Subvocalization

Does Yea Forums subvocalize when reading. Generally I do but I read so damn slow

Attached: 5EFE59FB-9F80-4BD4-AFD0-D538B3D73DBA.jpg (602x653, 67K)

Speed is a meme, a patrician takes his time

If it's a really good book that has completely engrossed me or in particular scenes.

Vocalization used to be the norm until late antiquity. Ambrose of Milan popularized reading internally instead of aloud. Augustine even mentioned he was amazed he did not speak when he read.
Real patricians read out loud or subvocalize. Not doing either is a sign of a brainlet.

I think it depends on the work, you wouldn't intently look at a painting if it's dogshit but if it's done by a real master then you'd take the time to really take it all in

I do when it's helpful, and don't when it isn't.

>I-I-m not s-stupid, I just t-take my time!
Cope harder brainletinos

how is it possible to read without subvocalizing? I try to do it and i just find myself skipping over words and not even enjoying what i’m reading

Usually when I start to read something, then less so after a minute or so when I get into it.

>subvocalizing
Isn't it something you're supposed to stop doing after kindergarten? Do you guys also breathe manually and give your feet verbal commands to walk forward?
Where's even the fun in that kind of reading? I don't want to hear the story, I want the story to happen in my mind theatre. I look at the word and it's meaning appears to me instantly, why the fuck would I need to sound it out?

>t. plot reader
You missed the most important part: prose.

>mind theatre

> I don't want to hear the story, I want the story to happen in my mind theatre
These are not mutually exclusive

That's exactly what non-subvocalized reading is like. It's not for enjoyment.

I appreciate good prose just fine, my mumbling friend, probably far beyond your level of 'dis werd sound gud!'. I take the whole sentence in instantly, the inscription on the page working as an incantation, producing the meaning in an instant, transcending mere word-structure of its directionally-bound syntax, becoming more than a sum of it's parts.

Found the pseud

This is a good meme. I prostrate myself before you my big brain superior. I can't even imagine not vocalizing or subvocalizing

Most adults do not subvocalize, you're the weird one.

What's the point of literature if you're not enjoying it, though? Literature is not just about raw information.

>of it's parts.
It's "its" not "it's". Read more

sometimes when I don't understand but otherwise it flows smoothly in and I just remember visually?? but sometimes theirs rocks in the river flow and I have to adjust properly and read slower inwhich the subvocalization comes in

Because most adults don't read LMAO

What's subvocalizing?

Gonna need a source on that one chief

Is this the effect of longterm subvocalizing? Becoming triggered by meaningless changes in spelling as your subvocalizing sub-brain struggles to get past it?

>reading Vietnam book
>it ain’t me starts subvocalizing

I don't subvocalize and I'm not the person you were talking to. I just think it's retarded for supposedly native speakers to make such stupid mistakes.

Alright then Mr. Butt-in, thank you for the correction. FYI I'm not a native english speaker but even if I was I wouldn't care about making a spelling error or proofreading on a cambodian erotic fresco forum.

>Do you guys also breathe manually

Attached: bdc.png (226x274, 82K)

You’re so wrong. NASA literally has a thing that monitors subvocalization and they tested on a bunch of “speed readers” and found that they STILL subvocalize (just much faster than average).

>NASA literally has a thing that monitors subvocalization

Attached: ncttt.png (558x614, 24K)

I can't think without subvocalizing.
But I don't do it while reading.

Thinking the words "out loud in your head" while you read. Most humans do that.

This. They just don't think they're doing it because it's so normal. I didn't think I did until I started noticing after seeing this thread.

when reading philosophy ill slow down to the point where i sub vocalize with fiction its mostly a breeze

This. Let speelets turn at mute pace and miss the difference between beautiful and ugly style, the correspondance between sound, mood, vision when the mind is playing like a paragon of sky to whom Earth is comprehended clearly.

Pic reminds me of the Yea Forums thread I thought of starting yesterday:

"You're the sort of person who would ------- and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to --------"

Now that's improv we can all make use of.

Studies have shown that speed-reading utilises the same parts of the brain that are utilised when listening to an audiobook. Probably exaplains why retention is so bad in both cases.

FUCKING FINALLY
DECLAMATION IS PATRICIAN

t. Thule believer

Can't have a source on false information

Not subvocalizing like a neanderthal =/= speedreading

How do speedsters read poetry? Do they slow down? Does this extend to lyrical and poetic prose? Where do they draw the line?

Some types of writing are meant to be subvocalized, and cannot be enjoyed properly when not.
For writing where the author does not care about the sound and flow of the words, but only wants to convey information, it doesn't matter if you do or don't.

>until late antiquity.
You mean before the (movable type) printing press.
Most of their tales were literal ballads from bards. And the stuff that was written down was hand copied in a verbal voice tense.
Wait wait wait
Wait wait wait
I feel like this thread is working under different definitions of subvocalize.
"Hearing" it in your minds ear is different than subvocalizing

I subvocalize (or recite wheen I'm alone) when I read poetry and don't when it comes to prose. Apples and oranges.

>even if I was
*i were. np