|
@codexeditor | |||||
|
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.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
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?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Andy Matuschak
@andy_matuschak
|
30. pro |
|
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!
|
||
|
|
||
|
Iian Neill (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.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Iian Neill (The Codex)
@codexeditor
|
30. pro |
|
OTOH, linking and classifying is a powerful tool for connecting disparate texts.
My hunch is that any true "second brain" (although this term is a misnomer) will require more active participation than passive.
|
||
|
|
||