Reading habits/techniques/strategies (second post on the topic)

I appreciate your effort doing this, thanks!

Another try in a condensed, less redundant form:

You didn't mention mnemonic systems: mnemonic major, method of loci, peg system, acronyms, acrostics etc. Does nobody else use these and are they too obvious/useless to mention?

For ankifying knowledge, these rules are essential. Do people disagree?

Planning what to read should probably include time estimation and you should select for the lowest hanging fruit for whatever purpose you're reading, i.e. priorization. There are neat applications for this purpose. You could also list other applications that people use, there are various alternatives for spaced repetition and mind mapping for example. There are also applications for keeping your notes organized.

Some criticism:

I don't think the things you mention for preventing boredom are primarily used for that purpose.
The article might be more readable if you used the bullet point system provided by the source code or figured some other way to list these things.

[-]Torello12y10

Thanks for the criticism.

I just tried to edit the post to use the bullet point system provided by the source code, but I couldn't get it to look the way I wanted it to--things wouldn't space out right, there were vertical lines popping up when I would indent, weird stuff I don't know how to fix.

I wrote the text in 2003 Word. I always have trouble with bullets, especially trying to change from one version of Word to another, or to an online word editor. I don't want to write pieces in the Less Wrong text editor because I'm afraid they will get erased accidentally. If you have any advice, please let me know.

I agree that the things I recommended to fight boredom aren't used primarily for that purpose. I see that as a strength; they deepen comprehension while also forcing you to do something, (hopefully) providing you with a task more stimulating than just reading.

[-]hyporational12y10

If you want the indentation to work consistently, one indentation is 4 spaces, two is 8, etc. Remember to put a space after the * or it will not work either.

Word formatting will not directly translate to web formatting. If you want to copy the text without formatting, use ctrl+shift+v when pasting it. I recommend writing future texts in notepad, or disabling all formatting options in Word.

If you want to quickly try to edit the bullet points of this article in Word, you can use the "find and replace" option to find - and replace it with *^s.

http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Comment_formatting

they deepen comprehension while also forcing you to do something, (hopefully) providing you with a task more stimulating than just reading.

While I agree with this point, I think it applies to most of the techniques that you listed.

[-]Torello12y00

Thank you for your formatting suggestions.

I tried to copy "text only" from Word, I'm not sure if this is the same as ctrl+shift+v.

I think I'll just write future posts in notepad and then format on Less Wrong, very good suggestion.

[-]Emile12y00

You didn't mention mnemonic systems: mnemonic major, method of loci, peg system, acronyms, acrostics etc. Does nobody else use these and are they too obvious/useless to mention?

I don't use those, I never learnt any mnemonics system (though I'm aware of them). I expect that mnemonics aren't nearly as popular here as spaced repetition is.

For ankifying knowledge, these rules are essential. Do people disagree?

Nope, I rely on those all the time (I remember reading that specific article at least three times, and wish more people would use them when I try using an Anki deck made by someone else (which I usually avoid anyway, making your own is more effective).

[-]roselilac12y20

I'm looking to build up a “tool-box” of strategies/techniques/habits for reading non-fiction effectively and efficiently.

My literal tool-box sometimes consists of multiple versions of the same material/book, specifically for technical books.

Either hard copy of the book plus individual chapters downloaded from subscription service (in some cases every chapter of a particular book) or hard copy of the book and purchased Ebook version. I don't have a hard copy for every electronic version, but if I particularly like/want for extra reinforcement the physical copy, I'll make space for it. I only do this with technical books, I've rarely (intentionally) bought a print version of non-tech non fiction or fiction for the last 2 years.

Three benefits:

Convenience/portability: I don't want to lug a physical copy certain places, especially the really big ones.
Reinforcement: Call me old school, but certain topics, I know I'm not going to mentally synthesize in electronic format. The multiple formats helps solidify those topics.
I'm a heavily linguistic learner, so the multiple versions is exciting.

[-]wattsd12y10

Thanks for putting this together. I came across a couple related links recently that I've found helpful : Ryan Holiday's note taking methods Ryan Holiday on "Digesting books above your level"

[-]Risto_Saarelma12y10

How to read a (good) book in one hour

[-]jetm12y00

I did not see this up there. I cannot think of a dense was of saying this at the moment, so I'll go ahead and ramble and hope someone finds it useful.

I am currently slogging through Causality by Pearl. It's probably a little above my level, but I'm getting most of it. However, just a little bit into the first chapter, he throws in stuff about covariance and regression coefficients that go way over my head. I almost gave up. Fortunately, I recognized them as terms from statistics. I inferred from his rapid coverage of it that it was included as an 'ooh, shiny!' moment for people who are already familiar with the terms. So I glazed over it and moved on. So far it hasn't been a problem, but I'm not terribly far into it either.

So maybe, don't dwell on stuff that you don't really need to? Focus on the important stuff?

[-]Emile12y10

However, just a little bit into the first chapter, he throws in stuff about covariance and regression coefficients that go way over my head.

M, my usual reflex in situations like that is to pause, look up the terms in question, as well as associated wikipedia pages, and see if I'm missing any basic knowledge; and once I'm more comfortable with those, go back to the more advanced book/article.

[-]jetm12y00

This is, of course, more ideal. Sadly, I get most of my books from unrenewable inter-library loans and therefore require an unfortunate focus on speed.

And now that I type this, I realize that nothing stops me from requesting a different edition of it a week or two before my current one is due......

[-][anonymous]11y-20

As a hereustic, I refer to Wikipedia only on some topics.

Several studies have been done to assess the reliability of Wikipedia. An early study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia’s scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of “serious errors”.[2] The study by Nature was disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica,[3] and later Nature replied to this refutation with both a formal response and a point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica’s main objections.[4] Between 2008 and 2012, articles in medical and scientific fields such as pathology,[5]toxicology,[6]oncology,[7]pharmaceuticals,[8] and psychiatry[9] comparing Wikipedia to professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia’s depth and coverage were of a high standard. According to a study published in the European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, however, Wikipedia articles about gastroenterology and hepatology were not reliable for medical students.[10] Concerns regarding readability were raised in a study published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology[11] and a study published in Psychological Medicine (2012).[9]

Reavley et al. (2012) compared the quality of articles on select mental health topics on Wikipedia with corresponding articles in Encyclopaedia Britannica and a psychiatry textbook. They asked experts to rate article content with regard to accuracy, up-to-dateness, breadth of coverage, referencing and readability. Wikipedia scored highest on all criteria except readability, and the authors concluded that Wikipedia is as good as or better than Britannica and a standard textbook.[9]"

LESSWRONG
LW

LESSWRONG
LW

28

Reading habits/techniques/strategies (second post on the topic)

28

28