Adaptation of six thinking hats to speedreading

When reading we often use highlighters.  In addition to very real physical highlighters, we may also use mental highlighters. The way we use the highlighters can become a bit tricky. The goal is very simple: remembering as much as we need and only what we need. And mental highlighters help us navigate. The methodology is inspired by the six thinking hats concept.

Segmentation of the text

When reading and rereading text, it is important to have some sort of segmentation for the text. The way we segment the text may be very different from what the author envisioned. We may follow the structure of parts and chapters or use a very different segmentation practice.

Whatever segmentation we use, it makes sense to color the text mentally using a meaningful color. If the text is editable, we can as well mark it in our editor. A possible way of training the skill is keeping two copies of the document. One copy would be marked mentally, and the other marked using a colorful text background. Then we could read and compare the copies until mental marking becomes as stable as editor marking.

Background and text coloring

In this article, I use background color marking and foreground text marking. For example, metacognition can be innovative, it can be total junk and it can also be normal readable text. This may mean a blue foreground and a green background. This dual marking is a new element in my segmentation methodology.

Notice that unless there is a reason to mark otherwise, the text will be black on a white background. Most of the text will probably stay this way even if some parts are marked otherwise.

Focus on innovation

In most texts, there are several parts. The most important part is the innovation, the reason for the author to write the text. Usually, this innovation is quite small, maybe a couple of paragraphs for a ten-pager. If we understand the subject and do not need the raw data, the innovation is the only important part of the document.

This statement is not always true, and I will showcase some examples, but it is the quintessential idea in the segmentation process of any text. We want to read the innovation. Then we want to read the entire text. And next, we read innovation again with a new context. We daydream about using what we just learned and read the innovation once more. So we need to mark well the innovation, for example, by using a green background.

Junk is not worth our attention

A good article will have zero junk. A bad article will be entirely junk. Most articles will have some junk. For example, the “background” part of scientific articles is usually junk. If for some reason, you find something innovative in the background, this means that you need to read the relevant sources and understand your subject better. As long as the subject is not new to you, the background is junk.

Journalists often add some personal stories, aimed to connect you emotionally with the subject. If you have zero emotional connection and relevant personal experience, this part might be a treasure. More often than not, it is a total junk. One example, especially if created specifically to show something, rarely deserves our attention.

Usually, I mark junk with a gray background. I might scan through it once at x5 normal reading speed to verify that I did not miss anything important. If I find something important, I use resources and keywords to learn the relevant subject and get the right background for acquiring new knowledge.

Motivational parts

Some content is written not to convey any new idea, but to convey some strong emotion. Motivational articles will distort reality to generate some strong emotions and call to action. The relevant parts are both very important and strongly untrustworthy. Not all articles have this part. Quite often it is junk, but equally often it is the main reason for reading the article, as we want to establish some new emotional background.

I typically use dark red color to change the colors of the letters. Motivational parts are better analyzed with subvocalization, so when reading them I may slow down to subvocalization speed. And I check the way I feel about the subject after each paragraph. Am I more motivated? Did my belief become stronger? Do I have an incentive to motivate others and spread the ideas?

For a normal person with normal interests, motivational reading should be rare, like visiting a church on Sundays for Christians. Possibly 10% of the reading. An abnormally high rate of motivational reading may hurt critical thinking, and introduce biases of filter bubbles and magical thinking. Abnormally low rates of motivational reading may signal boring and passionless individuals not motivated by a strong value system.

Metacognition

I mark a text with blue when it provides thinking about thinking, like the research methodology, philosophical reasoning about the nature of relevant knowledge, technological limitations measuring the right parameters, and so on.

Typically metacognition requires logical analysis and critical thinking. It can often be too complex to be understood without subvocalization, so it usually requires slowing down. If metacognition is not required, we might instead scan it at x5 normal reading speed just to get a feeling regarding the tools used by the author.  Quite often the relevant parts will be marked for rereading after we understand the subject better.

Brainstorming

Quite often texts are brainstorming with readers, suggesting various interesting ideas for further analysis. Call it ideation, brainstorming, call to action, or intellectual flirting, this reading is interesting. We can use it for our project ideas.

Usually, I highlight these parts in yellow, and after reading them I daydream about the subject and options for future projects. Quite often these parts can be used for strategizing, say SWOT (strength weakness opportunity threat) analysis.

Previously I used to apply different colors for opportunities and threats, strengths and weaknesses. This is a part of thinking hats mechanics. With time, I understood that the difference is mainly emotional reframing, so there is little point as a reader in using two colors.

Everything else

We could try separating numerical data, colorful descriptions, logical abridging between different ideas, and more. I do not think this is necessary. The fewer colors we use, the better. Names and numbers stand out by default as they already look differently. It is best when coloring is applied to entire paragraphs, and paragraphs could use several kinds of argumentation.

And yet my main argument is very simple: what is not marked differently should not be read differently. If for some reason a small part of the logical or numerical argumentation innovates, the text can be marked in dark green. Otherwise, most of our texts are “more of the same”.

Balance

I think that the proportions are 80/20, e.g. around 20% of the text should get colored. Around 80% should be either totally junk or “more of the same”. This is normal and signals a combination of intellectual and emotional maturity with openness to new ideas.

From the 20% marked probably only a small part, probably around 1% of the text deserves to be remembered forever.  Somewhat more can be used for speedwriting. Everything else helps with processing, ideation, intellectual and emotional understanding.

An average person reads 250wpm. With some training you can read 800wpm. I read 10000wpm and can teach anyone. Check out my speedreading masterclass with special discounts. You’re not required to pay the full price. Simply reach out to [email protected] and inquire about a substantial discount. Your satisfaction is assured.