They appear to be using the term "slow reading" to distinguish it from online reading:
"One 2006 study of the eye movements of 232 people looking at Web pages found they read in an "F" pattern... None of this is good for our ability to comprehend deeply, scientists say."
I personally have 3 styles of reading:
- Fiction, I read incredibly slowly, and always have done.
- Technical books, I absorb very quickly, often scanning through parts covering topics I already know well, and spending longer on anything that is new. In any case, there is no "narrative" to follow, but the structure still tends to be linear (one topic builds on the last).
- Online, I read in a "spiral" pattern, skipping between headlines, then reading the first and last parts to narrow in on what I think is most relevant.
Reading every word from start to finish is an inefficient way to extract information online. If I am interested in a particular topic, I don't have to read just one article on that subject. 90% of online content is badly written or factually incorrect in some way, so over-committing to one source typically results in a lot of wasted effort. The better strategy is to speed read 5 or 6 different sources and then return to whichever one gets its point across concisely. This also tends to reinforce a bias towards content that is presented in small chunks with diagrams.
Over the last 18 months I've been spending a lot more time than usual reading technical books and I have noticed that the amount of time I spend reading online has affected my ability to speed read technical books the way I normally do. I have to concentrate harder to avoid scanning in an F or spiral shaped pattern.
That strategy works online because the aim is to discard bad content as quickly as possible. It does not work when your aim is to follow the narrative of a book that is almost always linear and is often more information-dense than online content.
This linearity is amplified further in fiction because it is an intrinsic property of the narrative structure (except perhaps, in "choose your own adventure" books).
It therefore makes sense that reading fiction helps people avoid the habit of scanning content, skipping over the middle parts. Online, the middle parts often don't matter because the signal to noise ratio is low. In other formats, that is often not the case.
There is a short paragraph that's actually quite good:
"Slow readers list numerous benefits to a regular reading habit, saying it improves their ability to concentrate, reduces stress levels and deepens their ability to think, listen and empathize. The movement echoes a resurgence in other old-fashioned, time-consuming pursuits that offset the ever-faster pace of life, such as cooking the "slow-food" way or knitting by hand."
One wonders what's wrong with using the phrase "offline reading" or "electronically-disconnected reading" to denote this style of reading we used to simply call... "reading." Alas, I suppose it's simply not catchy enough for the neo-digital age.
robert_tweed|11 years ago
"One 2006 study of the eye movements of 232 people looking at Web pages found they read in an "F" pattern... None of this is good for our ability to comprehend deeply, scientists say."
I personally have 3 styles of reading:
- Fiction, I read incredibly slowly, and always have done.
- Technical books, I absorb very quickly, often scanning through parts covering topics I already know well, and spending longer on anything that is new. In any case, there is no "narrative" to follow, but the structure still tends to be linear (one topic builds on the last).
- Online, I read in a "spiral" pattern, skipping between headlines, then reading the first and last parts to narrow in on what I think is most relevant.
Reading every word from start to finish is an inefficient way to extract information online. If I am interested in a particular topic, I don't have to read just one article on that subject. 90% of online content is badly written or factually incorrect in some way, so over-committing to one source typically results in a lot of wasted effort. The better strategy is to speed read 5 or 6 different sources and then return to whichever one gets its point across concisely. This also tends to reinforce a bias towards content that is presented in small chunks with diagrams.
Over the last 18 months I've been spending a lot more time than usual reading technical books and I have noticed that the amount of time I spend reading online has affected my ability to speed read technical books the way I normally do. I have to concentrate harder to avoid scanning in an F or spiral shaped pattern.
That strategy works online because the aim is to discard bad content as quickly as possible. It does not work when your aim is to follow the narrative of a book that is almost always linear and is often more information-dense than online content.
This linearity is amplified further in fiction because it is an intrinsic property of the narrative structure (except perhaps, in "choose your own adventure" books).
It therefore makes sense that reading fiction helps people avoid the habit of scanning content, skipping over the middle parts. Online, the middle parts often don't matter because the signal to noise ratio is low. In other formats, that is often not the case.
onsalenow|11 years ago
aytekin|11 years ago
"Slow readers list numerous benefits to a regular reading habit, saying it improves their ability to concentrate, reduces stress levels and deepens their ability to think, listen and empathize. The movement echoes a resurgence in other old-fashioned, time-consuming pursuits that offset the ever-faster pace of life, such as cooking the "slow-food" way or knitting by hand."
rando289|11 years ago
Eiriksmal|11 years ago