>I cannot remember the books I've read any more than the meals I have eaten; even so, they have made me.
I heard those quote for the first time about 4 years ago. I had often been a bit disappointed with myself for not taking more notes while reading, or reviewing what I read in a way where I could be one of those people to bring up quotes and concepts, citing back to the original source, with freakish accuracy. This quote made me feel better about simply reading, getting whatever I get out of it, and trusting that I’ve gained some perspective, even if I can’t cite all the sources that built my perspective on a topic.
> simply reading, getting whatever I get out of it, and trusting that I’ve gained some perspective,
This is the way to approach it, particularly in these times when knowledge is so vast and there is so much to read. The principle to keep in mind is "Knowledge for Knowledge sake."
But what has happened ever since Industrialization is the focus on output (for a Economy). Hence everything is supposed to be done for a job/money/fame/etc. which i believe is detrimental in the general case.
> particularly in these times when knowledge is so vast and there is so much to read.
I come down on the other side of this. The implicit assumption here is that more is better, but it's like drinking from the firehose.
> The principle to keep in mind is "Knowledge for Knowledge sake."
The other position is that knowledge is only useful if it lets you do something that you couldn't do without it.
If you're gaining knowledge for the pleasure of gaining it, and I see no need to justify why one would do this, then whether you read deeply or read widely doesn't make much of a difference.
But if you want to do something with that knowledge, the approach you take should be informed by what you want to do.
> The implicit assumption here is that more is better,
No, that is the assumption that you are making and not what i meant. It is an undeniable fact that today we have a far far greater amount of Scientific and Technological Knowledge (sheer Data without making any value judgements) than in any time in the past Human history. Our Society's dependence on Science/Technology has also increased exponentially since the beginning of Industrialization thus forcing us to know/learn more and more. Also see my comment here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40154158
> The other position is that knowledge is only useful if it lets you do something that you couldn't do without it.
This is a very limiting viewpoint which is what the posted article and my comments are arguing against. The utility of some knowledge may not be apparent at its inception but may turn out to be of utmost importance when other fields have also developed so everything can come together into a greater whole. A good example is how Materials Science revolutionized Civil Engineering in the building of man-made structures.
> If you're gaining knowledge for the pleasure of gaining it, and I see no need to justify why one would do this, then whether you read deeply or read widely doesn't make much of a difference.
The justification has to do with getting exposed to a greater amount of concepts/ideas and not necessarily understanding/assimilating everything. Here reading widely does make a difference.
> But if you want to do something with that knowledge, the approach you take should be informed by what you want to do.
Only in the specific case when the end-goal/knowledge is clear eg. Engineering. Many a time in scientific research one does not even know the utility of something until sometime in the future when things align correctly. A great example is "Number Theory" which G.H.Hardy thought useless as a practical discipline but which has turned out to be indispensable in today's information technology (in cryptography etc.) centric world.
> It is an undeniable fact that today we have a far far greater amount of Scientific and Technological Knowledge
I don't dispute it. What I dispute is the implication I believe your proposing, which is "there is more knowledge, and therefore we need to read broadly and not focus as much on deep understanding". If that is not what you mean, please correct me since I don't see what other implication you mean.
> The utility of some knowledge may not be apparent at its inception but may turn out to be of utmost importance when other fields have also developed so everything can come together into a greater whole.
I don't disagree. But to apply this knowledge later you need to have remembered about it, and writing notes (which is where this discussion started) absolutely helps with this. I'm arguing for writing down the concepts that you found important or interesting at the time, not a synopsis of each subchapter.
> The justification has to do with getting exposed to a greater amount of concepts/ideas and not necessarily understanding/assimilating everything. Here reading widely does make a difference.
But reading widely only makes a difference to the degree that you do assimilate the content and that it changes you.
> Many a time in scientific research one does not even know the utility of something until sometime in the future when things align correctly.
Except we are not talking about doing scientific research (where I agree getting more knowledge is the whole point). We're talking about reading other people's work to get something out of it. And, especially, in this context there is a trade-off between "just in case" knowledge and "just in time" knowledge.
> which is "there is more knowledge, and therefore we need to read broadly and not focus as much on deep understanding". If that is not what you mean, please correct me since I don't see what other implication you mean.
I did not say "not focus as much on deep understanding". I am only talking about exposure to all sorts of concepts/ideas. When the time for application of knowledge comes, depth will be achieved as a matter of course since it becomes a prerequisite. Reading broadly and widely for knowledge (so to say to get a map of the terrain) is different from reading deeply for a specific objective/need and has to be cultivated consciously.
> But to apply this knowledge later you need to have remembered about it, and writing notes (which is where this discussion started) absolutely helps with this. I'm arguing for writing down the concepts that you found important or interesting at the time, not a synopsis of each subchapter.
I think maybe you are confusing my comments with somebody else's and meant this as a reply to somebody else? I have not mentioned note-taking in any of my comments in this thread.
However, In past HN threads to do with note-taking, i do argue for the benefits of this discipline but in the context of this thread i am only arguing for "Reading broadly and widely" (with/without note-taking).
> But reading widely only makes a difference to the degree that you do assimilate the content and that it changes you.
No, mere exposure and fuzzy understanding is many a times good enough. Assimilation can be superficial or in-depth as needs dictate. What Reading widely/broadly enables is to see interconnections/interplay between various subjects the very existence of which you might have been unaware of earlier. This is particularly true in today's times where there is so much knowledge that it is impossible to go deep into everything.
> Except we are not talking about doing scientific research (where I agree getting more knowledge is the whole point). We're talking about reading other people's work to get something out of it. And, especially, in this context there is a trade-off between "just in case" knowledge and "just in time" knowledge.
I was using the example of "Scientific Research" since it is the classic textbook exemplar of knowledge before utility. But the same idea is also applicable to reading various subjects. It is also the case that "just in case" knowledge will generally always trump "just in time" knowledge. As an example, you can write software without knowing anything about predicate logic/formal methods. There is no "just in time" to acquire this knowledge unless you happen to work on projects where they are needed (a very small percentage). But if you were to study this "just in case" and even if you don't use it rigorously the very act of knowing it will allow you think about program construction in a whole new light which will give you superior insight and increase your effectiveness/productivity immeasurably.
> I did not say "not focus as much on deep understanding". I am only talking about exposure to all sorts of concepts/ideas.
This discussion started because the person you replied to was saying "[I was] dissapointed with myself for not taking more notes ... This quote made me feel better about simply reading, getting whatever I get out of it".
You replied "This is the way to approach it, particularly in these times when knowledge is so vast and there is so much to read."
This response, to me, appears to be based on the assumption that because there is a vast amount of knowledge available, one must read more of it and keep up with it simply because there is more of it.
> I think maybe you are confusing my comments with somebody else's and meant this as a reply to somebody else? I have not mentioned note-taking in any of my comments in this thread.
See my comment above, this started with the person your replied to talking about giving up on note taking while reading.
> What Reading widely/broadly enables is to see interconnections/interplay between various subjects the very existence of which you might have been unaware of earlier.
I would counter that one does not see the existence of such connections with only superficial understandings. For example, most undergraduate students struggle, even after many courses, to connect the expected solution to a problem set up for them; to say nothing of being able to draw connections between subjects.
Yes there is great value in being able to go between many domains and to tie them together, but it is not immediately obvious why this would be more valuable than digging deeply in a smaller number
> This is particularly true in today's times where there is so much knowledge that it is impossible to go deep into everything.
See my point from above about the lack of imperative for reading more simply because there is more to read.
> if you were to study this "just in case" and even if you don't use it rigorously the very act of knowing it will allow you think about program construction in a whole new light which will give you superior insight and increase your effectiveness/productivity immeasurably.
I agree that you can't study something "just in time" if you don't know that it exists. The issue is that a great many things can (or claim to) "give you superior insight and increase your effectiveness/productivity immeasurably". You don't have time to learn about all of them. And when choosing to pick what to look at next, I argue that searching for the thing related to your current problem is more valuable knowledge than a that which you get "just in case".
> This discussion started because the person you replied to was saying "[I was] dissappointed with myself for not taking more notes ... This quote made me feel better about simply reading, getting whatever I get out of it". You replied "This is the way to approach it, particularly in these times when knowledge is so vast and there is so much to read.
No, you seem to have conveniently ignored the particular phrase of the parent's comment to which i was commenting, to wit; "simply reading, getting whatever I get out of it, and trusting that I’ve gained some perspective," It is right there at the beginning of my comment and i am expanding only on this sentiment and nothing else. Hence i am not sure where you are getting your other assumptions from. If i had wanted to expand on note-taking i would have explicitly called out the parent's relevant phrases which i did not.
> I would counter that one does not see the existence of such connections with only superficial understandings.
Hard Disagree, you can definitely see some connections with even "superficial" understanding however fuzzy/incomplete they might be. For example, i can tell a programmer to think of the types of his program variables as a set and the variable itself ranging over the collection of values in this set. Next i can tell him to think of his logical conditions using these variables as logical predicates establishing a mathematical relation between various values amongst the above sets. With just this "superficial" knowledge of Sets, Cartesian Product, Relations and Predicates he can now see a connection between Mathematics and his Program enabling him to come up with better and more comprehensive Pre/Post conditions and write "correct" code.
> Yes there is great value in being able to go between many domains and to tie them together, but it is not immediately obvious why this would be more valuable than digging deeply in a smaller number
This should be obvious by now; you are increasing the size of your "known unknowns" and hopefully decreasing the size of "unknown unknowns".
> You don't have time to learn about all of them. And when choosing to pick what to look at next, I argue that searching for the thing related to your current problem is more valuable knowledge than a that which you get "just in case"
Of course Time/Energy are limited and universal constraints on everything a Human can do; that is not an argument. If you are working towards something specific, your study should be targeted but not necessarily limited to it. This is where "Reading broad/wide" is needed. As an example, you have loads of Web programmers today who limit themselves to only using higher level frameworks/libraries to write distributed apps but have no clue (not even "superficial") of the underlying TCP/IP stack. Having some idea of the application layer HTTP protocol and its interactions with the underlying TCP/IP stack is a must for any distributed app developer but because things have been abstracted and encapsulated so nicely many don't even bother getting a "superficial" knowledge of these fundamental technologies thus severely limiting their effectiveness troubleshooting when things go wrong.
This is where your Intellect's "Power of Discrimination" comes into play i.e. you are the decider on what is "Knowledge" or "Nonsense" for you. A good example is "Organized Religion".
Writing is a powerful learning tool also. I am often surprised that programming books and other learning materials don’t encourage writing and note taking, outside of an academic environment.
Just the act of writing an idea or a concept down helps to instil it in your mind, helping you either remember it or continue conceptualise the material you are learning about.
Reading, learning, doing and writing it all down is a powerful combination to accelerate learning, at least in my experience.
I still write a fair amount, I just don’t write book reports. The environment I find comfortable for reading isn’t conducive to taking notes that would be needed for writing later.
If there is a particular passages that really stands out I will note it down. I have a little collection of those (and other quotes) I sometimes read through.
I use a blank paper sheet as bookmark and carry a pen, so that I write down important notes from the book content on the bookmark. Afterwards the book is - ideally and dependent on the content - condensed to one sheet, that I can refer to later. It also helps with retaining the content.
I’ve tried this with an index card once and quickly filled it up. As I ran out of space I found myself question if someone was card worthy, which was a distraction.
I also tried writing in the margins on a book. I don’t like writing in the book due to it losing a lot of ability to shared after the fact, or if the book isn’t mine it’s a non-starter. That said, it was a very different experience, it was more like having a conversation with the author.
I may need to experiment more to try and find something that works.
I have also not found a great way to take notes while reading books, but most of my reading is on my computer right now. That makes digital note taking the obvious choice, and space isn't really an issue in that case. My way of deciding what to take notes on is by simply asking myself: could I want to remember this in the future? If the answer is yes (it usually is if I even considered asking it) I make a note of it. The note minimally contains a reference to the source, and some links to related topics. The links to related topics allows me to discover the note in the future by referencing the backlinks on those topics.
I recommend looking into the Zettelkasten method for note taking, if you are not already familiar. It is originally used with index cards, so you might find it to be a useful way to handle taking notes on index cards. I use a Zettelkasten-inspired digital note taking system called Org Roam. The thing I like the most about Zettelkasten is that it minimizes the effort for getting your ideas out of your head. You can worry about organizing the ideas after you have them laid out in front of you.
I use Obsidian at work to organize and plan. When looking up ways to effectively use that I stumbled down the Zettelkasten rabbit hole. It’s a little too involved for my needs. It seems like it might be good if I was doing research to write a book, but is too involved for my daily life. I can see where taking and organizing the notes would turn into a hobby, which is enough of a problem for me already.
I’ve considered reading on the computer, maybe I should actually give it a try.
> I’ve considered reading on the computer, maybe I should actually give it a try.
I should note that I haven't actually gotten into a workflow where I read ebooks and take notes. Most of the reading I do is documentation for systems I program with. I take tons of notes on documentation so I can easily find what I need again in the future.
> I found myself question if someone was card worthy, which was a distraction.
I think having a whole sheet might help. It's not enough to copy everything, but enough not to get sidetracked. Also, you might write down a reference to a page and 1-2 keywords only, or a couple of keywords describing one's own thought regarding a piece of content + a page reference.
You could try searching for "Post-it Flags, 200/High Volume Desk Grip Dispenser"
* They remove cleanly, if you're worried about permanently marking up or defacing a book.
* They are easy to write on (I've mostly used EF nib fountain pens).
* Best of all, since they are color-coded, you can invent your own scheme (e.g. blue == "I should revisit this", yellow == "my top N favorite quotes from this book", etc.)
Edit: to add another point
* They are large enough that you can write a decent sentence in there -- the "page flag" size might be a tad too small for that (but thanks to the EF nib, I often find myself using different-colored flags).
How do you know that writing has improved the way that you think? By what metrics did you come to that conclusion? If someone else showed you that by writing their transformed thinking reduced their quality of life, would you be less prescriptive to others?
I have never experienced people telling me I have a good memory before I started my current writing habit. Within the last few months I have noticed 3 or 4 times people have made remarks about me having a good memory. I don't think that I actually have a much better memory than I used to, I think I have just offloaded so much that was occupying my brain into my computer without fear of forgetting it, that I am able to allocate a lot more memory towards things people actually notice.
I also believe I spend much more of my mental capacity on reason rather than recall. I think I have gotten slightly better at reasoning due to that, just going off how I feel when I try to reason about things; I feel more lucid than I used to. Trying to "remember" things is really more of a mechanical process for me than it is a mental one. I think of some keyword that is vaguely related to the concept I'm interested in, and then hop around the hyperlinks and backlinks in my notes until I find what I'm looking for.
Sometimes I will start this process to find a spot that I want to start writing a new note, only to discover that I have actually written the note already! That is always a trip when it happens.
I'm pretty sure it's my ADHD causing me to have horrendous memory issues but I have read so, so many books since I was a kid. Have tons of favorites. Stuff like the entire Wheel of Time series, things like that.
I can barely remember anything but vague events and characters. Like, my favorite book is Canticle for Leibowitz which I've read multiple times but I couldn't even tell you the main characters name other than he's a priest-type of character and what the general book is about.
I guess one benefit of that is that I can read the same book over and over and over again but like you said, it feels so strange/wrong that I can't remember so much more.
Reading more complicated things like G.E.B., Michel de Montaigne, etc is practically pointless for me, I won't remember any of the theories/quotes and it feels practically useless to even go through. By the time I'm on chapter 5 I've probably forgotten 1-4.
> where I could be one of those people to bring up quotes and concepts, citing back to the original source, with freakish accuracy
If you cannot retrieve a few timeless (to you or in general) quotes/concepts/dialogues and a few trending ones (trending in big or small circles) - there is some amount of info/tasks overload going on.
Also I think we find people who can "bring up quotes and concepts with freakish accuracy" cool for some reasons.
I heard those quote for the first time about 4 years ago. I had often been a bit disappointed with myself for not taking more notes while reading, or reviewing what I read in a way where I could be one of those people to bring up quotes and concepts, citing back to the original source, with freakish accuracy. This quote made me feel better about simply reading, getting whatever I get out of it, and trusting that I’ve gained some perspective, even if I can’t cite all the sources that built my perspective on a topic.