Books and lectures don't work

Am I the only one to think the article missed a trick here?

Yes, it may be that traditional books don't work as well as they might. I do know I frequently read articles and come away with very little to show for the time spent. I think partly that's a function of the setting - I seem to retain much more from paper or e-ink compared to something read on a VDU. It's probably also a function of my own state of mind. I know I retain much more when I'm rested and reading earlier in the day. I also retain much more the day after, when I've had time to sleep on something.

And yet, there is something about the art of learning. I did a really good Coursera course that went through this (How to learn), and it, too, explained the importance of working to engage with material. Even doing something like looking away every few paragraphs and giving yourself a quick test to see if you can summarise what you just read works wonders. Combine that with spaced repetition, exercise, sleep and memory tricks like a memory palace, and retention/understanding grows hugely. So I do think there's something to this article.

But I also think about some classic articles that are also models of what they are discussing, and I'm wondering why the author didn't attempt something similar. For example, here's a description of the importance of varying sentence length in writing that at the same time is an example of the very practice of what it's talking about:

"This sentence has five words. Here are five more words. Five-word sentences are fine. But several together become monotonous. Listen to what is happening. The writing is getting boring. The sound of it drones. It’s like a stuck record. The ear demands some variety. Now listen. I vary the sentence length, and I create music. Music. The writing sings. It has a pleasant rhythm, a lilt, a harmony. I use short sentences. And I use sentences of medium length. And sometimes, when I am certain the reader is rested, I will engage him with a sentence of considerable length, a sentence that burns with energy and builds with all the impetus of a crescendo, the roll of the drums, the crash of the cymbals–sounds that say listen to this, it is important." = Gary Provost.

Here's an article about suspense that's also a model of the very thing it's talking about:

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/a-simple-wa...

Given this is possible, I'm disappointed. I tend to agree the article made sense and that there are better and worse models of how to engage with a text. It's even possible that a text can self-guide a novice reader through good techniques simply by good writing. So, my disappointment. I think the article definitely missed a trick here, which would have been to go one level deeper, and tried to not only discuss the importance of a new type of text, but to do so with a model of the very text the author was talking about. As a result, although I think it may be possible to do what the author is describing, I don't know how anyone might go about it. And I'm not sure I fancy reading an entire book on a subject that doesn't interest me all that much in order to find out, either.

(Author here) You're right that the piece would have been better if I'd done this. But if it helps, my co-author and I did it here: https://quantum.country.

I think that the author spent too much time problematizing books and teachers in exaggerated scenarios. At least for this audience and medium. Most people are aware that the cognitive burden to internalize the material is on the student. Very few people actually believe that a book or a teacher can transfer knowledge directly into a student. This led to numerous "you're holding it wrong" negative type of responses.

I feel that I have to take the time to say that your comment is great. It conveys the same message as the article but in three short paragraphs and two examples. Also the API analogy is right on the mark to drive this message through to this audience.

Interesting, for me it's the other way around - I'd prefer to read because the videos are so slow; a transcript of a video can be read something like four-five times quicker than the video itself. Lecture videos can be listened with the audio sped up 1.5-2 times (though it really degrades the quality and can be hard to understand at times) but it's still much slower than reading the same thing, at least for me. I mean, the whole notion of proper sight-reading (without mental subvocalization) is because it's not possible to speak as fast as you can read.

I agree that having a disciplined focus on learning as an exercise...there is more work on your part as a reader.

I think the point from the article is that we have richer ways to convey information. I feel like that is fair. I mean we type out our thoughts, the most ineffective way to share our passion around a topic.

I'd be interested in a seeming statement you are making; the book vs video (or possibly the attempt of mixing and matching).

Ask me again after I try reading their book Quantum Country to tackle this richer repetitive approach.

I work with a lot of those folks that burn through the book a day and exercise their WPM speed to the 6 and 7 hundreds....they talk about the book after but its lost a month later and only fragments remain.