Eliminating subvocalization - DANGEROUS?

[Proxy]

I've just found out about speed reading recently, and I'm fascinated by the fact that I can double or triple my current reading speed (300 wpm).

I've researched the subject and found an interesting conflict that prevades the speedreading community -
Is subvocalization BAD or GOOD?

Most speed readers say you should try to completely eliminate subvocalization to become a really fast reader, while others say that it's actually DANGEROUS to eliminate subvocalization, since it can cause a complete loss of all comprehension skills and greatly impair any future reading and learning.
And then I read some speedreading forums and I actually find a post (I can provide the link later) that says something along the lines of "I've eliminated subvocalization, but now I don't comprehend anything."

To say I'm confused is an understatement - I'm scared to even start a speed reading program and kill off my subvocalization, because obviously I'm possibly risking a complete loss of reading comprehension....

What are your opinions on this... does killing subvocalization eliminate comprehension?

PS- I've read a post from Alex (the guy from Learning Strategies, they developed photoreading) saying that he thinks subvocalization is neccesary.... yet in their book about photoreading (I'm currently doing photoreading) they say subvocalization is bad... what gives??

[Proxy]

C'mon people... does noone practice speedreading here? What about Steve?

[Sunnybayes]

I don't call myself a speed reader, but I'd find it pretty amazing if you could permanently lose your ability to subvocalize. I mean, that would seem like it would mean that you could no longer even talk to yourself in your own head.

If you did lose your ability to subvocalize then you'd just have to go back to actually reading outloud, assuming you didn't lose your ability to speak and then learning again like you do like in 1st grade how to read without talking.

And maybe the whole thing about eliminating subvocalization... maybe it just like learning to be able to understand someone who speaks really really softly and extrememly fast. At first, if you met someone like that then of course you would not be able to understand them without training... but after you practied it a whole bunch you could start to catch on, and so you could tell them to speak even faster and softer until one day it doesn't even seem like they are speaking at all... maybe something like white noise.

That's my guess of what it means to eliminate subvolcalization.

[MercuryLime]

I have noticed the same thing; subvocalizing really helps me comprehend what I'm reading.

If you trained yourself not to, you could train yourself to subvocalize again; it's not permanent unless you choose it to be.

[PVince81]

Maybe the problem is that we associate words to sounds, and sometimes our brain needs these (simulated) sounds to understand. This is maybe the case for languages where what is written nearly represents what must be pronounced. In other languages, like chinese, there are only characters, from which it is nearly impossible to guess how to pronounce them. So it is theoretically possible to learn to recognize them without learning how to pronounce them, and actually understand texts.

Another personal case is that at school I learnt the multiplication tables by reciting it out loud, like:
- eight times seven, fifty-six.
- eight times eight sixty-four
- ...
And this really impairs me when I'm doing calculations in my head, because I always need to vocalize the numbers. So when I see:
7 x 8 = ?
First I will stare at it, without knowing the response directly, so I try reading it out loud: "seven times eight". But I can't find it in my head, so I try reverting it to "eight times seven", which is nearer to what I can remember, and then finally comes "fifty-six", that I need to translate again to numbers.

In my opinion it would be optimal to be able to think without subvocalizing. I often notice tense/frustrated feelings when I think with voice, because it looks like my brain is faster than what my voice simulation can pronounce. When I manage to remove this voice I feel more relaxed and can think very fast. There's really no need to really "talk to yourself in your head".

The only case where subvocalization is necessary is when you want to prepare sentences to be said to other people. Or you could use it to learn foreign languages and talk to yourself in your hand in this language.

[Halffull]

I've always been a naturally fast reader, and when reading up on speedreading techniques, I found many things which I had done naturally already... no subvocalization being a primary one.

From what I understand, the reason that subvocalization slows stuff done is not that you're hearing the sounds, but that you're actually imaging yourself saying them, associating the words with your voice box... which makes sense giving that the word is subvocalizing and not subhearing. This means that you can read only as fast as you can speak.

Anyways, I associate the words with my head, and not my voice box... I still hearthe words being said, but it's my mind that's reading them, not my mouth. Still get the benifit of hearing the sounds, but you don't have to say them out loud.

Comprehension has never been a problem.

[Rose of Cairo]

Hmmm... I don't know anything about speedreading or photoreading, but I'm a natural fast reader I guess. When I was a teenager, I used to read one novel every evening.

I had never consciously thought about subvocalizing or not, but now that you mention it, yes I don't subvocalize when I read. I don't even hear the words as a voice in my head. I don't know if it's good or bad, but I can assure you that I understand what I read

I also don't subvocalize when I think. It would slow me down, as I can think much faster than I can speak. As a result I often don't know which logical path I followed to reach the conclusion I reached.

Tip: to read fast, don't focus on the words. Don't look at them one by one. Just pick one point in the middle of each line (or if they're broad pick two points on each line), look with relatively unfocused eyes at this point and "soak" the information in unconsciously. Jump from point to point with your eyes, don't follow the lines.

My 2 cts

[oBakasan]

From my experience I think removing subvocalization can be a very beneficial thing, (try touch typing without subvocalizing what you type - remarkable!)

I'm not that good at it yet though, does anyone have any good links on the topic? I would love to be able to read a novel a day as one of the posters mentioned.

[bluedragon]

I am a natural fast reader too. I could read pages almost diagonally while being 100% aware of the degree of relevance of every phrase and able to slow down if I found something worth reading more carefully.
I used to read super-fast especially in forums, when I was looking for a particular answer and I knew for sure that the chance of finding that was extremely low.
But when I found out about speedreading and I tried to consciously eliminate sub-vocalization, I found that it reduced my comprehension ability.
I also read on a speedreading blog that there are 2 types of subvocalisation - the one where you imagine yourself actually saying the words, and the involuntary one where you hear fragments of words as you go along reading, and that this second type of vocalization is impossible and very dangerous to eliminate, therefore I don't try, especially since I can't imagine someone reading faster that I do, except by using photoreading, which is different.