This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Science Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Literature Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives (Index)

1 2

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors: [[Andragogy#Adult learning styles|Learning styles]] The anchor (#Adult learning styles) has been deleted. The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

Category:Pseudoscience on the grounds that said epithet (a highly, and often unfairly, stigmatizing epithet, IMO) was unwarranted, based on the content of the article. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I mean... I use mental reading and I'm at 750 WPM regularly.... Should add in something there that says that those rules aren't so rigid, that those numbers are just average. 24.244.29.53 (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

700wpm reports based on Rapid serial visual presentation shows that content contains legit info, cant find a comprehensive source though.

Herewith an assist:

Howard Berg - a fast reading and learning prodigy - mentions "schema" (psychology), as a factor that influences reading speed. The more you know about what you read, the more your brain can pull-up related knowledge and the easier facts stick in the memory. And for reasonings that are made in the article or facts that are mentioned, the (speed) readers can skim-read "jump" over those phrases and paragraphs, because they already know about them and scan the text for new facts to them or viewpoints and words or word-combinations not previously seen in the articles' context.

Anybody with time to weave mention it that in the article here. Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

the aforementioned howard berg was on the old jon stewart show, where he kept calling it "book rubbing", and spoke of chapters of "book rubbers" getting together.

i thought that maybe i was mishearing "book lovers", but no, he later made innuendo-laden cracks making it clear that the word was indeed "rubbing".

i'm guessing it comes from the idea of sliding your hand down the page as a reading guide?

even so, i cannot find even ONE use of the term anywhere online! anyone have any insight? 2601:18A:807C:1C40:4D68:7722:C5DC:4EF4 (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply