![]() ![]() Therefore, it seems inconsistent to argue for longer reads because of returns to specialization and then read all types of books. The strongest counterargument to this idea, though, is that many voracious long-readers read a wide swath of genres and topics. Knowing a few things to a deeper level might make up for having greater, broad summary-level knowledge because you can specialize in conversations and intellectual arenas which benefit from that deeper insight. In this view, because summary-level knowledge is common, you can get a competitive advantage by having read works in greater depth. The average educated adult probably knows that Niccolo Machiavelli had some pretty ruthless advice, but don’t know what he actually suggested in The Prince. The second hypothesis I have is that most people only get the gist of major thinkers. Theory #2: Summaries are Well-Known, Depth is What’s Lacking Certainly some of the value of a book must lie in the specific knowledge it imparts? If this theory were true it would certainly make a lot of other reading habits seem futile beyond merely supporting reading in more depth. So a really long, good book on a topic will provoke much longer reflection and therefore have a much larger impact than a short summary or perhaps even many short summaries. Thinking about the book’s content while you read it is what matters. In this light, reading a hard book is more than just the ideas you obtain from it. The first theory I have is that the value of books comes not only from their ideas, which of course can often be gleaned from a summary, but from being a difficult mental task that requires focus and simultaneously guides deeper thinking. Theory #1: The Value of Books is Elevating Thinking So I have a couple theories of why my friend’s strategy seems, at first glance, to make a lot of sense, but why it is relatively unused amongst the very people who seem to care a lot about getting the knowledge from hard reads. So where’s the flaw in that line of reasoning? What’s Wrong with Reading Summaries? If reading the same material experiences diminishing returns, then reading a book twice must be less efficient than reading it once or reading just a summary. Given our previously stated assumptions and arguments, this strategy would (appear) entirely backwards. Go back and reread said classic, taking as much time as you may need.” After finishing the classic, read a good deal of the secondary literature…ģ. Plow through as needed, and make finishing a priority.Ģ. Read a classic work straight through, noting key problems and ambiguities, but not letting them hold you back. In fact, they frequently use the opposite-going over hard books multiple times.Ĭonsider economist and polymath Tyler Cowen, writing about his strategy for reading great books: But, when I look around the world at world-famous polymaths and autodidacts, I rarely see them using this strategy. The internal consistency of this book-reading strategy seems to make sense to me. If a higher concentration of value can be obtained by reading a summary than a full book, it will always make more sense to keep reading summaries. ![]() The marginal value of reading an extra book doesn’t diminish quickly.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |