>Get one life
>Born a subvocalizer
Kill me now

>If I don't talk in my head im an NPC
>If I do then im a filthy subvocalizer
there is no winning

>>24480187 (OP)
Wait. There are people who don't subvocalise?

>>24480187 (OP)
>subvocalizer
Sorry I can't keep track of all the various terms for spergs, could you tell me what this means?

>>24480252
it's when you "speak" the words in your head as you read them.
most people do it; learning to speed-read involves teaching yourself to stop doing it

>>24480255
Oh, weird. The only time I hear voices in my head is dialogue where I give characters their own unique voices, or maybe their inner thoughts. I assumed most people just read the narrative without actually hearing words in their head.

>>24480187 (OP)
>he can't turn it on and off at will

>>24480187 (OP)
you can't truly appreciate prose if you aren't subvocalizing btw

>>24480187 (OP)
you need sub-vocalization you midwit. Start reading outloud

>>24480323
wat?

>>24480187 (OP)
Subvocalization is a good thing.
>There are some strange summer mornings in the country, when he who is but a sojourner from the city shall early walk forth into the fields, and be wonder-smitten with the trance-like aspect of the green and golden world. Not a flower stirs; the trees forget to wave; the grass itself seems to have ceased to grow; and all Nature, as if suddenly become conscious of her own profound mystery, and feeling no refuge from it but silence, sinks into this wonderful and indescribable repose.

>>24480275
This.

I've heard subvocalization defined as "reading the words in your head" and as "speaking the words inaudibly." Which is it? If you read the words in your head with no movement of the muscles involved in speech, are you subvocalizing?

>>24480442
your vocal cords do move when you subvocalize

This is an ancient meme and no one got it.

>>24480187 (OP)
you can learn to stop subvocalizing

>>24480572
yea, literally move your eyes over the words more quickly, you've learned

if your read a poem without subvocalizing, you can hardly be said to have read it at all.

>>24480187 (OP)
You have the will you know right?

>>24480445
Then I'll assume that you meant the latter.

>>24480255
>speed-read
Why the fuck would I need to read fast as opposed to read at my own pace while gaining a deep understanding of the subject? You can't fully absorb information if you rush through a book like an ADHD brainlet.

>>24480187 (OP)
People for thousands of years read out loud. I don't see the problem

>>24480187 (OP)
Its impossible to read without subvocalizing. It just is OKAY? You gotta pronounce words one way or the other

>>24480798
obviously to read the classics and be able to say that i've read them proudly

>>24480442
i can feel my tongue get antsy while reading because it probably is getting signals from my brain to speak what my eyes read. Its not intense, but I can sense it if I focus on it.

>>24480442
i thought it meant imagining yourself speak but apparently what it's referring to is a situation where the vocal chords are actually engaged

I, and probably all of you, too, only "subvocalize" when you're not focused. And when you're focused you don't realize you're not doing it, it just goes straight to your brain.

>>24480187 (OP)
>hold book
>close eyes and concentrate
>knowledge automatically pours into my mind
you guys are fucking plebs. get on my level

>>24480187 (OP)
If you don't subvocalize how do you notice the alliteration and rhyme in the words?
>Longing on a large scale is what makes history. This is just a kid with a local yearning but he is part of an assembling crowd, anonymous thousands off the buses and trains, people in narrow columns tramping over the swing bridge above the river, and even if they are not a migration or a revolution, some vast shaking of the soul, they bring with them the body heat of a great city and their own small reveries and desperations, the unseen something that haunts the day--men in fedoras and sailors on shore leave, the stray tumble of their thoughts, going to a game.

>>24482231
It doesn't work for poetry that's for sure

Speed reading is a meme for people who read for the sake of bragging to others how many books they've read. God forbid you ask them what those books were about.

>>24482231
Just read it in your head without engaging your vocal cords. It's easy for those of us with an inner monologue.

>>24482241
>ask them what those books were about.

>pull phone
>open chatgpt
>what does x book say (natural speech, like i'm talking to a friend who's asking)

>>24482246
That's what I do. Is that not the same thing? I thought the "speed reading" technique was to eliminate that.

>>24480187 (OP)
i half subvocalize where i just "hear" words instantaneously lmao

>>24482262
I just took a quick online reading speed test. When reading the words in my head at the speed of thought, I got 550 wpm, which is on the low end of what most speed reading courses seem to advertise. When "reading aloud silently," I got 180 wpm, which seems to be a bit slower than the average person, but I always include the indicated breaks and pauses when reading aloud and most other people seem to just blend it all in together.

>>24481892
You don't need to speed-read the classics. In fact, you should take your time to digest their majesty.

>>24480902
If I'm reading something for enjoyment (or a more thorny text), I usually subvocalize. I reserve quick reading for when I just need to get some information out of a text.

Yeah nigga that's how you recognize good prose. Stop wanting to consoom

>>24480187 (OP)
It's quite impossible not to subvocslize. It's a bullshit premise made up by practitioners of speed reading, which itself is also a bullshit premise.

>>24480187 (OP)
I subvocalize for slow-paced more difficult readings like STEM textbooks or German philosophy, sometimes I even mutter it under my breath if it's some autistic sentence by Heidegger. But for anything like online articles or novels I don't. There is nothing to be proud of if you speed-read philosophy.

>>24480187 (OP)

The trick is to only subvocalize every 3rd or 4th word and read words that stand out. It's a decent middle ground for comprehension and speed. Don't recommend it for fiction though.

Ps fuck the spam detector

>>24482538
What's it like not having an inner monologue?

>>24480798
>as opposed to
those two things aren't mutually exclusive. reading quickly has no impact on how you process the information.

if you really want to go the Le Heckin Lifehack xD route, try reading a physical text while simultaneously listening to an audiobook of the same text, cranked up to 3x speed or higher. it's astounding how well your brain can adjust and keep up with the text without losing anything

>>24482645
>watches one episode of le boys
>super smart sheboon is sitting on toilet doing exactly this
i know where you get your memes from, imitative retard.

>>24482829
>everything has to be tied back to Le Heckin Televisionerino
I completely forgot that she did that in the show, it was something a friend told me to try.
You have friends, don't you Anon?

>>24480187 (OP)
Switching off subvocalisation is very useful when reading through non-fiction (obviously nothing close to spiritual or philosophical). I would highly recommend anons cultivate this skill since it is useful in reducing the amount of time it takes to research.

Anything else should always be subvocalised save for poetry which should ideally be read out loud.

>>24480187 (OP)
do it yourself

>>24482538
>It's quite impossible not to subvocslize.
if you're a <90 IQ with no inner monologue then sure, it's impossible.

>>24480902
See >>24484845

Depends on the text. For predictable slop there's no need to slow down. For text that requires thinking I have to deliberately slow down, sometimes a lot. For interesting philosophy even audio books go too fast.
For poetry and emotive dialogue I use voices in my head.

>>24480255
>read words without hearing them in your head
You don't hear anything in your head, that's not what hearing is. That's like thinking your ability to visualise an apple is a hallucination.

>>24484845
>subvocalising is low IQ
>you gotta rely on your internal monologue, a voice inside your head
>which isn't subvocalising because it just isn't okay?
Clearly whatever this thread is on about, speed-readers just do it faster. It's not a different thing unless you're literally breathing with your mouth closed and undulating your tongue as if you're trying to read as quietly as possible, which is just a spergier way of vocalising.

>>24482631
>>24484845
That doesn't follow at all logically, but now that I'm thinking about it, when I wrote that I had failed to consider that people without internal monologue exist, so for the NPC it actually must be possible to read a sentence without somehow mentally conjuring "subvocalization," there remains an inseparable distinction between mentally taking in a word and subvocalizing it. Speed readers, then, aren’t truly bypassing subvocalization altogether; rather, they’re engaging in a different cognitive strategy that trades some depth of retention and nuanced understanding for sheer pace. The term “subvocalization” itself might be a misnomer in this context, as what’s happening isn’t a binary presence or absence of inner speech, but a modulation or attenuation of it, replaced by a more holistic or gestalt-like intake of text.
>>24485037
Exactly

Pretty funny watching all of the midwits outing themselves in this thread.

Sub-vocalization is pretty easy to kick. You could hum or repeat a phrase or listen to vocalized music while you read. You could also listen to the audiobook while you read and then 'read ahead' to break the aural link.

Once you do, you'll quickly realize you don't need to hear words to appreciate prose and the mechanics of prose. You'll come to understand that the aural component is an unnecessary mediation that actually clouds the appreciation of language - which itself always improves with noumenal immediacy.

>>24485068
>noumenal
couldn't help outing yourself as a midwit

>>24483677
I can't quite tell whether sitting in my back yard reciting poetry out loud to myself is based or cringe.

>>24480196
Funny thing about the camo outfit in Runescape: when you examine each part of the set, the text reads "Examine what?" I always get a good chuckle out of that.

>>24485037
See: >>24482274. Inner monologue is roughly speed reader pace, mouthing the words without speaking them of roughly "average reader" pace. Therefore it follows that "subvocalization" refers to mouthing the words, possibly subconsciously and with very small movements. The "sub" part just means that it's inaudible; if you were to vocalize the text you would be reading aloud.

>>24485064
I think maybe you're right if I understand you correctly, that "speedreading" is a technique to try to help those without an inner monologue try to reach the reading speed of those who have one. I think that also might be the source of some of the confusion about what the terms even mean, since there's probably some (many?) people without an inner monologue that subvocalize their thoughts to themselves all the time and think that the entire concept of an inner monologue is just some sort of figure of speech. It's also come to my attention that there's a much larger group of people who think the phrase "shiver down your spine" is purely a literary device and have never actually experienced a spine shiver/tingles/ASMR/whatever you want to call it.

>>24485832
>I can't quite tell whether sitting in my back yard reciting poetry out loud to myself is based or cringe

It's bringe. Best thing you can do is find frens and read through books together.

>>24485832
Reciting poetry to yourself is cringe. Reciting poetry to the people listening to the crazy guy talk to himself is based.

It means you have very strong verbal IQ desu

>>24480187 (OP)
your problem - it barely can be called one - is that your sub-vocalizations is happening at the speed of reality
you can train it not to do that by reading a lot and with purpose. when you get it right you'll still hear your voice, and it'll sound normal, but if you 'measure' it you'll realize it's like 2-3x faster than if you were actually speaking out loud

>>24486036
>find frens
:(

>>24485023
...yeah it fucking is a hallucinations actually lol, so is the inner monologue, so is regular stuff you see