|
@andy_matuschak | |||||
|
The best theory I have is something like: it takes so much effort to do these "expert" reading practices now that such readers burn their willpower and mental energy on running those processes, rather than on the ideas themselves.
But I don't know! Gives me pause!
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Andy Matuschak
@andy_matuschak
|
30. pro |
|
One way to dream up post-book media to make reading more effective and meaningful is to systematize "expert" practices (e.g. How to Read a Book), so more people can do them, more reliably and more cheaply. But… the most erudite people I know don't actually do those things!
|
||
|
|
||
|
Andy Matuschak
@andy_matuschak
|
30. pro |
|
There's a funny response curve: folks who are super-diligent about note-taking practices or building simulations seem to generally end up with less insight than their somewhat-less-diligent neighbors.
Maybe it's a explore/exploit thing? Or maybe just a wonk/gestalt thing?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Joe Edelman 🐝
@edelwax
|
30. pro |
|
I’m a turtle, so I tend to read by interrogating a book based on a question I have for it, and have had for most of my life. This gives me a very different context than most readers and makes especially fox/rabbit note-taking approaches a no-go.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Andy Matuschak
@andy_matuschak
|
30. pro |
|
Fox/rabbit note-taking approaches?!
|
||
|
|
||
|
Ben Reinhardt
@Ben_Reinhardt
|
30. pro |
|
I suspect there's a phenomenon where you have to go through intense structure in order to build the "feel" to not need it.
This hunch comes from my experience with exercise and nutrition - I can get away without tracking macros or an exercise program *because* of past structure.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Ben Reinhardt
@Ben_Reinhardt
|
30. pro |
|
So there may still be value in making that structure lower overhead.
Ooo another example is Headspace: I would not have built a meditation habit without it but now I no longer need it.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Alec Resnick
@aresnick
|
4. sij |
|
One way to interpret it is as the relative contribution of diligence in input and passion in output to expertise. (Of course, an even more fundamental question is the relative contribution of input and output to expertise as well.)
|
||
|
|
||
|
Alec Resnick
@aresnick
|
4. sij |
|
For many, diligence in input becomes its own output. The question of why that acts as such a poor substitute for authentic output when it comes to developing expertise is quite interesting IMO!
|
||
|
|
||
|
The Codex
@codexeditor
|
30. pro |
|
IMO, the only way forward is to use these tools ourselves and iterate on them without self deception or hype. My greatest fear is that the best hypertext system will become just another click-hole to disappear down.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The Codex
@codexeditor
|
30. pro |
|
I suspect the fundamental problem is passive vs. active participation. Note paper or word processors may trump knowledge bases because they force you to be active, to paraphrase, summarise, and analyse: grow neural connexions.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Geoffrey Litt
@geoffreylitt
|
30. pro |
|
I've noticed this too! Maybe explicit practices are good scaffolding up to intermediate, but experts can break the rules after mastering them? Or, certain people have natural tendencies (eg habits from childhood) so they don't need the practices?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Geoffrey Litt
@geoffreylitt
|
30. pro |
|
I think "what's helpful for the average person to improve by 2x" and "what are the top 1% doing" have different answers in many fields
(also FWIW, I credit "how to read a book" with improving my reading ability by 2x!)
|
||
|
|
||