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

The joy of reading books you don't understand

reactormag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 263 posts

Re: The joy of reading books you don't understand

#91

Post by trueismywork »

lukan wrote: post #80
forgotusername6 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the beginning of the book or just read that one quote? The first chapter on a story about meeting etiquette in Chinese business culture is actually quite insightful. It certainly resonates with me a least. I wish I had a manual so I knew how to behave in a meeting with people from different cultures. We are not all the same and there is no one size fits all way of behaving in a meeting.

I stopped at that quote. There are no doubt interesting anecdota inside, that might be insightful and there is no doubt some truth to some clichés, but I seriously doubt a box so big as "asians" has much value. And even for "small" boxes like "germans", there are for example great differences between east and west germany (seperated by the iron curtain and different systems for over 40 years) - but more so for the ol…

Well it's not a book of rules.

Re: The joy of reading books you don't understand

#93

Post by tuduka »

I recently read 100 Polish books in 100 consecutive days to see how much of the language I'd learn (I also listened to the matching audiobook of each book). To make meaning of the text, I relied on quick look-ups, context clues, and the audiobook's narration (inflection, pacing, etc.). At first, I hardly understood anything and didn't know any Polish vocabulary, but somewhere around book #50, I started recognizing words and phrases and even experienced language automaticity.

Many language experts say you should be able to comprehend about 90%+ of the vocabulary in your target language when you read, but I think that's completely unrealistic. Read as if you're fluent now, even if you don't understand a word of it. You will eventually learn!

For those interested in my experiment, I wrote a book about it called "BLITZED: What I Learned Reading 100 Books in 100 Days in My Target Language": https://a.co/d/0bKrjq44

Re: The joy of reading books you don't understand

#94

Post by banish-m4 »

If works do not test you or bring new ideas, then what is the point of reading them in the first place?

Uncomfortable nonfiction is like eating your vegetables. There is much disquieting history and knowledge that must not be ignored.

Mainstream mass public education will not teach curiosity or imbue anyone with ambition or initiative, it is something one must cultivate on their own.

Re: The joy of reading books you don't understand

#95

Post by latexr »

lmm wrote: post #86
lukan wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stopped at that quote. There are no doubt interesting anecdota inside, that might be insightful and there is no doubt some truth to some clichés, but I seriously doubt a box so big as "asians" has much value. And even for "small" boxes like "germans", there are for example great differences between east and west germany (seperated by the iron curtain and different systems for over 40 years) - but more so for the ol…

The alternative to considering "asians" or "germans" is probably not understanding each person's cultural background individually but rather putting everyone in a single "world" box. Which is the biggest and most useless one of all. Once you have a good understanding of a typical german you can of course zoom in and get more detail, but if you refuse to learn about germans in general then that's going to make you les…

Alternatively, by doing what you suggest you embed stereotypes into the person which may then need to be undone, which is harder then starting from a blank slate.

This is how we get to harmful (even if well intentioned) ideas like “Asians are good at math”.

https://ideas.ted.com/why-saying-asians-are-good-at-myth-isn...

https://phys.org/news/2020-07-racist-stereotyping-asians-goo...

Re: The joy of reading books you don't understand

#96

Post by ZeroGravitas »

spacephysics wrote: post #54
sfink wrote: post #53

This reminds me of something that I heard once from a Chinese teacher. I can't vouch for the accuracy of it, but he was definitely on to something : In the West, it is assumed that it is the speaker's job to make himself understood to his listeners. In the East, it is the other way around. In recent times, it seems like we've gotten even more extreme. The speaker or writer must not only spoon-feed the understanding,…

I find a similar trend with education in general. Some states have phased out programs for gifted students. Instead, many of them aren’t stimulated enough and end up going down a troubling path (worst case) or they don’t really reach their full potential during those formidable years. Teachers are expected to make the content match the lowest denominator, outside of the occasional exceptional teacher

In some ways this supports the point, in others it's the exact opposite.

He says spoonfeeding information to people in bite-size chunks is like processed food and it should be hard, but you're saying that information should be spoonfed to 'smart' kids in exactly the right level of difficulty or they'll wreck their lives.

Possibly it's like the concept of flow, where the standard suggestion is that things should be not too hard and not too easy, in order to keep your attention, interest and focus.

But philosphically, that's just 'spoon-feeding' information in bite-size chunks like processed food, it's just varying the size of the bite to suit the level of the reciever, which again is exactly what he's saying is bad.

Re: The joy of reading books you don't understand

#97

Post by monacobolid »

Related to "I don't entirely understand what I just read, but I loved it" from the article - some time ago (I'd say it's been years now), there was a submission on HN (at least I believe I found it on HN, though I'm not 100% sure) about rules for critiquing art (again, I'm not 100% certain, but this is how I remember it). Unfortunately, I think I didn't finish the whole article, but at the start it said that if you want to critique art, you have to understand that:

1. There is art you love that is also actually good. 2. There is art you don't love but is actually good. 3. There is art you love that is actually bad. 4. There is art you don't love that is also actually bad.

If you know which article I'm talking about, please let me know. I've been trying to find it on and off for what seems like years now.

Re: The joy of reading books you don't understand

#98

Post by hashiyakshmi »

bheadmaster wrote: post #74
wozniacki wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was waiting the whole time I read this to find a /s somewhere. Anywhere. Yikes.

> Yikes. Proof? Citation? Jokes aside, I find that this sentence makes much sense, especially in the context of online forums such as HN or Reddit: In fact, only people with no better use for their time will spend their time teaching you. This means you're being taught only by people whose time is worthless or for whom it is useful for you to believe in something. Why do you think that is inaccurate?

Because there are plenty of people who just enjoy explaining things or helping others understand, and to say the only two reasons for that behavior is that their time is worthless or they have an agenda is myopic.

Re: The joy of reading books you don't understand

#99

Post by severine »

monacobolid wrote: post #97

Related to "I don't entirely understand what I just read, but I loved it" from the article - some time ago (I'd say it's been years now), there was a submission on HN (at least I believe I found it on HN, though I'm not 100% sure) about rules for critiquing art (again, I'm not 100% certain, but this is how I remember it). Unfortunately, I think I didn't finish the whole article, but at the start it said that if you w…

Maybe this? https://salmagundi.skidmore.edu/articles/477-thirteen-ways-o...

Re: The joy of reading books you don't understand

#100

Post by Broken_Hippo »

spacephysics wrote: post #54
sfink wrote: post #53

This reminds me of something that I heard once from a Chinese teacher. I can't vouch for the accuracy of it, but he was definitely on to something : In the West, it is assumed that it is the speaker's job to make himself understood to his listeners. In the East, it is the other way around. In recent times, it seems like we've gotten even more extreme. The speaker or writer must not only spoon-feed the understanding,…

I find a similar trend with education in general. Some states have phased out programs for gifted students. Instead, many of them aren’t stimulated enough and end up going down a troubling path (worst case) or they don’t really reach their full potential during those formidable years. Teachers are expected to make the content match the lowest denominator, outside of the occasional exceptional teacher

And so many of those programs were absolutely horrible.

I had a lot more homework than my peers and was expected to act more mature. Sorry, but we were all the same age as other kids - we didn't deserve a higher workload (as kids and teens) and we should have been expected to act our age.

It was pretty common to make fun of others for not keeping up well enough (struggling not allowed) or for appearing too smart (Not me, but a family member).

Some school systems completely separated gifted kids from 'regular' students. By high school, it was obvious that this created some issues communicating with a broader range of folks.

There is more than one way to make sure gifted kids get challenged - you don't necessarily need a special class for gifted kids.

And you'll need to provide proof for the last one. It is true that they do teach so that the test scores are good - and since funding and jobs are tied to that testing, other things are going to go down. This isn't really making content matching the lowest denominator, though.

Post reply on HN