Live data from Hacker News

Why read books if we can’t remember what’s in them?

nytimes.com

51–60 of 108 posts

Re: Why read books if we can’t remember what’s in them?

#51

Key phrase: "reading creates pathways in the brain, strengthening different mental processes." I've read a boat load of business books and I don't remember a lot of the specifics in the books but because the books often reenforced a lot of the same thoughts from different angles, I've got well formed mental pathways in my head, which help me in all kinds of situations. Same thing happens if you're a regular consumer…

It's almost if like the brain works a little like a neural network :)

Re: Why read books if we can’t remember what’s in them?

#53

My key take-away from the article was this quote: “There is a difference,” she said, “between immediate recall of facts and an ability to recall a gestalt of knowledge. We can’t retrieve the specifics, but to adapt a phrase of William James’s, there is a wraith of memory. The information you get from a book is stored in networks. We have an extraordinary capacity for storage, and much more is there than you realize.…

My only worry with this takeaway is that it leads to an assumption that you don't have to fully read to get the gestalt. The active process of reading - each and every effort - builds the associative networks. To me that's what is so pernicious about the most popular platforms of the internet today. Because information is a click away, the immediacy masquerades as depth. Blogs, tweets, comments, and updates just feed the perception of being educated. By contrast, essays and books require a significant effort to digest. The effort is meaningful in building the pathways. That's why education is stressful. We're working to re-orient our heads. Walking up a mountain may just start out as one foot in front of another. 3,000 feet later we really appreciate and understand the height we've climbed.

Re: Why read books if we can’t remember what’s in them?

#54

My key take-away from the article was this quote: “There is a difference,” she said, “between immediate recall of facts and an ability to recall a gestalt of knowledge. We can’t retrieve the specifics, but to adapt a phrase of William James’s, there is a wraith of memory. The information you get from a book is stored in networks. We have an extraordinary capacity for storage, and much more is there than you realize.…

To elaborate on your point, I also think it's awesome that the wraith of forgotten memory forms a rich 3-dimensional idea.

Re: Why read books if we can’t remember what’s in them?

#55
post #27

My key take-away from the article was this quote: “There is a difference,” she said, “between immediate recall of facts and an ability to recall a gestalt of knowledge. We can’t retrieve the specifics, but to adapt a phrase of William James’s, there is a wraith of memory. The information you get from a book is stored in networks. We have an extraordinary capacity for storage, and much more is there than you realize.…

I experienced this on my recent college exam on US history. The students have to write an 2-3 page essay and risk losing 40 points out of 100 points on the exams. I had a little outline, not as complete as other students, but when I started writing, details just flow out of me. By the end of the exam(1 hour and 15 minutes), I written 4 pages. Then again, I got a 98 on my world history exam weeks earlier and I barely…

The students have to write an 2-3 page essay and risk losing 40 points out of 100 points on the exams.

Don't you mean they can gain up to 40 of 100 total available points? I do hope Academia hasn't adapted 'innocent until proven guilty' to mean 'knowledgeable until proven ignorant.' If that's how your professor presents it, he's doing the class a disservice.

Re: Why read books if we can’t remember what’s in them?

#56

My key take-away from the article was this quote: “There is a difference,” she said, “between immediate recall of facts and an ability to recall a gestalt of knowledge. We can’t retrieve the specifics, but to adapt a phrase of William James’s, there is a wraith of memory. The information you get from a book is stored in networks. We have an extraordinary capacity for storage, and much more is there than you realize.…

I find these "key ideas and phrases" summarized in "key takeaways" or "TL;DR" snippets to be quite handy.

If you've been through the entire piece of work already, it helps you wrap it up. If not, they're good to help you decide whether to dive in or not. Just like when you'd read a long paper's abstract + conclusion sections before committing your time to it.

Summarizing a long text into "key ideas and phrases" can also help the author see the structures and the patterns of his output, which is important for his own development, and critical if you want to generalize, go meta, and bring it onto other areas :)

Re: Why read books if we can’t remember what’s in them?

#57
Reading is good, but you shouldn't read a lot. You need to control yourself. Reading is addictive, but not-Reading is addictive too. I have been working with JavaScript lately and I found that as my code grows in size, I needed better patterns and methods. I read a book (OOP JavaScript). It was amazing. I liked it, read it again. I found out two other books and carried on reading.

After a while, I found myself addicted to reading. I always find myself telling "There should be a better approach, let's sharpen more our skills". But sharpening doesn't seem to have an end, actually it doesn't.

Bottom of the line, balance between reading and work. But never stop learning.

Re: Why read books if we can’t remember what’s in them?

#59

Key phrase: "reading creates pathways in the brain, strengthening different mental processes." I've read a boat load of business books and I don't remember a lot of the specifics in the books but because the books often reenforced a lot of the same thoughts from different angles, I've got well formed mental pathways in my head, which help me in all kinds of situations. Same thing happens if you're a regular consumer…

Could this be why incorrect facts may be recollected as true after proved false? Pathway for "false" not "rewritten / erased" but "pre-empted" by possibly "less robust" "true," to say this colloquially?
Post reply on HN