happen to be exactly the ones you once took? What a coincidence.  That makes no sense.  I don't want these courses taught simply because I took them.  .





Like I said, just a coincidence....


----------



## The Professor

OK,  Unkotare, I have responded to your comments and now I have a question for you.

What do you have against teaching speed-reading and logic?   I little specificity in your answer would be appreciated.  So far you haven't really said a lot.  In fact you haven't said anything.


----------



## Unkotare

PLOS ONE: Reading Speed, Comprehension and Eye Movements While Reading Japanese Novels: Evidence from Untrained Readers and Cases of Speed-Reading Trainees


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> OK,  Unkotare, I have responded to your comments and now I have a question for you.
> 
> What do you have against teaching speed-reading and logic?   I [sic] little specificity in your answer would be appreciated.  So far you haven't really said a lot.  In fact you haven't said anything.





First of all, what I've said about logic is that _you_ haven't demonstrated much of it. What I've said about speed reading is that it is not the educational panacea that you seem to want to believe it is.


----------



## The Professor

So you're sticking with the coincidence thing.   I get it.  You will not accept that anyone  could want a course taught because he thought the course had value.    The only possible reason could be that he wants everyone to take the same courses he did.    You're wrong of course, but now that I know your reasons we can move on to other things.    A lot of other people besides me think that speed-reading and logic should be taught in school and not all of them have taken the courses themselves.   I wonder what their motivation is (we can rule out coincidence).  At any rate, the matter is closed.

Now if you would be kind enough to answer my question.


----------



## The Professor

I've never said, never suggested, that speed-reading is the educational panacea.  It is a way to improve the educational system, possibly substantially and that is why it should be taught.   Aren't you the least concerned that such a beneficial resource is not being tapped?  I am.  I want it taught, do you?   A simple yes or no will do.


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> So you're sticking with the coincidence thing.   I get it.  You will not accept that anyone  could want a course taught because he thought the course had value.    The only possible reason could be that he wants everyone to take the same courses he did.    .






Actually, what is evident is that _you_ are sticking with the coincidence thing, and again not demonstrating much logic in your thinking.


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> Now if you would be kind enough to answer my question.






Could you specify the question?


----------



## The Professor

How much benefit to you think would accrue to the educational system if most student's reading speed doubled (this is attainable with effort).  Some students would be able to increase their reading speed to thousands of words a minute and this would give them a tremendous advantage.   Speed reading has been known for generations and it is truly shameful that it is not part of every schools curriculum.


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> I want it taught, do you?   A simple yes or no will do.






I wouldn't be opposed to it, but see no particular need for it either.


----------



## The Professor

Here's the repeated:

OK, Unkotare, I have responded to your comments and now I have a question for you.

What do you have against teaching speed-reading and logic? I little specificity in your answer would be appreciated. So far you haven't really said a lot. In fact you haven't said anything.

PS:  That little link you sent is meaningless.   If you're trying to prove speed reading doesn't work by that submission, you failed.


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> Speed reading has been known for generations and it is truly shameful that it is not part of every schools curriculum.




You say this and then demure considering it an educational cure-all? Disingenuous.


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> How much benefit to you think would accrue to the educational system if most student's reading speed doubled (this is attainable with effort)..





That would depend on where they started from.


----------



## The Professor

How much benefit to you think would accrue to the educational system if most student's reading speed doubled (this is attainable with effort).  Some students would be able to increase their reading speed to thousands of words a minute and this would give them a tremendous advantage.   Speed reading has been known for generations and it is truly shameful that it is not part of every schools curriculum.


----------



## The Professor

Let's just say they start where they are now.  I'm sure you know how well kids are doing in school today.


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> Some students would be able to increase their reading speed to thousands of words a minute and this would give them a tremendous advantage.   .





Not necessarily.


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> Let's just say they start where they are now.  I'm sure you know how well kids are doing in school today.




Are you suggesting that every student would be starting from the same point?


----------



## The Professor

Let's get serious.  We are talking about taking each student and increasing his/her reading ability.    Whatever point each is they will certainly not stay there.  If Johnny is reading 250 words a minute, he can double his speed.  If Suzy is reading 275, same to her.  You won't find everyone on the same reading level.


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> PS:  That little link you sent is meaningless.   If you're trying to prove speed reading doesn't work by that submission, you failed.





That unsupported dismissal is hardly 'logical,' is it?


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> What do you have against teaching speed-reading and logic?.





I have stated unambiguously at least three times now that I am not opposed to teaching logic. Are you not paying attention, or just being dishonest?


----------



## The Professor

When I said, &#8220;Some students would be able to increase their reading speed to thousands of words a minute and this would give them a tremendous advantage,&#8221;  you responded , &#8220;Not necessarily.&#8221;

The only way your response would be logical is if you were concerned with decreased comprehension at these higher reading speeds.  For clarification I am assuming that one does not loss comprehension at these speeds.   I certainly didn't.  The various programs are structured to increase speed while maintaining high levels of comprehension.


----------



## The Professor

My dismissal of your link was logical given that I read the link and others like it.  I have also read hundred of links about speed-reading, read books about speed reading and completed a speed-reading course.    I am very familiar with the problems with some speed-reading methods, but I also know that speed reading works, and it works well.  I told you there are over 270,000,000 links for speed-reading.  You gave me one and thought it would change my world.  

It's nice to know that you admitted we should teach logic.  So you would also agree that my recommendation to teach the subject was not based solely upon the fact I had taken the course.  I accept your apology.


----------



## The Professor

Now if only we can agree that speed-reading should be taught in school we can close the Bull Ring.

Should speed-reading be taught in school?


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> When I said, &#8220;Some students would be able to increase their reading speed to thousands of words a minute and this would give them a tremendous advantage,&#8221;  you responded , &#8220;Not necessarily.&#8221;
> 
> The only way your response would be logical is if you were concerned with decreased comprehension.  A these higher reading speeds.  For clarification I am assuming that one does not loss [sic] comprehension at these speeds.  .





Basing a conclusion on assumption is, by definition, not logical. 

At both significantly higher and significantly lower reading speeds comprehension tends to fall. The ideal speed : comprehension ratio for each student will vary according to the individual. Therefore, students should be taught to read well, not to read quickly as an end unto itself. 

Are you starting to understand yet?


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> My dismissal of your link was logical given that I read the link and others like it. .




 Go ahead and read that back to yourself, _slowly_.


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> You gave me one [link] and thought it would change my world.  .




Now you are being dishonest again, since I made no such claim. Are you being dishonest because you know you are running out of steam here?


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> It's nice to know that you admitted we should teach logic. .




I didn't say that either. You know, despite your claims to the contrary it does seem that your reading comprehension has suffered quite a bit.


----------



## Unkotare

Is this all there is? Is this what you "called me out" here for? Seems a bit anti-climactic. You could have just done all this on the original thread.


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> So you would also agree that my recommendation to teach the subject was not based solely upon the fact I had taken the course.  I accept your apology.




I indicated no such agreement and issued no such apology. Are you paying attention at all, or just trying to read each post as quickly as possible?


----------



## Unkotare

Well, this has been a thrill so far. Not quite as exciting as watching paint dry, but right up there.

ZZZzzzzzz....


----------



## The Professor

It appears you're taking a break and I will do the same.  I will be gone for at least 6 hours.


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> It appears you're taking a break and I will do the same. .






I'm not "taking a break," you just seem to have run out of things to be wrong about. Well done.


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> I will be gone for at least 6 hours.





You were "gone" before you started, 'professor.'


----------



## Unkotare

Nothing else? I see...


----------



## The Professor

You said:  Basing a conclusion on assumption is, by definition, not logical.

At both significantly higher and significantly lower reading speeds comprehension tends to fall. The ideal speed : comprehension ratio for each student will vary according to the individual. Therefore, students should be taught to read well, not to read quickly as an end unto itself.

Are you starting to understand yet?

My conclusion was that your statement that increased reading speeds was not necessarily and advantage was illogical unless you considered lost comprehension, and I am right.  My assumption was that reading levels would not fall and my assumption was based upon personally experience and a hell of a lot of research.  You are correct in that reading quickly is not an end in itself.  However, it is advisable  that one reads as quickly as possibly within his personal ability to comprehend.  This is what speed-reading does.   If speed-reading results in inferior comprehension, the various programs would not be as successful as they are.  You are wrong in stating that students should be taught to read well.  They should be taught to read at the highest possible level possible, period.  

So should speed reading by taught in school?

PS:  I  thought you had left and that is why I said I was taking a break too, but this time I am outta here.  See you.

PS:  Thanks for pointing out my misspellings.  I usually don't notice when others misspell a word.  Bet you don't know why.  The answer, when I come back will surprise you.


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> PS:  Thanks for pointing out my misspellings.  I usually don't notice when others misspell a word.  Bet you don't know why.  The answer, when I come back will surprise you.





I do know why, and what you think the answer is won't surprise me.


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> My assumption was that reading levels would not fall and my assumption was based upon personally [sic] experience and a hell of a lot of research.  .




Any personal anecdotes of yours are proof of nothing, and "research" shows that at both the upper and lower ends of reading speed comprehension tends to fall.


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> You are wrong in stating that students should be taught to read well.






They shouldn't, eh? What great insight into education you possess...


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> PS:  I  thought you had left and that is why I said I was taking a break too, but this time I am outta here.  See you.




Why go through this whole song and dance if you're just going to give up and run away? You could have been just as wrong on the original thread without going to the trouble.


----------



## The Professor

Sorry, but last night's all-nighter took its toll.  I know you miss me, but I am going to relax and rest tonight and be back sometime around noon.


----------



## Unkotare

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlT6owR5Ytg]Run, Forrest, run! (Forrest Gump) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## The Professor

I will get into the subject of speed reading in a new moments but first, as promised, I will talk about misspelling.  Some time ago I wrote the following

Actually, many people misspell not because they are uneducated but rather because they are superior readers. I read at over 3,000 words per minute (about 10 times the normal rate) and scan at about 10,000. Reading at such speed does not give one time to dissect each word for proper spelling.   If the spelling is reasonably close, the context immediately tells me what the word should be. Frankly, I misspell many words which I do not catch upon proofreading; however, I put the letters MBA and JD after my name and I received these degrees with honors.  If it were not for spellchecker, you might think me rather ignorant and you would be sorely mistaken. 

What I wrote has been established by a considerable amount of research.   According to the following article, spelling is not important to speed readers.  The article shows a paragraph full of misspellings that I had no difficulty in reading and neither will you.  The article also states:

The image below illustrates how a reader without proper training will stop (fixate) on every word. After proper training, effective and efficient speed readers are able to read text in "groups of words" allowing them to read faster and fixate less while reading. Click on "Groups of Words" to see the dramatic reduction in eye fixation if one reads more than one word at a time! 

Speed Reading Myths - The Literacy Company

This does not mean that spelling is not important to speed-reading.  If a word is so unfamiliar that you have to stop to think about it or look it up, look it up you have lost valuable time.

Blog | 7 Speed Reading Software | Page 13

However, when reading in blocks or groups, the context determines the correct spelling without slowing the reader down.  If  you write, John got sick because he ate to much candy I will read it as John got sick because he ate too much candy.

Just for you, I offer the following poem:

*Ode to Misspelling*

I don't care if it's hear or here.
Or even fair or fare;
Or or, or o're,  or ore or oar;
Or there or their or they're!

So let your hands type everything 
That your mind doth tell them,
And I will understand each word 
No matter how you spell them.

So if you say they took there stuff
And their not coming back again,
 I know you mean they took their stuff
And they're gone for good, amen.

There's so much strife in this short life
Sometimes it's overwhelming.
So I don't really care about
Such trite things as  misspelling.

To those who wish to criticize
I can't, I shan't eschew it.
I know you cannot help yourself
So, just do it, dew it, due it.

The Professor


----------



## The Professor

We both agree that logic should be taught in school, but we disagree that speed-reading should also be taught..  It is my very strong opinion that you do not know much about speed-reading, so I am going to spend a good part of the rest of my day explaining the process to you.  I will begin by submitting a post I wrote some time ago: 

Actually a reading  speed of 3,000 words per minute is not unusual for a trained speed reader.  Some years ago, a young girl was tested on The Tonight Show and demonstrated her ability to read at around 20,000 words per minute.  Further, there is a process called mental photography which trains people to read at 100,000  (no typo) words per minute with over 90% retention.

I am a very good reader, but not a great one.    You may think that 3,000 wpm is fantastic, but it isn't.  I think it's a shame that most people read at only 300 words per minute or even less.  What a waste.  I cannot understand why public schools don't teach speed reading.  It should be a required course for all students.  Can you imagine how much smarter our kids would be if they could just double their reading speed.

I have a strong suspicion that my critics  those who doubt that my claim of reading speed of 3,00 words per minute  is credible  would actually take the time to do research, so I will do it for them.

Evelyn Wood, the daughter of Elias and Rose (Stirland) Nielsen, was born in Logan Utah in 1909.   She was a teacher, and in her studies, Wood's discovered readers capable of reading 1,500 to 6,000 words a minute, often sharing the traits of reading down the page rather than left to right, reading groups of words or complete thoughts rather than single words, avoiding involuntary rereading of material and applying their efficiency to varied material.  After discovering that faster readers were also more effective readers,she began developing her programs, ultimately developing a methodology of using a finger or pointer to trace lines of text while eliminating sub-vocalizing (reading under one's breath or aloud in one's head).  See the following link:

Evelyn Wood (teacher) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2007 the six times World Champion Speed Reader is Anne Jones read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows at Borders, Charing Cross Road, London in a record breaking 47 minutes and one second  4251 words per minute.  She then reviewed the book for the Independent and also for Sky TV.   See the following links:

World Speed Reading

Woman breaks Deathly Hallows speed reading world record - SnitchSeeker.com

Permanent speed readers (and graduates of TurboRead) can read comfortably at speeds of between 800wpm and 1200wpm, without any constant practice and drilling. Tutored speed readers, who constantly practice the skill over long periods of time, can reliably achieve speeds of around 5000 wpm. Natural speed readers (of which there are very few in the world) can exceed these speeds.   See the following link:

TurboRead Speed Reading FAQs

That's why so many people just like you are using the Ferrari-style of reading called PhotoReading. It blasts printed materials to the brain at phenomenal rates, a page a second. You actually "mentally photograph" the page at 25,000 words a minute.   See the following link:

PhotoReading Whole Mind System Reading Program

Richard Welch explains how his method  Mental Photography  enables people to read at 100,000 (no typo)  words per minute with over 90% retention.  Here's the link:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVy0jk4fBY8]YouTube[/ame]

PS:  I am not suggesting that the more advanced systems be taught in public school because of what I know to be a low the success rate (and high cost).  However, the simple methods that have been used for decades even by those not formally trained in speed reading should be taught in schools.

More in a little while.  I do have a life that involves things other than me instructing you in the basics of speed reading.

Cheers.


----------



## The Professor

One of the popular myths about speed reading is that the faster you read, the less you comprehend.  This is not true,    With speed-reading training, the faster you read, the MORE you comprehend.     Here are just a few links which will help explain all of this:

&#8220;This is also a very popular misconception. Do you associate speed reading with rapidly turning over pages? Well you would be right to, but this is not done thoughtlessly. Rather, everything is done with a full understanding of the content. This is because one of the characteristics of speed reading is reading blocks of words instead of single words. In this way you not only increase the speed, but also understand more, because you focus on the full context of the content 

&#8220;Very often you can meet with the advice that if you want to read faster, you should skim through some parts of the material. Indeed, it can accelerate the speed, but it would not affect your comprehension well. When using a visual pacer technique, you read all of the text, but in a way which lets you combine words into groups so that you read faster with better comprehension.&#8221; 

What speed reading is NOT - Kwik Learning - Speed Reading, Memory & Brain Performance Training

Here is another article which dispels the myth of reduced comprehension as one's reading speed increases:

&#8220;Myth: When you speed read, you simply skip over every second or third word, and therefore miss material.
Reality: Speed readers do not skip over words, even the small ones, since they are important to the flow and comprehension of the material.&#8221; 

&#8220;Myth: Speed reading is nothing more than skimming, scanning, and key-wording.
Reality: People do not use the above techniques to learn how to speed read. They use them as tools that allow them, once they are speed readers, to meet a specific purpose in reading a text. These tools allow them to select particular phrases, images, symbols, etc. to help determine whether they need to read further. If they do, then they should move at best possible speed over the material while noting everything, including all the letters and punctuation marks.&#8221; 

&#8220;Myth: Fast readers lose comprehension, and slow readers gain comprehension.
Reality: In fact, the reverse is true. The myth arose because most commercial programs focus solely on speed, as this is the easier of the two techniques to master and the students can see positive results fairly quickly as a result. If they don't see a quick, increase, they often believe they have failed and do not continue. Remember, though, that speed reading is a skill and must be learned over a period of time. It is also important to understand that an increase in reading speed will always precede a person's increase in comprehension. Like driving a car, you only became fluent moving and stopping the car after you've learned the individual components (i.e. brakes, clutch, accelerator, etc.). The same is true if you examine text letter-by-letter or word-byword; you can't focus on the bigger picture (i.e. the story, the article, the blog, etc.), and you miss information. If you read more at a time and at higher speeds, you can understand and appreciate more of what the author has to say. 

&#8220;Myth: Speed reading only works on certain types of reading material.
Reality: If something is written, it can be speed read. It is important to understand, though, that a speed reader varies the rate of speed depending on the type of material, the familiarity with the text, and a variety of other factors. &#8220;

Speed Reading Articles

And finally, an article which shows the results of a particular speed-reading program.  The first link  shows the results and the second an article in the WSJ which has an article about the program and speed-reading in general..

&#8220;In 2012 a NY Capital Management company increased its reading speed 5-fold from 380wpm to 1914wpm and comprehension 15 percentage points with 10 hours of training.&#8221; 

Speed Reading Facts

http://www.execuread.com/files/9f6e...cc00/799f904a-a059-4108-94a4-3b906b136bad.pdf

I don't know why some people think comprehension is sacrificed as speed is increased when the very opposite is true.   The speed-reading program I took tested me every step of the way.  If my comprehension level was insufficient, I could not advance.  I don't know if every program is so structured but I know that at least most are.   It's difficult  for me to imagine how any speed-reading course could be successful if  the student had problems comprehending what he/she read.

At any rate, I have provided you several links which show that comprehension is actually INCREASED with increased reading speed.   Several of these articles explain why this is so.  Of course, everyone knows there are limits.  While a man's comprehension may be increased when he goes from 500 wpm to 1,000 wpm, there will come a point where  his comprehension suffers.

I will have something more for you tonight.


----------



## Unkotare

How interesting to see 'sources' that are in fact companies selling speed reading courses. Hmmmm....


----------



## Unkotare

ftp://129.219.222.66/pdf/2001IEotSaBsSpeed.pdf




ftp://129.219.222.66/pdf/photoreadingpaper.pdf


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> I will get into the subject of speed reading in a new moments but first, as promised, I will talk about misspelling.




Laziness, carelessness, and making excuses for inaccuracy will not help students in school, will not help them get into the college of their choice, will not help them on standardized tests, and will not help them land or hold onto jobs. Fixating on the fact that misspelled words can be decoded does not excuse inaccuracy, and in fact encourages counter-productive thinking towards academic rigor and language use generally.


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> We both agree that logic should be taught in school.





I didn't say that we agree. Should be taught how? To whom?


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> It is my very strong opinion that you do not know much about speed-reading, .




Your very strong opinion is mistaken.


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> You may think that 3,000 wpm is fantastic, but it isn't.




I don't think it's "fantastic" and have never suggested that I think so.


----------



## The Professor

Originally I posted a link saying that logic and speed-reading should be taught in public school.  We agree that logic should be taught, but we disagree on speed-reading.

I have sent you  a links that describes how school children in the 1950's were reading 1,500 to 6,000 wpm without formal speed-reading training using a very simple method that has been employed with great success over the last 60 years.  I propose that if these young kids could speed-read without formal instructions, then kids today could be taught to use this same simple method to increase their reading speeds substantially.

I have also sent you links to explain why speed-readers enjoy greater reading comprehension than those who plod along, word-by-word.  

There is no doubt in my mind that teaching speed-reading in schools would be of tremendous benefit to the students.  Further, there would be a significant cost savings to the school.  You apparently disagree, and I doubt there is any way to change your mind so I will not argue with you further on this issue.   

I will leave you with this.  You stated that students should be taught to be good readers, not speed-readers, and I cannot accept this.   There are many good readers in this country; however there are also  millions who are superior readers.  All students should be challenged  to be the best readers they can possibly be.  Merely good isn't good enough,  just a step above mediocrity.  I was a good reader before I took a speed-reading course.   I'm glad I wasn't content to be a good reader and decided to join the many people who improved their reading speed and comprehension substantially through training.  I wasn't admitted to law school because I blew the LSAT out of the water.  I was admitted mostly because my undergraduate GPA was a flat 4.0.   I passed right over those who had good grades because mine were perfect.    Those who settle for good are inevitably passed over by those who want more and prepare themselves for it.   

You were passionate regarding your position and I respect that.  While I disagreed with many of the things you said I tried to be respectful.  If I failed, I truly apologize.   I thought you were a little harsh in your comments, but in spite of your strong disagreement you  didn't neg me for my equally strong opposition and I also respect that.  Tomorrow morning I will pick what I believe to be your best response and rep you for it.  Oh screw it, I just repped  you for the first one and you will understand it's for everything.

I'm outta the Bull Ring. I thank you for your attendance.


----------



## Unkotare

Since we seem to be wrapping up here, let me say thanks for the pos rep. Since I think you'll find it significant - though I don't think it need be for our discussion - I'll let you know where I'm coming from on all this.

I have worked in education, in one form or another, for 20 years. I have helped countless thousands of students with reading and other issues - most of them non-native speakers of English, though not nearly all. I am extremely familiar with the effect of reading speed (as well as dozens of other factors) on overall comprehension at both the upper and lower ends of the scale. I hold a master's degree in Linguistics, and have researched these and related issues in great detail. There are too many factors that contribute to the success or failure of a student in reading or any other academic activity to suggest that simply offering this or that course will magically fix everything else. 

I have taught courses in Logic myself to high school students. While I see the value in it, there is virtually no chance that a busy school will find the time to devote a dedicated class to the subject. Logic should be emphasized and imparted in the process of teaching every and any other course in school. It is teachers who need instruction on how to do this. If some students go on to college and choose to major in Philosophy - as I did - they will take many, highly involved courses in logic - as I did. At the secondary school level, logic should be part of teaching young people to think well in and about every subject as a general matter.

There is not nearly enough non-commercially motivated evidence to support devoting a block of the school day to teaching a course in Speed Reading. If some students want to pursue such a course on their own outside of school - more power to 'em, but it will not, and frankly should not, become part of most schools' regular curricula. 

So, that's where that is.


----------



## The Professor

Unkotare said:


> Since we seem to be wrapping up here, let me say thanks for the pos rep. Since I think you'll find it significant - though I don't think it need be for our discussion - I'll let you know where I'm coming from on all this.
> 
> I have worked in education, in one form or another, for 20 years. I have helped countless thousands of students with reading and other issues - most of them non-native speakers of English, though not nearly all. I am extremely familiar with the effect of reading speed (as well as dozens of other factors) on overall comprehension at both the upper and lower ends of the scale. I hold a master's degree in Linguistics, and have researched these and related issues in great detail. There are too many factors that contribute to the success or failure of a student in reading or any other academic activity to suggest that simply offering this or that course will magically fix everything else.
> 
> I have taught courses in Logic myself to high school students. While I see the value in it, there is virtually no chance that a busy school will find the time to devote a dedicated class to the subject. Logic should be emphasized and imparted in the process of teaching every and any other course in school. It is teachers who need instruction on how to do this. If some students go on to college and choose to major in Philosophy - as I did - they will take many, highly involved courses in logic - as I did. At the secondary school level, logic should be part of teaching young people to think well in and about every subject as a general matter.
> 
> There is not nearly enough non-commercially motivated evidence to support devoting a block of the school day to teaching a course in Speed Reading. If some students want to pursue such a course on their own outside of school - more power to 'em, but it will not, and frankly should not, become part of most schools' regular curricula.
> 
> So, that's where that is.



I said I was out of the bull ring, but I have to add:  I'm impressed by the wonderful things you have done.   You've made the world a better place.


----------



## Unkotare

The Professor said:


> You've made the world a better place.






I don't know about that, but I appreciate the sentiment. I consider the years I spent creating, managing, and teaching programs to impart English and career skills to refugees and asylum-seekers from some of the most violent, hopeless parts of the world while they tried to resettle in the US in a reality they could never have imagined before as particularly rewarding in a different way. Most of the rest of the time I have gained the necessary skills, knowledge and experience and worked my hardest to provide the best service to people paying good money to get it. Whenever possible I provide instruction - or additional instruction - on the  house to those who deserve it.


----------



## midcan5

Can I comment?  FD I only read the beginning of this discussion. 

Yesterday afternoon fighting the drowsy after lunch reading Cormac McCarthy I go through four pages and realize I missed something. Putting the bookmark where I started, I re-read it later. Attention matters and some material does not lend itself to SR.

The only time I have ever found speed reading useful is when I was familiar with the subject matter. If you are learning something new I doubt anyone can speed read. The mind just doesn't work that way imo. Or my mind doesn't.  Remember Evelyn Wood?  I tried that for a bit and found it doable but unenjoyable.  Maybe there are SR minds just as there are other types of innate mental skills?


----------

