Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Need to Read

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 108 posts

Re: The Need to Read

#41

Post by jeffshek »

udkl wrote: post #20

I don't read entire non-fiction books anymore but just search for it's summaries or notes. Most non-fiction books revolve around a few central ideas. Once you internalize this you realize it isn't necessary to read the entire book. You just need to read the summary and notes that someone else has written. For eg : I'm currently going through the book notes that Derek Sivers has written and just posted this last night…

Derek Sivers has phenomenal book summaries. https://sivers.org/book

- changed my life - read summary first, if really good, buy and read book - cons are 1) makes you think less about content 2) may be too easily forgotten 3) retention isn't as high as reading a book that hits theme over and over with a sledgehammer 4) ignore books with bad review that may be useful to you

Re: The Need to Read

#43

Post by udkl »

98Windows wrote: post #39
udkl wrote: post #20

I don't read entire non-fiction books anymore but just search for it's summaries or notes. Most non-fiction books revolve around a few central ideas. Once you internalize this you realize it isn't necessary to read the entire book. You just need to read the summary and notes that someone else has written. For eg : I'm currently going through the book notes that Derek Sivers has written and just posted this last night…

I think you miss the point of these books somewhat. Of course they need to get across their central idea, but more importantly they need to place the idea within a variety of examples; to address limitations and to set various ways in which the idea can be proven to be true.

I guess I did not elaborate it enough. Once you have read a certain number of these books you sort of learn to create your own examples and test the ideas against them. (Critical thinking)

This is not to say that the summaries or notes are bereft of examples. Derek Sievers notes for example are extremely detailed and he retains the narrative wherever necessary.

Re: The Need to Read

#44

Post by henrik_w »

codingdave wrote: post #4

I agree with the gist of this article, but it feels like the details are trying too hard. Books are great, and do add value to your life and help you educate yourself. But the improvements they make in your life are not automatic - you need to actively engage with the content. Neither are they unique - if you engage with meaningful content, of any kind, you can learn and improve yourself. Books are wonderful. But the…

I love reading and learning from books. However, it is a bit too easy to tell yourself that you have improved after finishing a book. I like this quote (from Dale Carnegie I think):

"Knowledge isn’t power until it is applied."

You need to use the knowledge you gain, not just hoard it.

Re: The Need to Read

#45

Post by nicoburns »

udkl wrote: post #20

I don't read entire non-fiction books anymore but just search for it's summaries or notes. Most non-fiction books revolve around a few central ideas. Once you internalize this you realize it isn't necessary to read the entire book. You just need to read the summary and notes that someone else has written. For eg : I'm currently going through the book notes that Derek Sivers has written and just posted this last night…

Hmm... while this might well be true for most books (especially pop-non-fiction), I find that the best books are good precisely because they are not like this. Notably, most nonfiction from academics is not at all like this.

To give examples, "The e-myth revisited" is clearly in the category of only really having one point. On the other hand, "Reasons and persons" by Derek Parfit has a multitude of small nuanced points and arguments scattered through the entire text.

I would definitely encourage you to seek out these denser, more serious books. They are harder going, but if you can find good ones then they have a lot to offer.

Re: The Need to Read

#46

Post by ctchocula »

hackuser wrote: post #37

I read more and more books now. My findings: 1) There is a very strong relationship between the length of time it takes to compose something and its 'value'. [0] That shouldn't be a surprise. Twitter is on one end of that spectrum, books are on the other. 2) The range of value is far wider than people can conceive of. I know this fact yet in my tiny human mind I can't conceive of the entire breadth of that spectrum,…

What you say sounds intriguing. Do you have any examples of the wide gap between high-value content vs. low-value mentioned in 3? Any pointers to high-value content since you mention there is much?

Re: The Need to Read

#47

Post by [deleted] »

xyzzy4 wrote: post #7
rabboRubble wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that some people read zero books a year, the simple act of reading a book would be a huge improvement in ongoing literacy and attention span for some people.

I think if books were more useful, people would have a better attention span for them. Reading a book won't automatically improve your life. Usually it's just another form of time-wasting.

[deleted]

Re: The Need to Read

#48

Post by neilsharma »

udkl wrote: post #20

I don't read entire non-fiction books anymore but just search for it's summaries or notes. Most non-fiction books revolve around a few central ideas. Once you internalize this you realize it isn't necessary to read the entire book. You just need to read the summary and notes that someone else has written. For eg : I'm currently going through the book notes that Derek Sivers has written and just posted this last night…

I read entire non-fiction books precisely because they revolve around a few central ideas. My retention and ability to apply the concepts is significantly better if I expose myself to the same ideas day after day. A well-written book that takes weeks to go through can leave it's mark far more effectively than a quick summary I'd forget after a few months.

That said, I prefer to read a summary of the book before the book itself so I can focus on the details instead of exhausting mental energy figuring out what is going on.

Re: The Need to Read

#49

Post by ahultgren »

udkl wrote: post #20

I don't read entire non-fiction books anymore but just search for it's summaries or notes. Most non-fiction books revolve around a few central ideas. Once you internalize this you realize it isn't necessary to read the entire book. You just need to read the summary and notes that someone else has written. For eg : I'm currently going through the book notes that Derek Sivers has written and just posted this last night…

A big advantage of taking the time to read a book, even if the book has just one central idea, is that it forces you to spend 5+ hours thinking on that idea. No summary can do that for you. I'd even go so far as to say that it's not even important which book or idea you spend that time on; just spending time with your own thoughts and imagination will teach you things no non-fiction or summary can.

I do agree that summaries and comments are useful, but they serve the same purpose as non-fiction rather than fiction.

Re: The Need to Read

#50

Post by dharmon »

ahultgren wrote: post #49
udkl wrote: post #20

I don't read entire non-fiction books anymore but just search for it's summaries or notes. Most non-fiction books revolve around a few central ideas. Once you internalize this you realize it isn't necessary to read the entire book. You just need to read the summary and notes that someone else has written. For eg : I'm currently going through the book notes that Derek Sivers has written and just posted this last night…

A big advantage of taking the time to read a book, even if the book has just one central idea, is that it forces you to spend 5+ hours thinking on that idea. No summary can do that for you. I'd even go so far as to say that it's not even important which book or idea you spend that time on; just spending time with your own thoughts and imagination will teach you things no non-fiction or summary can. I do agree that su…

I generally agree, although some books don't need the week-long time to digest what they are saying and process the implications.

For most "pop" books, they are often either based on a long-form article (commonly New Yorker or The Economist) or have a long-form article that summarizes them. I have switched to just reading that instead and saving my reading time for more "meaty" books.

As some examples, off the top of my head: The Checklist Manifesto, Simple Rules, The Long Tail, anything by Gladwell. I didn't need to read the whole book of any of those; the long-form article covered it.

Post reply on HN