I'm the same way, and the reason is simple - I played MUDs as a kid. I can hit > 100 wpm easily if my brain can keep up. Occasionally something will throw me; a weird bit of punctuation, like the shift + number keys, but that's about it. I've tried to learn to touch type, but the drop in speed, and the promise of ending up basically where I am now means I just don't care. The way I move my hands and wrists and such probably also helps avoid carpal tunnel, though I have nothing other than my own suspicions (and the 20+ years I've been typing without issue or concern over posture/wrist rests/etc) to base that on.

Thank you for your detailed answers, I appreciate them.

> Sure, but I don't agree that touch typing is "the" technique and that it's impossible that someone else has come up with a better one independently. Touch typing is a good way to type well, but I don't think it's distinct from "typing", it's one way to type. Just like you can play the guitar even if you don't know the technique.

I think you have a point here. Touch typing may not be "the" technique. We should always be open to new and better techniques and not embrace touch typing as a dogma, of course. And okay, it's only one way to type, and there are surely other ways to type.

I'm not saying that everybody has to learn touch typing because it was sent by the gods. I'm not even the biggest fan myself. I agree that it has its problems and I know for a fact that there are a lot of people out there with their own techniques who easily outperform touch typists.

So I'm not defending touch typing "at all costs".

I was praising it because I have an educator's perspective here and have the general public in mind, especially when I offer general advice in a forum like this. At the start of this thread I was replying to a person who seemingly didn't know much about touch typing.

While there are reports of other techniques that easily outperform touch typing in terms of wpn, accuracy and comfort; there are other properties of a technique that may or may not be important depending on one's perspective.

Let's call them "teachability" and "time of mastery". Touch typing is a very valuable tool not just because it allows one to perform sufficiently in terms of wpm & accuracy, but also because it is very easy to teach it. One doesn't even need a teacher as it's completely public and straightforward knowledge. There are very clear instructions on how to master it, and the mastery happens in 3-6 months. All very predictable and guaranteed. I don't know of any other technique that is comparable in this regard.

And there are so many people out there who don't know about touch typing or realize how much better it can make their lives. Touch typing is their quickest path to better productivity.

I cannot tell those people that: "There is this established typing technique that you can master in 3 months, but maybe don't learn it, because there are reports that there are people who developed their own better techniques in a couple of years, and there is a possibility that you can end up like them".

Obviously, the expert's and the educator's perspectives are different here, so I don't really think we're in a big disagreement.