[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.02 MB, 5000x5000, pinecone.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7092045 No.7092045 [Reply] [Original]

>subvocalizers

>> No.7092059
File: 6 KB, 275x183, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7092059

>my gf subvocalizes
>tfw can't even look at the woman I love if she's "reading"

>> No.7092062

Raising your child not to subvocalize is by far the best thing you can do as a parent

>> No.7092063

>>7092045
Pynchon purposefully puts songs and jigs into his novels because he doesn't want you to subvocalise his prose.

>> No.7092071

Everything I read I read out loud

>> No.7092074

We should start a petition to build subvocalizers death camps.

>> No.7092078

Subvocalisation is sometimes necessary.

>> No.7092079

>>7092074
What if we hand them a minorly long contracts, and while their inferior minds are processing and reading it, we shoot them in the head?

>> No.7092081

How are you supposed to appreciate the phonoaesthetics of prose without hearing it in your head?

>> No.7092087

>>7092081
if we need to subvocalize for the 0.0000000000000001% of text that calls for it, we can, you know

that's like saying

>How do you appreciate a 56k modem if your images load immediately and not incredibly slowly and one row of pixels at a time
Well if i really wanted to do that, i could just limit my bandwidth

>> No.7092095

What the fuck is subvocalization?

>> No.7092100

>>7092095
It's the bottleneck of your brain

>> No.7092101

>>7092100
That's not an answer.

>> No.7092113

>>7092101
How did you come to 4chan without having learned of wikipedia first

>> No.7092115

Anyone want to make predictions on when this board will internalise the subvocalising meme and take it to heart?

Some of the comments in this thread already have me worried.

>> No.7092117

>>7092113
Wikipedia doesn't give a sufficient answer. It just says that it means that you say internally what you read, which is clearly what everyone does. How the fuck can you read without hearing the words in your head?

>> No.7092120

>>7092115
Subvocalizers are the manlets of /lit/

Or should i say, man/lit/s

>> No.7092121
File: 21 KB, 437x437, photo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7092121

>I value speed over comprehension

>> No.7092126
File: 1.41 MB, 400x400, 1441710424771.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7092126

>>7092117
>which is clearly what everyone does
see attached

>How the fuck can you read without hearing the words in your head?
Fast.

>> No.7092132
File: 1.22 MB, 292x278, 1437720241292.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7092132

>He speed reads instead of reading the Wikipedia synopsis

Absolutely plebeian

>> No.7092133

>>7092126
Okay, so you read so fast you do not even understand what you read then?

Sounds like you are retarded.

>> No.7092155

>>7092133
No, I just don't have to subvocalize

I was a 'late talker', I assume it is related.

You have to go 'Written Word -> Spoken Word -> Brain'

I go 'Written Word -> Brain'

The only downside is that I've had many instances where I don't know how a word is pronounced, because I've typed and read it many times, but never spoken it (neither internally nor externally)

>> No.7092161

>>7092101

Saying the words in your head as you read them. I'm not really sure what else you're supposed to do.

>> No.7092162

Hey, you! Yes, you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmsRN78qMxM

>> No.7092165

>>7092117
It's purely subjetive, so it is hard to describe. You just "see" the word, instead of "speaking it inside your head".

To be honest, it actually speeds your reading if you do it, but I don't feel is not really necessary. There are some McElroy novels that are written in "thought tempo" instead of the traditional "speech tempo", so you have to almost skim the text instead of reading slowy. The text actually doesn't make sense if read aloud.

>> No.7092170

>>7092161
You skip the spoken part

>> No.7092176

>>7092155
>>7092161
>>7092165
I get it, but I don't see the point. Part of reading to me is the vocalizations of different characters inside my mind, and my resulting imagination that springs forth from it.

Why would anyone want to read faster? Makes it seem like you don't actually enjoy reading.

>> No.7092178

>>7092176
>the only reading people do is reading literature
do you really think 4chan posts deserve to be subvocalized

>> No.7092182

>>7092176
Reading = Information Acquisition
Read Faster = Learn More = Know More

>> No.7092186

Everybody "subvocalizes" when they read.

Everybody who says they don't are delusional.

>> No.7092187

Subvocalizers could legitimately be considered children when compared to non-subvocalizers

>> No.7092188

>>7092182
Sounds autistic to be honest. Are you sure you're not on the spectrum?

Not even kidding.

>> No.7092193

>>7092186
git gud at reading, champ

>> No.7092194

>>7092176
It doesn't matter in a hedonistic point of view.

But it is useful with non-fiction. More information in less time It is even necessary if your job requires much reading.

>> No.7092198

>>7092188
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_(process)

>Reading is a complex cognitive process of decoding symbols in order to construct or derive meaning (reading comprehension). It is a means of language acquisition, of communication, and of sharing information and ideas.

What's your argument about again?

>> No.7092215

>>7092198
Saying reading is purely information acquisition is the same as saying heroin is purely about information acquisition.

Do people take heroin because they want to acquire information, or do they take heroin because it feels good?

>> No.7092221

>>7092215
>reading is heroin

>> No.7092224

>>7092221
No, but reading is pleasurable, unless of course you're an autist who just wants to skim through shit in order to brag on an Indian tapestry board that you have finally read the new memebook that every talks about here.

>> No.7092227
File: 63 KB, 559x649, 1441712778121.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7092227

>>7092224
>the only time i ever read is literature
>i never read to communicate
>or read non fiction
>or for school
>or for work

>> No.7092234

>>7092227
>He reads mountains of non fiction every day that he can just skim through because it's that uninteresting
>He also skims through all his work related stuff because it's really that uninteresting

You sound like you have a boring life son.

>> No.7092235

>>7092234
>Reading things you have to read faster is bad

>> No.7092240

>dont subvocalize when browsing 4chan
>do subvocalize when reading books

i think god just wants me to shitpost on 4chan all day.

>> No.7092243

Serious question : how rare is the non-subvocalizer?

1 in

1000?
10,000?
1,000,000?
10,000,000?
1,000,000,000?

>> No.7092246

>>7092240
are you me

my god can you imagine having to subvocalize and hear in your head the inane shitposts and crap of 4chan

>> No.7092284

>>7092246
>are you me

yes

>> No.7092287

>>7092240
>>7092246
>>7092284
samefag

>> No.7092392

>>7092121
You should've posted the other way around
Or are we starting a new dichotomy of sincere memes

>> No.7092420

>>7092246
>my god can you imagine having to subvocalize and hear in your head the inane shitposts and crap of 4chan
It's hilarious tbh

>> No.7092455

When I read I subvocalize in my mind but it is still way much faster than reading out of loud. So what phase/category is that? Also I find it almost impossible to read non-fiction literature ie. for school without reading it slowly to actually get the ideas - learn stuff.

>> No.7092474

Subvocalization, or silent speech, is defined as the internal speech typically made when reading, it provides the sound of the word as it is read.[1]

>This is a natural process when reading and it helps the mind to access meanings to comprehend and remember what is read, potentially reducing cognitive load.[2]

If you're a non-subvocalizer, enjoy taking the utility out of your reading.

>> No.7092485

>>7092474
Typically, subvocalizing is an inherent part of reading and understanding a word.

>Micro-muscle tests suggest that full and permament elimination of subvocalizing is impossible.

This may origin in the way people learn to read by associating the sight of words with their spoken sounds. Sound associations for words are indelibly imprinted on the nervous system—even of deaf people, since they will have associated the word with the mechanism for causing the sound or a sign in a particular sign language

>> No.7092519

>>7092045

>Not taking the necessary time to appreciate every word

Fucking internet generation and their horrible ADD.

>> No.7092563

What can we do to teach reading so that the new generation doesn't subvocalize?

I think kids these days grow up too much around an auditory culture. They listen to too much music and too many movies and tv shows emphasize sound. I think they shouldn't be taught to talk or be around speakers until a late age, and that their only means of communication until then should be through text.

>> No.7092568
File: 43 KB, 500x294, 1437170416870.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7092568

>>7092563

gr8 b8 m8 no h8 i appreci8 r8 8/8

>> No.7092595

so subvocalize is reading the words in your head?

why the fuck would i not do that?

>> No.7092603
File: 111 KB, 1366x606, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7092603

Sometimes I feel my tongue making micromovements that coincide with the text being read. I don't "hear" anything.

You guys:
>herf derf everything on wikipedia is 100% fact
>linguistics is the highest science i can't believe you don't know about subvocalization it's totally real!
>Oh, ME? No, I don't subvocalize, of course. It's only for autists and plebians

>> No.7092746

>>7092485
>Typically

>>7092519
not subvocalizing cannot be learned

>> No.7092756

>>7092563
Don't talk to your children. That's the key. Read and write. Don't speak or listen.

>>7092595
It slows you down.

>> No.7093057

Lmao if you think you can appreciate good writing (esp. Joyce) if you don't subvocalize
>muh speed reading

>> No.7093380

>>7093057
This

You're missing out on half the art and all the beauty if you don't subvocalize.

>> No.7093447

>>7093057
>>7093380
>itt: dyslexic retards

>> No.7093546
File: 96 KB, 700x603, woman_against_wall_suffering_unspeakable_despair_and_horror.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7093546

> tfw subvocalizer
> tfw I only found out in a /lit/ thread some days ago
> tfw I try to shake it off by babbling when reading but it won't
Help, /lit/. I want to be saved.

>> No.7093824

>>7093546
Do you really want to simply skim the world's best novels?

This "subvocalizing is bad" meme really needs to die, but there are too many literally autists here for that to happen tbh

>> No.7093846

>>7093824
Not subvocalizing is the truest form of reading. It imparts the words directly into you. Subvocalizing is worse than skimming really. You're forcing your brain to process both the words into sounds and then the sounds back into words, you lose a lot of information there.

>> No.7093852

>>7093846
you're retarded

>> No.7093866

>>7093852
did you have to subvocalize that before posting bruv?

>> No.7093882

>At the slower rates (memorizing, learning, and reading for comprehension), subvocalizing by the reader is very detectable. At the faster rates of reading (skimming, and scanning), subvocalization is less detectable. For competent readers, subvocalizing to some extent even at scanning rates is normal.

>> No.7093885

I only read out loud, to get the full beauty of the text

>> No.7093903

>>7093885
>not reading out loud in a baritone

literally what is the point of any of you living if you're not going to reach this ideal standard?

>> No.7093923

>>7093903
>not improvising an opera as you read

>> No.7093929

>>7092240
I'm the opposite, I only subvocalize when reading short text, but when I get into a book I stop subvocalizing.

>> No.7093938

>>7093903
this tbq and completley h

>> No.7093939

>>7093903
I have a trained full volcal range and use a different voice for each character. Of course narrating in baritone as you mentioned.

It's the best way to enjoy a story and the only way to enjoy poetry.

>> No.7094122

>>7093882
[citation needed]

Subvocalizers are mentally disabled

>> No.7094304

>>7093057
>>7093380
>implying we can't subvocalize if we want to

>> No.7094309

>>7092045
I AM A PROUD SUBVOCALIZER

>> No.7094310

>>7093846
This, but unironically.

>> No.7094322

>>7094309
SUBBO PRIDE
WORLD WIDE

>> No.7094988

sub inna whip

>> No.7095028

I bet I subvocalize faster than you can speedread, faggot. Come at me.

>> No.7095101

>>7092045
I'm getting really tired of 4chan lately. After all the years I've been here, it still makes me feel bad to read threads like these. I know it's just trolling, but at the surface it's also a reminder that I an less intelligent than others. I am the 'pleb' to your patrician; I subvocalize; I can't read Pynchon or Joyce; I don't know philosophy or string theory (sci) or calculus. I don't even come from a wealthy family, so I essentially have no redeeming qualities. Lift, you say? I've tried that too, but I couldn't even manage that. What point is there to living when you don't have a good brain, you don't have a nice body, you don't have money, and you don't have anyone to love you?

>> No.7095108

>>7095101
Not subvocalizing is a symptom of dyslexia. Congratulations on not being defective.

>> No.7095110

>>7095101
that's just lit, fit, and sci tho
maybe pol
there are other boards to feign pretentiousness by the way
or you can give up and go to r9k
oh and uh
that was written uh not that bad tbh

>> No.7095111
File: 972 KB, 1920x1080, livin the dream mates.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7095111

>>7095101
to have fun shitposting with /lit/ and the gang.

also, take up anime as a pastime, it's pretty fun.

>> No.7095201

>>7095101
have you tried not being shit?

>> No.7095239

>>7095101
git gud.

>> No.7095324

>>7095239
came here to say this

>> No.7095355

>>7095101
if you're not trolling laffo who cares about what a bunch of baristas who got enough time to shitpost on a taiwanese blacksmithing board because they're obviously not the suave intellectuals they want to be have to say. and that includes me.

realtalk if you feel you have no redeeming qualities either kill yourself or do something about it. don't degenerate into eating ice cream and jerking off to depraved anime porn until you croak

>> No.7095364

>>7095324

mah niggas

aesthetics is the signpost to God. and if God doesn't exist, at least we have aesthetics. win-win

>> No.7095381

>>7092155
This is me too. My mother loves to brag that I could read anything since I was two years old.

Unfortunately that was the last time that anything I've done with my life has impressed anyone.

>> No.7095409

>>7092234
It's not skimming. It enables you to read faster than you can talk.

It's actually a pretty good thing to be able to do from a practical standpoint. It's also not hard which is why everyone thinks you sound retarded.

>> No.7095446
File: 786 KB, 857x746, jaypee.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7095446

>>7095355
>don't degenerate into eating ice cream and jerking off to depraved anime porn until you croak
why
the
fuck
not

>> No.7095464

>>7095409
Who subvocalizers at the speed of speech? It's much faster than that while reading

>> No.7095469

>>7095446
man the fuck up and blow your brains out now instead of living to see the day you catch your 40 year old self in the mirror and have the knowledge you jizzed your youth away into a napkin devour you from the inside out

>> No.7095480

Back in the 50s people would think you were a genius if you could read without uttering words outloud like a tard. The average person is smarter now thanks to the flynn effect, but we're still left with subvocalizers.

>> No.7095481

Why the fuck would someone not subvocalize poetry or pretty prose?

>> No.7095567

>>7095480
That doesn't sound right, but I'm not going to waste my time researching it.

>> No.7095627

i dont subvocalize because i read faster than i speak if i subvocalize its very unnatural. i do stop and go over pleasant bits, but even then saying it in my head is less satisfying than reading it aloud or whispering it.

>> No.7095835

>>7095481
>pretty prose
why are prose plebs so pleb?

>> No.7095891

>>7095481
you do realize glorious non-subvocalizing master race _can_ subvocalize if they choose to, right?

>> No.7095900

>>7095891
if it isn't your instinct you've missed out on so many subtleties of language already that any utility you get from 'switching' reading modes is negligible

>> No.7096099

>>7095469
>you jizzed your youth away into a napkin
why not just use a fleshlight

>> No.7096107

>>7096099
I know, I know, spot the pleb.

>> No.7096118

>>7093546
http://www.spritzinc.com/

>> No.7096127

>>7095101
don't give up on your self so easily look for ways you can improve then improve your self i can read 1000 wpm or more but can't for the life of me spell simple words with out spell check squatting is no problem but pull ups are impossible for me i have no money but i have cultivated a diverse and intelligent social network that can help when need arises, live life as you best can none of us survive it anyway.

>> No.7096182

I get giddy over subvocalizing /lit/ cause I know some britbong will be offended that his carefully worded shitpost is being ruined by my reading it in an american accent.

>> No.7096359

>>7093846
Forcing your brain to process both the words into sounds and then the sounds back into words will help you gain information. That why it is recommended to subvocalize when you are trying to memorize something.

>> No.7096368

>>7095101
Being a /lit/ "patrician" is not actually related to intelligence, hard work, or being part of the ancient roman ruling class. It's just an attitude.

>> No.7096499

>>7093846
I want to believe he's kidding. Nobody could be that retarded.

>> No.7096819

give no quarter to man/lit/ subvocalizers

>> No.7097419

Lmao @ all the people vociferously defending a reading habit they didn't even know they had til now

>> No.7097430

tbh reading is more fun when you subvocalize
whenever I don't do it I forget what I read, then I reread a few pages and realize I have already read them

>> No.7097433
File: 53 KB, 450x472, 1440093484475.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7097433

>>7097419
>juxtaposing "lmao @" with "vociferously" because you think you're some cool kid who understands muh 4chinz slang but also has a good vocabulary since he went to HS senior english and read 1984 at one point in his life

>> No.7097496

I'm currently taking my master's in mathematics. This doesn't seem at all relevant to me, because we have to look at the same 10 lines for five hours before it sticks. What do you think?

>> No.7097780

>>7097430
>I don't do it I forget what I read, then I reread a few pages and realize I have already read them

you weren't reading them in the first place

dumbass subvocalizers trying to no subvocalize psshaw smh

>> No.7098901

When will they learn /lit/?

>> No.7099172

I'm not 100% convinced that non-subvocalizers exist.

>> No.7099300

>>7099172
How can i convince you that I exist?

Must i design an fMRI paradigm and publish in a credible journal?

>> No.7099311

How the fuck am I supposed to do a close reading if I can't subvocalize.

>> No.7099323

>>7099311
jesus christ

for the last fucking time

non-subvocalizers CAN subvocalize if they choose to

they simply DO NOT HAVE TO

much like you CAN breathe manually

>> No.7099331

>>7099300
Sure.

>> No.7099348

>>7099323
sorry man I didn't read the thread, I don't do much reading actually. just saying hi from /pol/ :)

>> No.7099368

>>7099323
>>7095900

>> No.7099529

While I never subvocalize unless it's a particularly difficult passage of philosophy I'm having to read over and over again (even then, no actual sound comes out), I do often find myself moving my mouth to dialogue slightly, as I'm trying to figure out how each character's voice ought to sound, which is very important to me. Does that make me a pleb?

>> No.7099790

>>7099331
Give me a few years

>> No.7099794

>>7099529
You're a demipleb

>> No.7099921

Alright serious time for a few posts here /lit/

Does anyone seriously doubt that non-subvocalizers exist?

>> No.7099924

>>7099921
checking in

>> No.7099935

>>7099921
Its like manually breathing or blinking, you start processing automatically after a while but if you start thinking about it you sub vocalize

>> No.7099936

>>7099921

Most serious research shows it to be the way it is

>> No.7099939

>>7099529
Wait, you don't subvocalize, but you move your mouth, even slightly? Breh, you reap none of the benefits of not subvocalizing and you are actually slowed down by having to even slightly move your mouth. You are nearly as low as they come.

>> No.7099943

>>7099936
can you link some published academic studies or papers on this topic please?

>> No.7099956

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022537180906283

>> No.7099960

you fucking idiots, subvocalization is whispering to yourself as you read

>> No.7099964

>>7099956
anon, NOTHING about that states, nor even implies, that subvocalization is a myth

They're talking about a _specific_ situation in which it is of value

And again, for the Nth time, those of us who don't have to subvocalize, still can if we want/need to

>> No.7099969
File: 53 KB, 197x190, Comfy_guy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7099969

>>7099956
>Blocking subvocalization by requiring subjects to count or say “cola-colacola …” aloud impaired their reading comprehension but generally not their listening comprehension

Cool! I just tested it and, as I do not subvocalize, counting or saying things aloud has zero effect whatsoever on my reading comprehension

wait


HOLY FUCKIGN FUCK SHIT FUCK OF COURSE

THAT'S FUCKING IT

THAT'S WHY PEOPLE ARE COMPLETELY FUCKING AWESTRUCK AS I CAN TALK, READ, AND TYPE ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

THEY CAN'T DO THAT. THEIR SUBVOCALIZATION PROCESS PREVENTS THEM FROM CARRYING ON A VOCAL CONVERSATION WHILE READING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE

THANK YOU BASED FUCKING /lit/ YOU HAVE SHED LIGHT ON WHAT I DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE WHAT A MYSTERY

>> No.7099973

>>7099964
that's why I didn't respond to >>7099943 with it

>> No.7099982

>>7099969
christ you sound like a wanker when i subvocalise the bullshit you write

>> No.7099987

>>7099982
That's your jealousy talking m8

>> No.7100011

>>7099969
I just figured out I can babble and it doesn't impair reading comprehension either.
feelsgood

>> No.7100044

>>7099982
i'm not sure i could ever feel jealous of the kind of person who genuinely believes his reading ability leaves people COMPLETELY FUCKING AWESTRUCK

that level of narcissism generally seems to come with some pretty horrific downsides

>> No.7100048

>>7100044
It's not narcissism, it's realizing after years that the reason people are confused and stupified when I do it, is because they can't.

>> No.7100058

>tfw not only have to subvocalize to retain text, but also have to frequently reread passages and sound out the words with my mouth
>tfw 10 pages every four hours or so

>> No.7100077

>>7100048
i think it's much more likely that people are just "confused" that you aren't paying attention to them with eye contact when they're speaking to you like any normal person would, rather than being so blown away by your superior multitasking abilities that they are left in a dazed stupor.

>> No.7100083

>>7099323
>non-subvocalizers CAN subvocalize if they choose to
No. Non-subvocalizers lack the imagination. Words to them are just inert markings on paper, to be counted as beads on an abacus like a greasy chinaman.

>> No.7100088

>>7100077
Not really, almost every single time, if not every single time, I was mutli-tasking on something directly related to what we're discussing verbally

>> No.7100092

>>7100083
>projecting hard enough to put imax out of business

>> No.7100096

>>7099960
no it's forming the sounds in your mind. even silent readers subvocalise

>> No.7100099

sipping>gulping

>> No.7100110

>>7100096
>. even silent readers subvocalise
no

>> No.7100112

>>7100092
I'm grateful that you took the time away from your busy schedule of counting numbers on trains to post that.

>> No.7100118

>>7093903
this, tbh

>> No.7100123

>subvocalizers most likely have an ersatz neural encoding of the written word

>> No.7100131
File: 48 KB, 847x363, think in Russian, punk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7100131

>>7100123
How else can you fly the Firefox?

>> No.7100138

>>7099172
subvocalising cannot be eliminated entirely, everyone does it to some extent, even if they're not aware of it. they can measure the tiny muscle movements in your mouth.

>> No.7100139

>>7100131
You made me realize a very interesting possibility.

What if BCI's have in part had shitty results because they've only been tested thus far on the subvocalizer?

>> No.7100142

Reading without subvocalizing puts me into a unique zen like concentration. Feels almost like meditating.

>> No.7100145

>>7100138
>subvocalising cannot be eliminated entirely
False
>>7100138
>everyone does it to some extent
False, unless you count "able to subvocalize on demand"

In which case you don't breathe or blink automatically, because you can breathe/blink manually on demand

>>7100138
>they can measure the tiny muscle movements in your mouth.
For subvocalizers.

>> No.7100160

>>7092115
>internalise the subvocalising
heh

>> No.7100180

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/mar/HQ_04093_subvocal_speech_prt.htm

Which says

"Biological signals arise when reading or speaking to oneself with or without actual lip or facial movement. A person using the subvocal system thinks of phrases and talks to himself so quietly, it cannot be heard, but the tongue and vocal chords do receive speech signals from the brain"

+

A Neurocognitive Approach to the Study of Private Speech

+


Internally generated conscious contents: interactions between sustained mental imagery and involuntary subvocalizations
In which it is shown to quiet but not non existent

Then there is stuff like The Psychology of Reading and countless other studies into speed reading which of blows apart most speed reading claims of anything more than 600 wpm

>> No.7100191

>>7099943


http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2081&context=psychology

http://www.quora.com/How-does-one-train-to-speed-read-via-subvocalization-elimination

>> No.7100192

>>7100180
>No empirical evidence for claim

>Most people, myself included, do X, therefore all human beings do X

That's cute.

Humanity has just about reached the point to bring this to a new standard of scientific scrutiny .
Give it another half decade or so and this will be blown out of the water.

Or can anyone show me even one functional neuroimaging study ran on non-subvocalizers?

>> No.7100201

>>7100191
>electromyography

into the modality trash it goes

>> No.7100203

Alright I have provided some non anecdotal evidence I would like to see some to the contrary.

>> No.7100204

Call me when you have some PET, fMRI, or similar tier studies.

>> No.7100209

>>7100203
What do you do when people ask you to prove or disprove qualia?

>> No.7100219

>>7100204

Moving the goalposts
+
Only provides anecdotal evidence

>>7100209
Not a similar comparison

I know it sucks to admit you've been snake oiled and you aren't special but it happens to the best of us

>> No.7100227

Sometimes when I speak in public I don't prepare beforehand so I end up having to read the entire speech off cards.

But even in those cases, I generally only have to glance at the cards once for each sentence, even when I'm currently saying something else, to kind of internally "buffer" the next sentence, so I can return to looking at the audience while actually saying it out loud.

When I'm reading without speaking, it takes only a fraction of the time it would take to read it out loud. Am I subvocalising or not?

>> No.7100234

>>7100204

How Silent Is Silent Reading? Intracerebral Evidence for Top-Down Activation of Temporal Voice Areas during Reading

Better?

>> No.7100235

What are these sample sizes that "prove" no human being ever has not subvocalized?

Sounds like a lot of wishful thinking and sour grapes, especially from the giga-libertarian quora shit community

>just work harder XD you'll be perfect and a billionaire someday ;)

>> No.7100238

>>7100219
>no way anyone reads faster or better than me! They're lying!

>> No.7100244

>>7100238

I'm a slow reader already and I readily admit people read faster than I do.
I am asking for some non anecdotal proof. This should be easy.

>> No.7100247

>>7093846
Holy fucking shit this board is filled with insufferable ignorant shitheads such as you. No wonder why it sucks so much.
You people should not be allowed to speak. Fucking pricks.

>> No.7100250

>>7100247
>>you lose a lot of information there
>not getting the post-ironic memery
laugh at your own suffering tbh fam

>> No.7100252

>>7100250
>tbh fam

Jesus Christ that shit has even spread to this board?

>> No.7100255

>>7100235

To be honest
>muh unique science defying brain brain

Is much more wishful thinking than anything else

>>7100252
Where the fuck have you been? It's been here for weeks

>> No.7100257

>>7100252
>>7100247
>taking 4chan this seriously

>> No.7100261

You must read slowly. MUST. It's not a fucking race. It's about enjoying yourself and understanding. Writing and reading is about contemplation, not about mindless blabbery.
If you value the "productivity" of reading lots of useless literary material you might as well just kill yourself because you're doing it wrong.
You're reading a novel? Fine, enjoy it. Savour it. Now, are you reading a scientific article? A math article? Study it. Understand it. Apply it. Be fucking diligent.

>> No.7100263

>>7100257
>I was just pretending

>> No.7100273

>>7100263
>not post-post-ironically laughing at people pretending to be retarded

>> No.7100309

>>7100261
BUT IT IS A RACE I GET ALL MY SELF-ESTEEM FROM KNOWING I AM ABLE TO PROCESS MORE WORDS PER MINUTE

>> No.7100667

why haven't mods deleted this shit meme thread?

>> No.7100669 [DELETED] 
File: 102 KB, 500x750, WfuPwEn.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7100669

>>7100667
>implying /lit/ is moderated

>> No.7100971

>>7100255
Empiricism isn't wishful thinking

functional neuroimaging just needs to git gud so we can properly capture qualia

>> No.7100987

>>7095381
Me too, exactly. I bet this is more common than either of us think.