Anything I could comprehend at double speed would probably not be worth listening to.
A few weeks ago I listened to Dawkins’s audio reading of Darwin’s Origin of Species at double speed.
The simple fact that many people read at double or more speed compared to speech suggests that doubling the speed need not reduce comprehension at all.
There is an optimum speed for comprehension, and for me it seems to be closer to double speed for something like the Origin of Species. To see that slower is not always better, take it to an extreme to make the effect obvious even in imagination. Suppose the audio is at 1⁄4 speed. At the end of a long sentence, you may have trouble remembering how it started.
If I fail to understand something to my satisfaction or my mind has wandered, I use the “jump back 30 seconds” button once or a few times. Another useful feature.
If you try double speed, at first it is likely to seem overwhelming. But give it a chance. After I have listened to a book at double speed for a long time I find that standard speed tries my patience.
I have noticed no difference at all in long term retention at different speeds, provided that I understood what was being said initially. In the short term, I find that double speed typically enhances my ability to follow what is being said. I liberally use “jump back” to re-hear and “pause” to mull over something if I find myself wanting to.
I am sure there are programs for the major platforms (PC, Mac, Linux) that can double speed but I use an iPhone/iPod function which doubles playback speed without changing pitch (so it sounds like a human, not like a chipmunk).
There is one major drawback with audio, and that is that I can’t highlight. I rely heavily on highlights and notes to retain the contents. However, lack of highlights obviously applies to all audio, not just double speed.
I think I remember more than as much at double speed, because my mind doesn’t wander so much. The downside is that when it does wander, the speaker has more often moved on to another point by the time I come back, so I have to rewind.
Like Constant I have not noticed any retention problems at increased playback speeds.
To increase the speed at which you comprehend I recommend using a program that can increment the speed by 10% at a time that way you can ease your way to 2-4 times speed.
The simple fact that many people read at double or more speed compared to speech suggests that doubling the speed need not reduce comprehension at all.
Not if you don’t process the information in the same way.
Humans have faster tactile reflexes than visual; you can respond more quickly to a movement that you can feel than to one that you can only see. A person might be able to perform chi sao very quickly, but not be able to respond to attacks of the same speed when they’re not in contact with the assailant.
Similarly, I’m pretty sure that I can process written words at a speed at which spoken words would be pure gibberish.
Not if you don’t process the information in the same way.
I said suggests, not proves. The point of the word “suggests” is precisely to acknowledge compactly that one can easily raise objections such as the one you raised.
Similarly, I’m pretty sure that I can process written words at a speed at which spoken words would be pure gibberish.
You seem to be referring to speeds at which the phonemes become indistinguishable. But that doesn’t happen at double speed, which is what I was talking about. Nor is that the pitfall we were talking about, because the pitfall was that certain content rich texts might be too hard to comprehend at double speed. Rich content isn’t a fact about the phonemes.
A few weeks ago I listened to Dawkins’s audio reading of Darwin’s Origin of Species at double speed.
The simple fact that many people read at double or more speed compared to speech suggests that doubling the speed need not reduce comprehension at all.
There is an optimum speed for comprehension, and for me it seems to be closer to double speed for something like the Origin of Species. To see that slower is not always better, take it to an extreme to make the effect obvious even in imagination. Suppose the audio is at 1⁄4 speed. At the end of a long sentence, you may have trouble remembering how it started.
If I fail to understand something to my satisfaction or my mind has wandered, I use the “jump back 30 seconds” button once or a few times. Another useful feature.
If you try double speed, at first it is likely to seem overwhelming. But give it a chance. After I have listened to a book at double speed for a long time I find that standard speed tries my patience.
Do you think you remember more than half as much when listening at double speed?
Do you have any programs that can convert an MP3 to double speed?
I have noticed no difference at all in long term retention at different speeds, provided that I understood what was being said initially. In the short term, I find that double speed typically enhances my ability to follow what is being said. I liberally use “jump back” to re-hear and “pause” to mull over something if I find myself wanting to.
I am sure there are programs for the major platforms (PC, Mac, Linux) that can double speed but I use an iPhone/iPod function which doubles playback speed without changing pitch (so it sounds like a human, not like a chipmunk).
There is one major drawback with audio, and that is that I can’t highlight. I rely heavily on highlights and notes to retain the contents. However, lack of highlights obviously applies to all audio, not just double speed.
I think I remember more than as much at double speed, because my mind doesn’t wander so much. The downside is that when it does wander, the speaker has more often moved on to another point by the time I come back, so I have to rewind.
Like Constant I have not noticed any retention problems at increased playback speeds.
To increase the speed at which you comprehend I recommend using a program that can increment the speed by 10% at a time that way you can ease your way to 2-4 times speed.
Not if you don’t process the information in the same way.
Humans have faster tactile reflexes than visual; you can respond more quickly to a movement that you can feel than to one that you can only see. A person might be able to perform chi sao very quickly, but not be able to respond to attacks of the same speed when they’re not in contact with the assailant.
Similarly, I’m pretty sure that I can process written words at a speed at which spoken words would be pure gibberish.
I said suggests, not proves. The point of the word “suggests” is precisely to acknowledge compactly that one can easily raise objections such as the one you raised.
You seem to be referring to speeds at which the phonemes become indistinguishable. But that doesn’t happen at double speed, which is what I was talking about. Nor is that the pitfall we were talking about, because the pitfall was that certain content rich texts might be too hard to comprehend at double speed. Rich content isn’t a fact about the phonemes.