/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3310390
Have a nice day.

>>3310325
That's strange,I thought you were this guy
>>3309996

No matter how you try to twist it, there is a definite connection between brain alteration and internet addiction disorder.

>>3310241
>Recent studies suggest that internet addiction disorder (IAD) is associated with structural abnormalities in brain gray matter
>IAD associated with brain change
Your brain changes, and you become addicted to the internet, to translate this for you into layman's terms.
How does addiction work? You want that thing more than anything else. You find other things DULL. See how I used logic to reach here?

This is the first sentence of the study. Don't tell me you didn't even read the intro...

>>3310217
Console games and television, yes. Books, no. Books keep your focus on a single thing. In console games and television your focus gets changed all the time.

>>3310189
It's not like you become retarded. You just find real life dull because it's not as spontaneous as the internet. This study merely shows that this happens physically in your brain, your brain adapts to these spontaneous stimuli and you'll find real life boring.
I'm sure you can revert this though, if you feel like you used the internet too much as an adolescent.

>>3310141
Uhh... internet addiction is because of internet usage.
By the way, what on earth is wrong with you? You haven't even read through the study yet. You simply can't accept this simple fact, so you choose to ignore it.
Hey, you're like a Christian!

>>3310146
Yep

>>3310091
>>3310099
Damn it... that's not the study.

HERE is the study: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0020708

And yes, it is specifically about internet usage. I've read it through.

If you did not use the internet much when you were an adolescent, you're good. If you did, your brain has changed.

>>3310064
Fuck lol. I meant google "popcorn brainS", with an S in the end. Googling "popcorn brain" gives you completely different results.

>>3310061
Look up a bit. I already gave you a source.

The scientific study that this article talks about can be reached by:

Google "popcorn brain" and go to the 4th link. You're there.

>>3309996
>>3310023

Google "popcorn brains" and go to 4th link. That's the experiment that I told you this was backed up by.
Real smart to dismiss a scientific experiment just because you don't like that your brain has changed due to internet usage.

Real scientific to dismiss this experiment without evidence, eh?

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/06/23/tech.popcorn.brain.ep/index.html

FUCK! SHIT! This is backed up by a scientific study.

Is this revertable? I have my iPhone on me at all times and use it whenever I'm not doing something else, and when I get back from the gym I hop straight onto the internets.

>>3307442
lol

>>3307458
700 WPM in a text book is around 1,5 pages per minute, and 1400 WPM in a novel is around 4,5 pages per minute.

>>3307387
You have to cite the page in your source, you idiot. What page?

>>3307366
This is like saying a ball will not fall from your hands if you release it after saying the word "Dutch".

This is common sense. With sub-vocalization you take in 1 word at a time. If you increase the rate at which you take in words (5-6 at a time), will your reading speed not increase?

If you deny this, there is no point in arguing this with you. You're simply too frustrated that I'm reading faster than you. :/

>>3307383
Yeah, I read 1400 WPM in a novel (easy material) and 700 WPM in a school book (physics book, currently in my major).

>>3307304
>Subvocalising is best for memorising, and learning
I'd like to see a source for your statement. A source that says it is more efficient to read with 200 WPM at 95% understanding than to read with 700 WPM at 80% understanding.

>What you do is scan text. You're not a fast reader, you're a lazy reader.
No, I do not scan text. Allright guys, are you so bitter I read faster than you that you dismiss this without even thinking about it? Do the exercises, judge from experience.

>>3307260
If it helps, I have no idea why my teacher decided to have the exercise this way. But I assumed it was for a purpose.

>>3307247
I'm sorry you can't accept the fact I read 4 times faster than you =)
That's sensible thinking right there. Good job!

>>3307234
No, listen. If you're reading at 200 words per minute to get a 95% understanding, I can read the same material 3 times with an 80% understanding. Who attains more understanding, me or you?

>>3307230
That's not the important part. You can change that if you're somehow uncomfortable with that (although I'd find that a bit weird). The main part here is the reading from a to c and from a to d, to read faster than you possibly can (3-4 times faster).

>>3307203
It's not. The only way to convince you is for you to try it for maybe 2-3 days.
The trick here is to push your reading speed beyond what you are capable of reading (3-4 times faster) that your brain adapts and takes in more and more words each time you do this exercise.

>>3307183
Reading with 300 words per minute with 90% comprehension when you could be reading with 700 with 80% comprehension isn't worth it.

2) Another good technique is to use something to assist your eyes, for example a finger or a pencil. I find a pencil more effective. Our eyes do better at following things around than looking on their own.

The truth is, we can take in a lot more words than just 1 at a time. We can take up to 5-6 words, even more, at a time. Do the following exercise, which takes 8 minutes each, and repeat until you've practiced around an hour a day for average results:

Step 1 - Grab a novel
Step 2 - Choose where to start, mark that with a, and read for 1 minute. Mark x where you stop. Repeat (start from the same a as last time) and mark x again (you'll likely get a bit further this time). Now repeat yet again with the same a, but mark it b and not x.
Step 3 - Double the amount you read from a to b and call it c. Read from a to c for 1 minute. Here you have to skim the page with an S movement across the page, and try to grab at least a word per 3 lines. You will do better with time.
Step 4 - Double the amount from a to b again, and now call it d. Read from a to d for 1 minute.
Step 5 - Read from b for 1 minute, mark x where you stop.
Step 6 - Calculate your words per minute for a to the first x, and from b to x

I tried speed reading. It works. I've been on a course for 5 weeks, and went from 200 words per minute in heavy material to 700. In novels I get 1400. And all this with 80% comprehension.

This isn't science related but this is pretty much the only topic besides /lit/ I could post this on, and from what I gather those guys want to enjoy their reading and not extract information out of it in most cases.

1) Speed reading works by un-taming certain habits you adopted at an early age. We were taught to read word-for-word and outloud because that was the only way our parents knew we knew how to read. This lead to a thing called sub-vocalization, i.e. most people sound the words as they read them in their heads. Reading word-for-word and subvocalization drastically lowers your reading rate. This can easily (with practice) be unlearned by taking in more words per eye movement, which will be explained later. That way we will automatically stop subvocalizing because we simply don't have time for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar#Day
It appears it does have no fixed length, but it is somewhat fixed: there was evening and then there was morning.

So according to Wikipedia a day couldn't be millions of years, unless you're on another planet.

>>3300119
>2011
>not foreseeing OP would bump regardless

>>3300122
I'm sorry I disappointed you. I'm heartbroken.

>>3300105
Oh dude shit fuck *dies*