I took a typing speed test at “TypingTest.com” (Lissa blogged about it, heheh). I’m never a terribly accurate typer, and on a different trial run, I got only 90% of the words. One thing I have always wondered about is the comparison between my maximum typing speed and the speed at which I can create prose. So, for reference and without further ado, here’s my baseline speed at which I type, if I am in the perfect situation of copying text on-screen.
| Net Speed: |
95 WPM
(words/minute) |
| Accuracy: |
95% |
| Gross Speed: |
99 WPM
(words/minute) |
As you can see, I’m effectively around 90 WPM. I think that’s decent, although that does also mean that I haven’t improved significantly since early high school or so (in middle school, I played this strange typing game involving invading letters/words and also typed long passages of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, to achieve mid-70s range. I’ve never been and probably never will be particularly accurate, because when I am reading very quickly, my fingers do not usually act in order, but act as soon as they are given the cue that they will be needed).
Now, I am going to blog about two different topics: one will be a memory-dictation exercise, in which I will write and reflect about today. Then, I will blog about a philosophical topic, hidden excesses and indirect immorality.
Passage 1
Today, the “cooking group” from last summer reconvened, and it was a heartfelt return to one of the happiest sorts of patterns to have in one’s life. There’s nothing quite like the relaxing feeling of falling back into a ritual – especially when that ritual involves food and games, too! As usual, we caught the Saferide to go to Super 88; per usual, I got motion-sick on the way there; and as usual, we split up to our individual restaurant choices before settling down at a crowded table, under the muted TV, waiting however bitterly long for everyone to bring back their (sic) meal before commencing chow time.
106 words in 2:13, or ~48 WPM.
Passage 2
It’s really easy to say that people should not do wrong things, but how many people really think about their indirect wrongs? Ethicism seems to focus primarily on intent, when in fact most of the absolutist writings – chief amongst those, fantasy books or philosophy volumes – are nearly useless, because they assume that evil stems from evil nature. Temptation, seduction, failure of will. Or perhaps alternate motives – stealing for sustenance, hurting someone to help someone else.
But I would argue that evil doesn’t ordinarily come in those forms. Nearly every person I have ever met, from any walk of life, has been a kind person, a well-mannered person, a reasonable and morally sound person. So why is there evil and suffering in the world? I think that it’s because of the things we let slip between the cracks. There are cracks here and there, and most people do not notice them at all.
Funding and funds are a big part of this. Organizations and campaigns receive well-meaning donations from individuals; fundraisers rake in cash; companies earn significant profits. This money then comes into play in order to carry out necessary functions of the groups. However, at the same time, money begins to seep out in the form of superfluous spending, and efficiency drops significantly.
213 words in 4:34, or 47 WPM.
My point in this second passage, btw, which I didn’t really get to, is that evil is an indirect consequence of decisions. Taking a free sandwich means that someone else will not receive it; spending funding money on a lab party makes lab members happy, but the donors thought they were funding cancer research; buying land to build a new building can displace residents who once lived there. The other day, to catch a cab, I had to stand on the street in the snow. But this actually meant catching the cab before it made it to the hospital. But wasn’t there a line of people waiting for cabs at the hospital? Even though that cab may never have been headed to the hospital, perhaps it was. If I had not thought of this situation, would it have been a less bad action? Probably not. Indirect effects, intended or not, are the source of shortcomings in human behavior and progress, my own included.
Conclusions
1. Synthesis of text is indeed the rate-limiting step, not typing speed. Using original thought cuts down the typing speed by about 50% (half-speed). A 500-word essay would hypothetically take 10 minutes to compose, although high-rate synthesis clearly leads to divergence of text and poor organization.
2. There is not much of a difference between the rate of creation of brand-new ideas and the recollection of memories, put into words. The slowest step is thus probably the visualization step, in which the ideas or memories are formed into movies, whose playback is recorded as words.