Subvocalization

I don't either.Thats why I made the thread.Its not a new subject but it always gets mixed opinions.

i think if you were taught to comprehend symbols without attaching them to sounds, then it makes sense, say as a child, your parents used a system to associate written text with images, or other types of stimuli, and avoided sonic communication, then they would potentially come up with a person who does not subvocalize, however, typically, when reared, a child is taught to sing their alphabet, and to learn how to speak before learning how to read or write. interestingly enough, people apparently used to read aloud constantly, and that reading without speaking is a relatively new concept (not really new, but not something that existed from the beginning of the written word's conception), web.stanford.edu/class/history34q/readings/Manguel/Silent_Readers.html

apparently it was an unusual breakthrough for them, so it's not unheard of to imagine that there's a breakthrough now, of assimilation of the text without associating it with sounds in the mind, foregoing that extra translation stage, from word to sound to meaning, in the head, which would imply a more efficient system of reading, though perhaps a heartless one, where there are plenty of quirks that would be missed without "hearing" the prose.

>tfw want to read aloud
>everyone is at home
J u S t

I feel your pain, I deal with it by muttering to myself for days on end.

so is non subvocalizing good or not?

am i a pleb for subvocalizing?

I would say that there are potential advantages and disadvantages. You might not absorb the prose and deeper meanings afforded by subvocalization, but you could have the advantage of faster synthesis and comprehension. I think it's basically a trade for the quality of the work as a whole, versus the speed at which you can consume the work. I would argue that the speed is only important for those who wish to ingest the most literature possible, and that otherwise, it's preferable to appreciate grand works of poetry and literature with the sympathy afforded by subvocalization. Perhaps one may not realize the greater picture through the absorption of all literature in one's lifetime, but they will realize the beauty of the moment. It's all up to what you want out of literature, arguably a quality over quantity argument. I side with quality, personally, whether or not that makes me a plebeian or a patrician is a hard sell. I'd say patrician. I could have a little taste of all the wines in existence, or I could have a lifetime supply of the finest of wines.

Interesting but that is a bad comparison
>I could have a little taste of all the wines in existence, or I could have a lifetime supply of the finest of wines.
You will never really know what is truly good till you tried everything.

you're an idiot.

everyone subvocalizes (even nonsubvocalizers subvocalize when they read good novels because half the fun is the aound of the words)

if you want to learn how not to subvocalize to read your history text for class quicker, be my guest, but to speedread any of the modernists-- you get the point

Nonsense, I innately know what is good. It is the recognition of goodness that allows me to appreciate it. I do not require a taste of dog feces to know that cheese souffle is delicious.

You don't need to taste it but you still need to observe it to know what it is.Its like someone reading ya all their life and think its the best thing ever.

Those people are happy and satisfied with that level of goodness. It's a matter of perspective. Besides, the question here is time. I'm not implying that one cannot go out and research other books and find out which is better, what I'm saying is that some people wish to read EVERYTHING. if the eradication of subvocalization is acquired, that might be possible, they may read something like the anatomy of melancholy in a few hours and retain 90% of it, like kim peek, but is that an appreciation of it? wouldn't a few month grapple with the work be a more acceptable way to look back and say "I truly read that novel". than scanning everything like a heartless computer? My point is that it's quality over quantity. maybe my metaphor was poor, but I think you can catch what I really mean.

Why does it matter or not how someone reads? As long as you don't skip any content, it's fine.

Now, if someone could learn a method of absolute absorption and appreciation of a novel and all of its quirks in a short period of time, sign me the fuck up, because that sounds amazing.

once technology arises we will be able to have those "insta learn" things like in the matrix

our perception of time will be slowed down, and well be able to read War and Peace in under a minute. without little to no physical withdrawals.

sounds like there'll be discussions on biological vs technological absorption of materials when that day comes "YOU'RE NOT REALLY READING IT IF YOU DON'T USE YOUR EYES" and the "well, i'm sorry you feel that way, pleb, but if you knew what euripides said on this matter on the fourth page of heracleidae, you would fully understand"

quoting would become irrelevant once everyone downloaded their "college pack", everyone would allude, and it would be instantly recognized. we'd all have conversations like the bots have in that movie Her. cuckoldry would run rampant

man. i hate those 1000 things you need to read before you die books, and those charts.

i really wanna finish them all, but do i really have time? maybe if i spent less time wasting i could pursue my creative, physical and intellectual pursuits.

or you could just appreciate what you read now, and live your life and experience stuff, and even write your own book, have things of your own to say. a book is just listening to what everyone else has to say in the end.

you never know what lies ahead of you. i've always had a completionist attitude throughout all my life.

i'm young though, very early 20s, i'll see the moment when i'm satisfied with life when it comes to me.

you gotta go seek it. it won't come to you, friend.

Reading builds on the language you already learnt, which is vocal, unless you're born deaf. I'd guess deaf people are the only ones who don't subvocalize. Maybe they subsign?

>Subordinating speech to writing
>In a post-Derrida theoretical climate

wew

If you already know a word and what it means your brain will make the connexion from the order of the letters to find the word. Thats why you can read something like
>SMOE PTAHS ARE BTETER LFET UTNARLVLEED
easily despite the letter arrangements being switched, your brain is doing 98% of the work, and it does automatically.

how would you even stop yourself from subvocalizing
when i read, there's always the little voice in my mind

you're interpreting those as correct sounding words though

I subvocalised all your posts with rasping, nerdy voices

If you drive, and assuming you've driven for a bit of time, do you actually read out the roadsigns (at least mostly). Or do you just react to the information on them without the whole "aw gee that sign says stop so I guess I should stop right there and check this place out"? This is assuming you don't think something along the lines of signs speaking to you or something.

But when you're reading the words it's not a concious effort, at least it doesn't have to be. Look at a word, your brain analyzes it and comprehends it in less time than you can sound it out. Subvocalising is more a habit than anything else, once you stop it you'll start to see both reading speed and comprehension increase.

>knowing this little about subvocalization

like this?
youtube.com/watch?v=QUUeV-roMUA

I thought subvocalization was something everyone did naturally.