If you were taught using “whole word” or “three-cueing” strategies (I’m guessing you were given the three cue method, as that’s been pushed in the past two decades pretty hard, to the detriment of everyone, but whole word isn’t great either) you’re more likely to have internalized inefficient, error-prone, and mentally tiring reading habits. Obviously you can still read, but you will find it more difficult and less enjoyable, adding an extra layer of stress when learning other things that is actually unnecessary.

It’s possible you learned/figured out phonics on your own from exposure. Some are able to do this— humans are the best pattern finding machines in the universe at the moment— in which case these problems won’t present themselves. However, being taught wrong can create issues such as guessing words based on context (or images/diagram presented with the text), skimming for clues instead of deciphering the word itself, memorizing entire words instead of pieces of them that contain sounds and meaning.

These strategies all “work”… they enable you to read, but they create extra problems when you encounter new, uncommon, or just unfamiliar words (necessary when learning new concepts), when the context is unclear (such as when picking up a new novel to read, or analyzing technical or scientific papers without illustrations), or when you need to read and comprehend things quickly and under timed pressure (such as when there are work deadlines, or… you know, standardized tests).

You can read, sure, but you probably can’t read well, unless you’ve managed to figure out patterns and strategies that weren’t expressly taught to you on your own.

Here’s an article that may lay things out for you clearly. It says much of what I’ve said here, but with more detail and probably better prose. It’s a persuasive piece, but it is backed by the current scientific research and understanding we have. At a Loss for Words: How a flawed idea is teaching millions of kids to be poor readers