/lit/ - Literature

>>11704593
one of the major reasons to off myself desu

>>11704593
They just

>read this in a different voice

>>11704593
It makes them funnier to be honest

>>11704669
greentext has a stronger reverb to it

>>11704669
>>11704678
I just read it as more monotone.

Has anybody sucessfully supressed their subvocalisation? Was it worth it? Did your comprehension go down? How much did reading speed increase?

>>11704593
>aloud
>in their brains
What.

one would think that the childish act of reading aloud would be humiliating, but this is the only reality they have ever known

>>11704718
Truly reading out loud is actually god-tier. It gives a deeper appreciatipn for the sound and rhythm of the text and better retention and makes you a better speaker. The only problem is most people can't read difficult prose out loud without making many mistakes and are afraid to if there's anyone who might overhear them because they are beta cucks. Reading out loud was also the norm for most of European history, even among the most educated.

>>11704763
truly the chad read

>>11704718
>>11704763
>>11704781
I'm sincerely going to start reading 4chan out loud
Including my own posts

>>11704819
this is an extremely entertaining thought, thank you

>>11704593
I'm reading all your posts in my head in my voice.

>>11704593
shatner vocalizing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subvocalizing > regular vocalizing

get on my level faggot

>>11704718
>>11704763
>>11704781
>>11704819
>>11704827
I've read this conversation out loud and it was a really interesting experience, I'd recommend it to anyone.

>>11704845
fuck, the matter is, I meant shatner > nonvocalizing > subvocalizing

How do you read without subvocalizing?

>>11704910
Speed readers don't read they "read"

>>11704593
>>11704702
>>11704910
It's impossible to completely eliminate subvocalization, and if you think you have you're deluded. Speed reading at a high level speeds it up, but at a high cost to comprehension and should be avoided entirely when dealing with literature.
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4229
https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2015/01/19/speed-reading-redo/

>>11704850
The two posts beginning with "truly" make it

>>11704763
This, if you aren't reading out loud you might as well not read at all. I am certain that not reading out loud is also why a large proportion of western adults are inarticulate cuckolds.

>>11704991
>>11704910
>>11704702

There is a solution, anons.
Subvocalization is learned, it can be unlearned. Real thought can only be practiced post-vocally

>>11705015
subvocalize THIS
you just slipped, didn't you?

*blocks your thought-process*
Subvocalizing isn't there unless you think about it.
Let me put it this way, any subvocalized word is but a sign vehicle that is not the object of the sign, or meaning of the word, unless attention is paid to the sign vehicle itself.
You may as well be saying, "how can you stand thinking about red hexagons every time you go to a stop sign"
Subvocalizing isn't present in thought unless it is being thought about.

>>11705140
Wrong picture, but shrek works too.

>>11704593
everybody subvocalizes especially when reading pynchon

>>11704669
I read it in the same voice but with different intonation

>>11704910
You just get better at eyeing out familiar connective words and read backwards.

It's only worth it for technical shit

I read it in Chad's voice~

>>11705140
>>11705148
based Pierce poster

>>11704709
tfw he isnt a schizo like the rest

>>11704669
i read it deadpan like zach galifinakas (however the fuck you spell it)

>>11704669
I just hallucinate greentext posts

>>11704763
I believe Augustine argued for this as well

>yfw you realize that at least 90% of black people sub-vocalize

>>11705500
>yfw you realize most white people are descendants of space aliens

>>11704593
i read every novel in the voice of adam west but i don't subvocalise when i'm on the internet

>>11704593
>>11704669
>subvocalizing the internet
I hope you guys are kidding. How slowly do you read 4chan posts?

>>11704669
No, I read it much too fast to assign a voice to it.

>>11704702
I seriously have no idea why people have such a hard time believing you can easily read without subvocalization. I was an avid reader in childhood and only started subvocalizing at some point in my early teens, on purpose.
I'm not saying you shouldn't subvocalize at all. I can't help but subvocalize when reading slowly, or when writing this post. I think it's actually an automatic But my eyes effortlessly fly over easy texts, such as the vast majority of the posts here on 4chan, and I don't think my "comprehension" suffers one bit.
What some deluded anons call "speed reading" in this thread, is actually just reading, quickly.
I remember people not believing me as a kid when I "showed" them how fast I could read. Maybe this is the same problem. Most people are simply slower at parsing text and their mistake is not believing anyone else can be better at it.

>>11704982
Stop the memes

>>11704763
>better retention
I find this to be the exact opposite of the truth, though I'm sure reading aloud has many other benefits. Maybe the retention comes with practice, I don't know, but I find all my concentration goes to the sound and flow rather than the meaning.
This is a problem with subvocalization as well, to a much lesser extent.

>>11705618
>I think it's actually an automatic
mechanism*, meaning your brain subvocalizes when your reading speed approaches that of speech. Which would also be natural for really difficult texts

>>11705162
too honest for this

>>11704593
It's not an either/or. While prose is as different from speech as poetry is from both, whether or not in verse form, there are almost endless degrees and kinds of modulation in auditory following. And leading, especially when writing poetry that plays with assonance and dissonance with the aplomb of a musician who can improvise at the keyboard. One's range in these matters must also depends on how socially skillful one is, especially at listening & looking at reactions, whether to weigh how well what one said is comprehended by particular individuals, or how intelligible it is generally.

What you do for a living makes a big difference too, not only because different subjects resonate with different cognitive styles, but there are different degrees & kinds of speech-mastery required. For instance, an ace prosecutor's adeptness at cross-examination must involve habitually taking a stance, as speaker, that is so unlike the clarifying or illustrative stance necessary to teaching science, that the differing influences must extend to the prevailing tone of their subvocalizing in other contexts, and in turn to the modes of speech they find more or less easy to comprehend, in life or literature.

>>11705799
>must depends

I hate it when I make a proofreading error in these teensy reply windows.

This anti-subvocalization campaign on /lit/ is a bunch of jealous brainlet skim readers.

>>11705815
I must also add that some writers work in a tradition so oral in its outlook, that they function best with an amanuensis or secretary to take dictation, while they hold forth, relaxed and supine on the divan, like Henry James as he aged into a psychological hyperrealist plumbing the depths of others' interiors.

>>11705818
I'm afraid it goes deeper than mere intellectual retardation: The young and socially retarded are bound to undervalue the auditory role of comprehension, especially in rhetoric, or in poetry that registers emotional tone with finely shaded nuances, like that of Stevens.

i see the line and know what it is immediately but i still read the words aloud in my mind while scanning the next few lines down
pretty strange man, its like theres two timelines in my mind and one is slow down matrix style

>i cun red fastuh bcus i not speak word in head
Good job trading reading comprehension and understanding for reading speed, because if there is one thing important in literature, it's the speed at which you can burn through books. After all, literature should be approached just like an American approaches fast food.

>>11706112
I can just look at 4 sentences of regular prose and absorb it. No need to scan per se

>subvocalize, apparently
>but they talk really quickly
It's almost like how one's supposed to read words/phrases rather than letters, I hear sentences at once instead of words. Never thought about it and I really don't care to work on stopping it

>>11706112
>hurr durr if you read faster you necessarily lose comprehension
stop projecting your malfunctions to other people, subhuman subvocalizer

>>11706143
You aren't serious right

>>11706112
I find that my comprehension is better if I don't subvocalize, what it really is is reading deeper into the text. It does allow you to go faster but that's not the point. For appreciating the rhythm or melody of prose or verse subvocalizing or speaking out loud is better, it's a more surface way to read. Which doesn't mean it's bad, I think ideally you should appreciate writing in both of those ways

smacking your lips and clicking your tongue while reading fully suppresses subvox, try it

>tfw don't have any imagined sounds or visuals in my head
I don't really mind, took me quite a while to even realize other people had this.
That doesn't mean I don't subvocalize though I think, I probably still make little speech-like muscle twitches.

Whose voice is it even that you hear when you're reading? Your own or someone elses or just abstract?

>>11704819
>Including my own posts
t. will never post again

>>11704702
I only start subvocalizing when you faggots mention it.

If I subvocalise to much as in I think about it, I find impossible to read and my head becomes a mess and I just start becoming increasingly agitated at the voice in my head, but I might be schizo

>>11704593
>subvocalizers
In other words, all literate people.

>>11704685
I always read it in a monotone but slightly more venomous tone in my head.

>>11706413

>>11706112
It depends on the book. If you're reading an american nonfiction book half of it is going to be the writer repeating the same points again and again

>>11704910
Quickly.

>>11704982
>>11704991
>brain/lit/ cope

>>11705818
Anyone can subvocalize, but only the elite can choose not to.

>>11706368
This.

>>11704669
I only read it differently because you said so, greentext usually sounds the same.

bump. subhuman subvocalizers must know their place

>>11704763
>>11704781
>>11705006
https://vocaroo.com/i/s1uRxH66SCTT

I find myself subvocalising far more prominently than usual when reading something like the Iliad. I don't see how anyone could read verse without doing it.

>>11704593
turned it off just for you pumpkin
>>11704702
I'm doing it right now, yes reading speed goes up dramatically and there's little consequence to it at all, in fact my mind is significantly faster, typing speed goes up and i feel more in control of ideation.

>>11709354
calm down asian man

>>11708318
based

>>11705162
>read backwards
Wath the fuck

I read antisemitic posts in a thick Arab accent.

>>11704718
>>11704763
>>11704781
>>11709354
>>11709600
https://vocaroo.com/i/s0wLYT8RS7gJ

different asian man gives it a shot

Most embarrassing Anglo habits:

1. Subvocalizing

2. Sleeping with stuffed animals

3. Incontinence

Imagine all the misery and anguish you've had to endure because a book you want to loan from a library is being hogged by some slower than molasses subhuman subvocalizer. These cretins do not only cause problems for themselves but for all of us. They are truly lives unworthy of life.

>>11712014
I never thought of this. Truly subvocalizers are accursed people.

english language has boring melodies eitherway
So you dont gain anything by subvocalizing