How to stop subvocalizing?

Woah

idk how to do this. when i see a stop sign theres a big red oct thing, I see that, and then of course I dont need to read the word stop, cause theres nothing else a big red oct thing can mean on the side of the road. There's no obvious symbol like this with words that I know of

Do you read the Coca Cola sign?

Do you read the McDonalds Logo?

Or when you look at them, do you know what it is?

It takes some effort but if you really try, REALLY TRY, AND JUST STOP READING, instead of extending from the sound of the word you hear in your head to the word you see, JUST LOOK without hearing that sound in your head.

You will find that by just looking, it works.

Try this, look at the following word without reading it in your head:
LOOK

Did you read it out loud? If so, doesn't matter, look at the word again and just stare at it, you know what it is but what has changed? You're no longer reading it but you still know what it is? So why can't this be applied to other words that you are familiar with? JUST LOOK.

I don't care about this, and neither should any of you.

Feeble.

>'Is it even possible to stop subvocalizing'
>having this little control over one's own mind

Holy shiiiiit.

Learn to meditate so you don't have to ask silly questions and you can figure out how to modulate your experience yourself.

again, any of those examples, I can tell what they are by specific things other than the letters themselves, like colors and shit, so no I dont really have to read them. But if you just write coca-cola, or a big M, then I do, because I have no simpler clues.

Every time I go over that spoiler the voice in my head shouts LOOK

Just read more. Don't worry about not subvocalizing. There's not a single study that proves stopping subvocalization increases reading speed without loss of compehension. If you want to go fast through a text, just skim.

>don't go to Veeky Forums for a year
>come back
>same threads

you can't comprehend shit if you don't subvocalize

Thank you based user

The folk theories about "subvocalizing" are incoherent. Reading "aloud" to yourself will slow you down, sure, and involuntarily boggling on each word until you figure out what it says will really slow you down, but the (untested, evidence-free) claim that you can read with no cognizance of the sounds of the words makes no sense, for the simple reason that the written English language exists only as a representation of the spoken tongue. What has happened is these people have trained themselves to comprehend each word very quickly and not get bogged down (this is how you improve your reading speed), but have fooled themselves into believing their success has something to with suppressing vocalization. They are not totally wrong, but have confused the issue, and in the process attributed an ability to themselves that is not possible. The key to reading faster is speeding up comprehension by taking advantage of the low entropy of written English.

this makes more sense.

this guy who everyone is praising seems fucking retarded. He might be a faster reader but he's attributing it to the wrong things, and his examples don't make sense. Of course he doesn't need to read a stop sign, you could remove the word stop from it and still know it's a stop sign. But obviously, if they changed the color, shape, and font, you would have to read it, or are you telling me you wouldn't? Books don't have these extra clues, it's just the text

This tb honest

Here are some videos about reading speed:

youtube.com/watch?v=jv2BdHXRD3Q

youtube.com/watch?v=JL4WMHyUhdc

Just because you're not subvocalizing everything in real-time doesn't mean you aren't subvocalizing.

451 wpm with 100% comprehension.
I subvocalize too much.

333 wpm with 11/11
Sometimes reading a little bit slower can be helpful so you actually get the important parts.
Non-native as well.

NO
TRUE
SCOTSCUNT

That was basically my point. Of course all the redditors in here had to le epic upboat.

not reading at 550wpm

get on my level scrubs