How can you retain information if you don't subvocalize? I can get the general gist but details become harder to pick up.
>>7366863
Ever catch yourself watching a mini-movie in your head, and then you forget you're reading?
Just keep reading.
>>7366871
>Ever catch yourself watching a mini-movie in your head, and then you forget you're reading?
Literally no
>>7366871
You mean like when your really into a book, and you stop paying attention to the words, and instead picture what's happening inside the book, in you mind?
>>7366863
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_loci
>>7367174
No, creative people sometimes have their imagination triggered.
>>7367174
>>You mean like when your really into a book, and you stop paying attention to the words, and instead picture what's happening inside the book, in you mind?
wait, do people do this ?
I don't get pictures in my head. I think about three times I've had an image kind of flash, but that's about it. The idea of a "running reel" while reading kind of blows my mind. Do you guys actually experience books like this?
>>7367407
Wait people dont do this? What is reading like for you then?
>>7367416
This haha. I can't imagine reading a book without visualizing almost entirely what's going on. This is the first thread where I've heard of people who DON'T do that.
>>7367438
>Oh, I see what you mean now, you just described it really badly.
explain it to me then, im a literal retard
Let's see if I can describe this. When I read and get really into it, it's like watching a movie of what's happening, and I really do forget sometimes that I'm taking in words from a page. But I don't actually see the images I'm imagining per se. It's like watching a movie if it were being projected on to a screen inside my skull, just behind my eyeballs, instead of in front of them. Does anyone sorta get what I'm talking about?
>>7367460
Is this a lit meme or something?
>>7367460
yeah I get the same thing and I'm pretty sure everyone does except the few retard no imagination people in this thread
>>7367438
>How do you read and not do this? It must be such an insanely dry experience for you.
indeed, this is why I do not read novels.
>>7367472
I have issues with doing it, but your mind slides into it naturally after getting the hang of the story. It's harder if the book jumps around a lot, but that's what's supposed to happen when reading.
>>7367472
yes I remember reading richard dawkins and imagining natural selction occuring in fact I'm doing i right now thinking about the evolution of peas
philosophy I do it as well, especially imagining ehtical situations and ontology
sounds like you are defecient
do you have dreams?
>>7367472
With fiction it's more of a naturally flowing 'watching a movie' type feel, granted that I'm into what I'm reading. With philosophy or scientific texts, I generally prefer discussion to reading just because I personally feel more comfortable learning that way, but when I do read on those subjects, I have to sort of force my imagination to picture visualizations of specific scenes pertaining to a concept I'm grappling with
>>7367442
Hes saying that sometimes, when reading, something will happen which will spark your imagination, and you proceed to daydream for a minute due to this. After a few minutes you realize you've zoned out completely and go back to reading. I can't say whether this is common, but it happens to me from time to time.
Rather than watching a movie I put myself inside the world as if I was a character or watching the action from far away.
but >>7367460 is on point
I do the same for philosophy, but I try to get the image of what the writing is about.
for example, while reading say, Aristotle Politics, I think about diagrams explaining his system mixed goverment or things like that. If I don't do this I can't understand shit desu, that's why reading more Math-y books is a chore for me, while reading Plato or more illustrative writers is fun as fuck. Hell, even reading Foucault is harder for me than reading through Das Kapital, because I can have a mental image of what Marx describes.
The more abstract the writing is (and only the writing, it's not the ideas but how the guy writes), the harder.
You'll retain less if you don't subvocalize. Source: I stopped subvocalizing for a few years in college when I had to read a lot. Stuff sticks in your head less but if you have to you can usually remember it. Since then I've gone back to voluntarily subvocalizing because I think it's a more enjoyable way to read and retain info as long as you don't have to cram.
Why would you even read anything if you can't imagine whats happening. What are you just appreciating the font?
>>7367618
Some take pleasure from reading, some take pride.
Also that photo is profoundly disgusting. I'm gonna save it for later shitposting.
>>7367460
Its like getting the end-result-knowledge of vision without having your actual visual nerves stimulated. Like a shadow without a light sourxe
>>7367618
I sort of extract the meaning out without visualizing most of the time. I have to slow down and make visualization happen. Its naturally more of a tactile thing for me I think
>>7367486
I do have dreams, when I'm conscious though I can't even picture like a tennis ball. I'm pretty sure I am deficient. I still love reading, but I feel like I'm missing a huge part of the experience.
>>7367507
I get this sometimes, but it's more like disassembling what the author is saying. it never happens with books I call "trashy" like King et al. It's not a visual thing.
