How To: Read more books(aaronsw.com)
aaronsw.com
How To: Read more books
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/morebooks
106 comments
Audiobooks and podcasts work just fine for drivers (and on the train too). It's the weirdest feeling when you find yourself picking the slowest lane in traffic just so you can spend more time enjoying what you're listening to.
I used to love audiobooks, until I realized how much longer they took over reading. I prefer podcasts for drives, but even a lot of those aren't very focused and tend to banter.
I convert PDFs to audiobooks using an osx service and then i listen to them on 2x speed. i'm a slow reader, so it isnt a huge difference in time for me.
A text-to-speech converter sounds like an awful way read to listen to a book.
Audiobooks are of course an option. However, I've found that, for me, listening to something isn't the same as reading something.
When I read something, it sticks much better than when I listen. It's actually the same when I read something aloud, more often than not I have to re-read the text for myself afterwards, reading aloud doesn't seem to register with me. :D
When I read something, it sticks much better than when I listen. It's actually the same when I read something aloud, more often than not I have to re-read the text for myself afterwards, reading aloud doesn't seem to register with me. :D
I listen to audiobooks on my iPod while bicycling through the countryside.
I have a total of about 2 hours drive time every day - Audio books have been great, especially after work.
It has been a great way to decompress; I actually enjoy, to an extent, my commute since it allows some of the days tensions to dissipate and I get to listen to and finish about 2 books a month.
It has been a great way to decompress; I actually enjoy, to an extent, my commute since it allows some of the days tensions to dissipate and I get to listen to and finish about 2 books a month.
Copying my comment that I posted on Aaron's blog:
One more simple lesson that I learned only in my early twenties.
You don’t need to finish every book.
This is a simple but powerful lesson. It reduces the mental burden of starting a new book to near zero. I’m now comfortable putting a book down 200 pages in. And that makes it much easier to start the next 600 page novel.
High school english classes teach us the wrong way to read books. It took me a long time to unlearn what I was taught.
One more simple lesson that I learned only in my early twenties.
You don’t need to finish every book.
This is a simple but powerful lesson. It reduces the mental burden of starting a new book to near zero. I’m now comfortable putting a book down 200 pages in. And that makes it much easier to start the next 600 page novel.
High school english classes teach us the wrong way to read books. It took me a long time to unlearn what I was taught.
Yay, I struggle with this too.
Have this compulsive need to complete the entire book.
Afraid, that not devoting enough effort I will shortchange my reading effort. That I'd be withdrawing from a challenging but fruitful experience (if the text is difficult, or the author's style is boring or has a level of incomprehensibility).
I resolved this dilemma by at least making it half way through a book, or at least first two chapters for those dreadful cases. Or not at all, as of late, have realized that there is just so much to read, that no need to waste on uninteresting/uninspired.
Have this compulsive need to complete the entire book.
Afraid, that not devoting enough effort I will shortchange my reading effort. That I'd be withdrawing from a challenging but fruitful experience (if the text is difficult, or the author's style is boring or has a level of incomprehensibility).
I resolved this dilemma by at least making it half way through a book, or at least first two chapters for those dreadful cases. Or not at all, as of late, have realized that there is just so much to read, that no need to waste on uninteresting/uninspired.
The difficulty with this advice is that many great books start slow, particularly since they were written in times where people had plenty of time spare for reading, or they were published in serial form where the author was paid by the word, and so stretched out as far as possible.
This doesn't make them any less great, but it does mean that if you filter them because "I'm a little bored 100 pages in", you're losing out on some of the best stuff.
This doesn't make them any less great, but it does mean that if you filter them because "I'm a little bored 100 pages in", you're losing out on some of the best stuff.
Bla, bla, bla.
The most important question is, I think, why force yourself to read more books?
I grew up in a family where everyone reads a lot of books. No one forced me to read books but I spent most of my childhood reading something, being completely convinced that it is good for me.
I used to read everything. From silly to hardcore stuff, like philosophy, sociology and literature critique. From novels to strictly technical books about management.
I was able to fluently speak about postmodernism, and I was a complete imbecile.
It took me few years to realize that I actually learned nothing from books. My world expanded enormously just within few years because of few random discussions, people I met and admire, as well as Internet, and silly blogs.
If you say that books help you to focus, I'd recommend taking some hardcore courses of typography. Writing down the whole alphabet takes much more patience than reading almost any book.
I agree that you should read books, if you enjoy them. However, please stop treating books as something more special than watching a movie, taking a walk or other pleasures of life.
The most important question is, I think, why force yourself to read more books?
I grew up in a family where everyone reads a lot of books. No one forced me to read books but I spent most of my childhood reading something, being completely convinced that it is good for me.
I used to read everything. From silly to hardcore stuff, like philosophy, sociology and literature critique. From novels to strictly technical books about management.
I was able to fluently speak about postmodernism, and I was a complete imbecile.
It took me few years to realize that I actually learned nothing from books. My world expanded enormously just within few years because of few random discussions, people I met and admire, as well as Internet, and silly blogs.
If you say that books help you to focus, I'd recommend taking some hardcore courses of typography. Writing down the whole alphabet takes much more patience than reading almost any book.
I agree that you should read books, if you enjoy them. However, please stop treating books as something more special than watching a movie, taking a walk or other pleasures of life.
I think this is with you, not with the books. Maybe you're talking about when you were a teenager or before -- I did a poor job of reading many books when I was younger, too.
But most adults don't read good novels or tracts on philosophy or sociology and then come out learning "nothing." I promise that there is much more than "nothing" inside. I think it's awfully pessimistic to say that you can't learn anything from books after your experience; books are more or less the only window into almost the entire history of human thought and storytelling, and not being able to incorporate that history into yourself is a problem.
But most adults don't read good novels or tracts on philosophy or sociology and then come out learning "nothing." I promise that there is much more than "nothing" inside. I think it's awfully pessimistic to say that you can't learn anything from books after your experience; books are more or less the only window into almost the entire history of human thought and storytelling, and not being able to incorporate that history into yourself is a problem.
You're the essence of the problem, messieur.
What's so pessimistic about it? Whatever floats your boat, pal. If books enrich you, keep reading. Do not force everyone else to do so, though. Might be that there are other sources of enlightenment. Nature, nice chicks, long discussions, Italian restaurants etc. It's pure symbolic violence what you do right now, pal.
Easy test, though.
Speak to a random literature folk, who graduated five years ago, or so. By average, he is completely clueless. You recognize he is smart, uses much complicated buzzwords than you've ever heard of, but chances are, you do not expect him to change the world, nor get laid.
It should be obvious what's my point. If you're smart, books might help you. If you're average, books won't change it significantly and sometimes might make things much more worse, clouding your mind or hiding your ignorance behind overly complicated concepts. Accidentally, most of the world is not that smart, and it's perfectly OK.
That's why I say that books are overrated, and we should ask yourself a question whether we really get so much from them as we think we do. Chances are that some people will keep reading but others would be more happy dancing, drawing or being next Sasha Grey or Stoya, without this guilt they don't read enough books.
By the way, I don't say that there is "nothing" in books. Nothing can be something, too. However, the knowledge about Humbert Humbert and a little girl he loved, is, for me, nothing significant.
What's so pessimistic about it? Whatever floats your boat, pal. If books enrich you, keep reading. Do not force everyone else to do so, though. Might be that there are other sources of enlightenment. Nature, nice chicks, long discussions, Italian restaurants etc. It's pure symbolic violence what you do right now, pal.
Easy test, though.
Speak to a random literature folk, who graduated five years ago, or so. By average, he is completely clueless. You recognize he is smart, uses much complicated buzzwords than you've ever heard of, but chances are, you do not expect him to change the world, nor get laid.
It should be obvious what's my point. If you're smart, books might help you. If you're average, books won't change it significantly and sometimes might make things much more worse, clouding your mind or hiding your ignorance behind overly complicated concepts. Accidentally, most of the world is not that smart, and it's perfectly OK.
That's why I say that books are overrated, and we should ask yourself a question whether we really get so much from them as we think we do. Chances are that some people will keep reading but others would be more happy dancing, drawing or being next Sasha Grey or Stoya, without this guilt they don't read enough books.
By the way, I don't say that there is "nothing" in books. Nothing can be something, too. However, the knowledge about Humbert Humbert and a little girl he loved, is, for me, nothing significant.
I have to admit, you've got a point. I feel a little bit like the Christian who insists on starting every conversation with a discussion about how you ought to let Jesus into your heart. I will think a little bit and see if I can defend my position this evening.
Thank you. I appreciate your honesty.
"I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it."
-Sherlock Holmes, A Study In Scarlet
-Sherlock Holmes, A Study In Scarlet
I lke mnmalism.
From silly to hardcore stuff, like philosophy, sociology and literature critique. From novels to strictly technical books about management.
I was able to fluently speak about postmodernism, and I was a complete imbecile.
If your idea of hardcore is literary critique and postmodernism, perhaps you were reading the wrong (IMHO) books. Have you ever tried "Surely you're joking, Mr Feynman", "Godel, Escher and Bach", or anything by say, Terry* Pratchett?
* whose opinion of literary critique is neatly summed up by this quote:
'I save about twenty drafts -- that's ten meg of disc space -- and the last one contains all the final alterations. Once it has been printed out and received by the publishers, there's a cry here of 'Tough shit, literary researchers of the future, try getting a proper job!' and the rest are wiped.'
I was able to fluently speak about postmodernism, and I was a complete imbecile.
If your idea of hardcore is literary critique and postmodernism, perhaps you were reading the wrong (IMHO) books. Have you ever tried "Surely you're joking, Mr Feynman", "Godel, Escher and Bach", or anything by say, Terry* Pratchett?
* whose opinion of literary critique is neatly summed up by this quote:
'I save about twenty drafts -- that's ten meg of disc space -- and the last one contains all the final alterations. Once it has been printed out and received by the publishers, there's a cry here of 'Tough shit, literary researchers of the future, try getting a proper job!' and the rest are wiped.'
The question to ask yourself is what exactly were you trying to learn from philosophy, sociology and literature critique? And why did you think such books would benefit you?
If you read the wrong types of books, the ones that do not resonate with your goals, then you will gain nothing. Reading Tolstoy, when your goals are in physics, will seem like a waste of time, a mere pleasure, sort of like watching a movie or taking a walk. But when your goal is to become a good writer, a better teller of stories, then reading Tolstoy can be an epiphany of sorts. You see how his stylistic effects can be applied to your own writing; how a novel can capture the spirit of the times much more effectively than any historian could, and so on and so forth.
Knowledge is only good when applicable, otherwise it is useless.
If you read the wrong types of books, the ones that do not resonate with your goals, then you will gain nothing. Reading Tolstoy, when your goals are in physics, will seem like a waste of time, a mere pleasure, sort of like watching a movie or taking a walk. But when your goal is to become a good writer, a better teller of stories, then reading Tolstoy can be an epiphany of sorts. You see how his stylistic effects can be applied to your own writing; how a novel can capture the spirit of the times much more effectively than any historian could, and so on and so forth.
Knowledge is only good when applicable, otherwise it is useless.
I agree. However, I find this approach very rare. The current trend it that every erudite should read Hemingway, Nabokov, Catch 22, and many other books. I think it is worth time for some people, but not for the whole society.
My approach, shortly speaking, was that I've found most of the stuff not challenging at all. So, I raised the bar, reading literature critique. Then, I realized it is pure bullshit, and jumped into sociology, then into philosophy, then into philosophy of mathematics and it turned out that pure textbooks are much more interesting after all.
Shortly, I agree it depends on the goal. Keep in mind, though, that people's goals vary a lot. And that's my point rephrased otherwise: if you are not interested in reading something, give up. Unfortunately, the current trend is to read books, and if you find nothing in them, the problem is in you. I try to fight with this symbolic violence, whenever possible.
@klipt, I don't want to create so many responses so I will give you the feedback here.
Yes, I read all the books you've mentioned, except Pratchett, which bores me to hell. I've found Goedel's proof itself more enjoyable to understand than the books about it. The commentaries, in this particular case, seemed mostly unnecessary. (I don't like this fetish of Goedel's work that extrapolates its misunderstanding to all other ares; eg, Putnam)
My approach, shortly speaking, was that I've found most of the stuff not challenging at all. So, I raised the bar, reading literature critique. Then, I realized it is pure bullshit, and jumped into sociology, then into philosophy, then into philosophy of mathematics and it turned out that pure textbooks are much more interesting after all.
Shortly, I agree it depends on the goal. Keep in mind, though, that people's goals vary a lot. And that's my point rephrased otherwise: if you are not interested in reading something, give up. Unfortunately, the current trend is to read books, and if you find nothing in them, the problem is in you. I try to fight with this symbolic violence, whenever possible.
@klipt, I don't want to create so many responses so I will give you the feedback here.
Yes, I read all the books you've mentioned, except Pratchett, which bores me to hell. I've found Goedel's proof itself more enjoyable to understand than the books about it. The commentaries, in this particular case, seemed mostly unnecessary. (I don't like this fetish of Goedel's work that extrapolates its misunderstanding to all other ares; eg, Putnam)
tl;dr: Stop visiting hacker news, reddit and other blogs; stop interacting with people; get books from the library for free.
My opinion: seriously, blogs should count as minibooks and everytime I read a particularly good and in depth blog or something that elicits the "I'm smarter for reading that" moment, I'm going to keep a tally. That tally I'll consider a chapter of a book. At 300 chapters, I'll count that as a book. Let's see how many books I have after a year. I think it'll be around 100.
My opinion: seriously, blogs should count as minibooks and everytime I read a particularly good and in depth blog or something that elicits the "I'm smarter for reading that" moment, I'm going to keep a tally. That tally I'll consider a chapter of a book. At 300 chapters, I'll count that as a book. Let's see how many books I have after a year. I think it'll be around 100.
Wow, are you really reading 30,000 good blog posts in a year? Could you please share what blogs you read? I find most blogs tiring and annoying, because there is so little new content and so much reposting and regurgitating of the same things going on over and over again.
I am rediscovering what a joy it is to read books. It seems it does take a lot of work to write well. Blog posts, almost by definition, are not meant to be well-written in terms of depth and succinctness.
But, maybe I'm just reading all the wrong blogs.
I am rediscovering what a joy it is to read books. It seems it does take a lot of work to write well. Blog posts, almost by definition, are not meant to be well-written in terms of depth and succinctness.
But, maybe I'm just reading all the wrong blogs.
See my reply to tome.
There are lots of good blogs out there. I think a substantial number of bloggers end up getting published in books, and a lot of good writers blog. There is a lot of information out there, my primary point is that you don't have to consume it on parchment for it to count.
There are lots of good blogs out there. I think a substantial number of bloggers end up getting published in books, and a lot of good writers blog. There is a lot of information out there, my primary point is that you don't have to consume it on parchment for it to count.
Try Roger Ebert's one: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/atom.xml
I dont know if this was meant as a quasi-sarcastic comment or not, but i have to say, i seriously agree with you.
For me, blogs are micro books. And i have daily "aha" moments, that i cant get from books at this frequency.
And if you start including video, (If the speech was converted to text), then lets just say my number is close to 2 or 300 if not more.
Ultimately it's about having many "i am smarter" moments
For me, blogs are micro books. And i have daily "aha" moments, that i cant get from books at this frequency.
And if you start including video, (If the speech was converted to text), then lets just say my number is close to 2 or 300 if not more.
Ultimately it's about having many "i am smarter" moments
> daily "aha" moments, that i cant get from books at this frequency.
You’re reading the wrong books.
You’re reading the wrong books.
[deleted]
idea: a social aggregator, that votes on blogs that elicit that moment; organized by category to form virtual books of 300 chapters.
Hang on: you read about 100 "particularly good and in depth blog"s per day?
Not necessarily just blogs, but I'd say around 100 articles easily. I'd also include tutorials and discussions that are substantial as part of reading those articles.
[deleted]
Examples please? I still find that number hard to believe.
Ok, for example, this morning I've gone through: http://zef.me/2913/javascript-oop-style-performance http://cairnarvon.rotahall.org/2010/02/28/search-trees-are-e.... http://norvig.com/sudoku.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth%27s_Algorithm_X http://www.topcoder.com/tc?module=Static&d1=tutorials... http://www.extjs.tv/index.php/2010/javascript-debugging-tech....
I suggest reddit.com/r/programming, Hacker News obviously, and YourVersion.com for finding new stuff to read based on your interests, and then you can usually find more to read without too much trouble. There is always more!
I suggest reddit.com/r/programming, Hacker News obviously, and YourVersion.com for finding new stuff to read based on your interests, and then you can usually find more to read without too much trouble. There is always more!
Two of your links don't work. The first post is interesting, but I think the Crockford book is a much better read. Norvig's articles and wikipedia are of course awesome! I don't count them as blog posts though.
The other point you illustrate is that most reading on the internet is scattered into bits and pieces. Going through all of those topics in one morning is too much, for my brain anyway. I'd much rather read on one of those topics at length and work out some problems and code. Reading small posts here and there may make me feel smarter, but I'm not convinced it actually makes me smarter. I ask myself, "How does knowing this change my expected behaviour or my anticipation of the world?".
The other point you illustrate is that most reading on the internet is scattered into bits and pieces. Going through all of those topics in one morning is too much, for my brain anyway. I'd much rather read on one of those topics at length and work out some problems and code. Reading small posts here and there may make me feel smarter, but I'm not convinced it actually makes me smarter. I ask myself, "How does knowing this change my expected behaviour or my anticipation of the world?".
Offtopic: badave, I used to work on MeeHive, which is similar to yourversion. I'm now off on my own building a tool to help me read more widely. Would you be interested in trying it out? My email's in my profile. I'd love to hear about what you think is missing in google reader, yourversion, etc.
How much of the comments do you read? I find it hard to believe you would have the time for so many posts and peoples opinion on them.
I don't know if you can read 100 good things daily, but you can easily get the equivalent of 20 really good books a year just by reading occasional links from Arts & Letters Daily at http://www.aldaily.com/.
(I'm not affiliated with the site, I've just found it to have a good signal-to-noise ratio.)
(I'm not affiliated with the site, I've just found it to have a good signal-to-noise ratio.)
Cool link, will check out.
No, what i'm saying is. If you sum up the amount of text i read (incl speech converted to text) from blogs and video etc, then it would come to about 2 to 300 books at the end of the year.(in my estimation).
at the first sign of mental difficulty, I tab to a different window and begin typing the URL of a favorite blog.
Heh. As I read that I realize I have being doing it pretty much all day today.
Heh. As I read that I realize I have being doing it pretty much all day today.
>> "since books can usually substitute for human company: you can take them with you on the train and to meals and curl up with them at night and so on."
Seriously? Comes across as slightly sad to me.
The top priority on everyones list should be friends+family IMHO. Everything else is just 'stuff'.
Also I'd say there's far more to be learned/gained/enjoyed from other human beings than in any book.
Seriously? Comes across as slightly sad to me.
The top priority on everyones list should be friends+family IMHO. Everything else is just 'stuff'.
Also I'd say there's far more to be learned/gained/enjoyed from other human beings than in any book.
Books are actually usually written by humans. In fact they often serve as a device for condensing, organizing, and transmitting one human's collected insights on a topic to many thousands of other humans. It's pretty efficient and effective.
dislodges tongue from cheek
dislodges tongue from cheek
Yeah they certainly have their place, but I would never put them above human contact. I'd go insane.
Aaron recommends isolating yourself from other people, stopping reading blogs entirely, and getting rid of other hobbies.
If your goal is to read a lot, obviously it's primarily a matter of finding time to read. Aaron's advice is extreme, though. Don't isolate yourself entirely -- from people, the world, or even social media like blogs. Each of those has value. As the saying goes, moderation is key.
If your goal is to read a lot, obviously it's primarily a matter of finding time to read. Aaron's advice is extreme, though. Don't isolate yourself entirely -- from people, the world, or even social media like blogs. Each of those has value. As the saying goes, moderation is key.
Finding time is never an issue. Every day, you are handed 24 shiny new hours to spend. The real issues (which Aaron addresses) are motivation and mental ability.
You get 24 hours each day, true. But it's not just about motivation and mental ability. The time you have available to read is only time you aren't doing something else. If you have a job, or school, or family duties, or anything else, you may not have much time available to read. Your downtime is available for you to use as you please -- via reading, or watching TV, or whatever. That's when it's an issue of motivation. Sometimes people don't have a lot of downtime.
For many people, time management is really relationship management. I read that on a blog somewhere.
A lot of grown ups, most things we do, we do for other people, in one way or another. So when we pick a thing off of the to do list, we are picking a person to serve.
A lot of grown ups, most things we do, we do for other people, in one way or another. So when we pick a thing off of the to do list, we are picking a person to serve.
What I meant by motivation is priorities - "The time you have available to [work|study|family] is only time you aren't doing something else."
Here's a radical idea: only read books that you enjoy and find interesting. Don't measure reading success by the number of books, but by how far your hair was blown back :-)
"#3 Alienate everyone close to you" is the complete opposite of what I do. My favorite technique is to read a book out loud to my wife (and before I was married, to friends). It improves my reading/pronunciation and we discuss the book as it progresses. We learn something new while spending time together. Someday I hope to read to my kids and have them read back to me. I like reading by myself too but I'd rather read it with someone.
Reading aloud is fun, and can be useful, but it is extremely slow. No one reads 100 books aloud per year.
5. Stop reading Hacker News.
But how?
The biggest consumer of time is undoubtedly other people, in large measure because talking to other people is so fun that you don’t notice time going by. By keeping yourself away from other people (living alone is a good start), you free up an enormous amount of time for reading. I find this is particularly useful in reading books, since books can usually substitute for human company...
How sad, especially coming from someone whose opinion I respect so much.
I love reading books, programming, sports, good food and drink, and a whole bunch of other things. But none of those things is an end unto itself. I do all of them as part of building a better life. Why? To share it with other people!
No matter how many cool things are on my list, sharing my life with others is always #1. If I find myself alone, then sure, I'll pick up a good book or project. But avoiding other people in order to have more time alone for books? Except for extreme circumstances, that just doesn't make sense to me.
How sad, especially coming from someone whose opinion I respect so much.
I love reading books, programming, sports, good food and drink, and a whole bunch of other things. But none of those things is an end unto itself. I do all of them as part of building a better life. Why? To share it with other people!
No matter how many cool things are on my list, sharing my life with others is always #1. If I find myself alone, then sure, I'll pick up a good book or project. But avoiding other people in order to have more time alone for books? Except for extreme circumstances, that just doesn't make sense to me.
Aaron is pretty young and acts it. He often comes out with incredibly naive posts, especially on topics like the economy, or politics. But the counterpoint is that his reading (especially re history) sometimes means he comes out with counter-intuitive or enlightening stuff.
Speaking for myself, I find other people a real energy drain. I don't live alone, but I feel delight and a deep sense of relaxation when I get the opportunity to have the house to myself for a few days. Company can be good, but in moderation.
Speaking for myself, I find other people a real energy drain. I don't live alone, but I feel delight and a deep sense of relaxation when I get the opportunity to have the house to myself for a few days. Company can be good, but in moderation.
Some people have that draining effect on me, which is usually why I try to cut those people out of my life. Many people I know are fun and energizing, because they take life and themselves easy. However many of my ex-friends have been the self-centred and self-absorbed kinds that just make your dealings with them laborious.
I don't mean to be harsh or cold, but it's not my job to deal with someone elses problems day in day out. I purposely chose not to go into the psychology fields for that reason. I have my own problems, I have my own stresses, the reason I get together with friends is to forget the problems and relax.
I think it's a good guide in life to route out the sources of problems and stress in your social circles and remove them. I'm an introvert, perhaps not so much as others but I'm certainly not an extrovert by any measure, but with the right groups I can be going out almost nightly and I don't feel the usual drain.
Although I have to say, I will likely always look forward to two days alone.
I don't mean to be harsh or cold, but it's not my job to deal with someone elses problems day in day out. I purposely chose not to go into the psychology fields for that reason. I have my own problems, I have my own stresses, the reason I get together with friends is to forget the problems and relax.
I think it's a good guide in life to route out the sources of problems and stress in your social circles and remove them. I'm an introvert, perhaps not so much as others but I'm certainly not an extrovert by any measure, but with the right groups I can be going out almost nightly and I don't feel the usual drain.
Although I have to say, I will likely always look forward to two days alone.
[deleted]
As Paul Graham wrote:
Hanging out with friends is like chocolate cake. You enjoy it more if you eat it occasionally than if you eat nothing but chocolate cake for every meal. No matter how much you like chocolate cake, you'll be pretty queasy after the third meal of it.
http://www.paulgraham.com/hs.html
Hanging out with friends is like chocolate cake. You enjoy it more if you eat it occasionally than if you eat nothing but chocolate cake for every meal. No matter how much you like chocolate cake, you'll be pretty queasy after the third meal of it.
http://www.paulgraham.com/hs.html
I don't think it's sad; I think it is a matter of having motivations so disjointed that each side can't make sense of the other's enough to even begin a discussion toward understanding.
I don't think that, even for people who actively sacrifice human contact to read, that it is an end to itself. It is possible that they are also building toward a better life, but that their concept of a better life does not include being in the presence of others whenever possible with something to share. Their better life might be one where they can spend time in quiet contemplation, and reading is the fuel for that contemplation.
Some people are just not that gregarious. And some who are gregarious find that it is a tendency that interferes with their goals.
The pressure for people to be gregarious is intense, though, and it is harder for those who aren't natural social butterflies. The natural tendency might be for someone to soak up an enormous amount of time reading. Because of the pressure to constantly be socially on-call, they have to make the choice seem much more deliberate. As a result come off as someone with an anti-social disorder. The result would be the same, but because we brand the end as less than desirable, they get cursed for their means. Either way, they get patronized, which simply isn't conducive to anything but antagonism.
This may not be the thought pattern aaronsw is following; I don't know. He might be actively fighting a natural extroversion because his goals don't align with his extroverted nature. I'm rather strongly introverted as a natural tendency. He may make a deliberate choice, while I drift, but am forced to make it seem at times a deliberate choice. Same ends, different means.
Nevertheless, the net you cast to catch him caught me as well. I suspect I have much more to understand about the naturally gregarious frame of mind, and would enjoy a discussion toward understanding. I'd also enjoy a discussion toward others understanding the less gregarious amongst us. I don't think casting an unusual or confusing behavior as 'sad' is going to help at all in understanding; it indicates a mind already made up. I'd rather be misunderstood or confusing than sad; then I'm not forced to apologize just for the opportunity to explain.
I don't think that, even for people who actively sacrifice human contact to read, that it is an end to itself. It is possible that they are also building toward a better life, but that their concept of a better life does not include being in the presence of others whenever possible with something to share. Their better life might be one where they can spend time in quiet contemplation, and reading is the fuel for that contemplation.
Some people are just not that gregarious. And some who are gregarious find that it is a tendency that interferes with their goals.
The pressure for people to be gregarious is intense, though, and it is harder for those who aren't natural social butterflies. The natural tendency might be for someone to soak up an enormous amount of time reading. Because of the pressure to constantly be socially on-call, they have to make the choice seem much more deliberate. As a result come off as someone with an anti-social disorder. The result would be the same, but because we brand the end as less than desirable, they get cursed for their means. Either way, they get patronized, which simply isn't conducive to anything but antagonism.
This may not be the thought pattern aaronsw is following; I don't know. He might be actively fighting a natural extroversion because his goals don't align with his extroverted nature. I'm rather strongly introverted as a natural tendency. He may make a deliberate choice, while I drift, but am forced to make it seem at times a deliberate choice. Same ends, different means.
Nevertheless, the net you cast to catch him caught me as well. I suspect I have much more to understand about the naturally gregarious frame of mind, and would enjoy a discussion toward understanding. I'd also enjoy a discussion toward others understanding the less gregarious amongst us. I don't think casting an unusual or confusing behavior as 'sad' is going to help at all in understanding; it indicates a mind already made up. I'd rather be misunderstood or confusing than sad; then I'm not forced to apologize just for the opportunity to explain.
Spot on!
Sometimes it is hard to pull yourself from work, study, etc. Just today I thought - I am working, while my son is happily playing with his trains; someday he will be all grown. So I dropped my work at the moment and joined him for a some father-son train time.
Why is that sad? It reminds me of that extrovert vs introvert thing: some people prefer to spend time alone. Also, not all topics and hobbies are mainstream enough that you can easily share without people's eyes glazing over.
I thought he was being sarcastic.
I suspect more deliberately exaggerated than sarcastic.
Many people tend to see deliberately introversion and aloneness as deliberate alienation. It's a cognitive leap that still confuses me; people assume a behavior that isolates the individual is out of spite for the social collective, even if the person carefully explains that they aren't doing this out of scorn but out of personal need or desire.
My suspicion is that aaronsw is just describing his relationship to those around him the same way they would describe it, but in more matter-of-fact terms. That he seems to have offended people so makes me think he touched a nerve, even if it did it tongue-in-cheek. My first reaction to this is to start reflecting on the social biases we have which would cause us to recoil in such disgust to the suggestion; are we being unreasonable in our expectations of the people around us?
Many people tend to see deliberately introversion and aloneness as deliberate alienation. It's a cognitive leap that still confuses me; people assume a behavior that isolates the individual is out of spite for the social collective, even if the person carefully explains that they aren't doing this out of scorn but out of personal need or desire.
My suspicion is that aaronsw is just describing his relationship to those around him the same way they would describe it, but in more matter-of-fact terms. That he seems to have offended people so makes me think he touched a nerve, even if it did it tongue-in-cheek. My first reaction to this is to start reflecting on the social biases we have which would cause us to recoil in such disgust to the suggestion; are we being unreasonable in our expectations of the people around us?
It's a fair point. Lots of people over extend themselves socially and they suffer intellectually because of it. I know far too many people who just have a causal interest in different topics but have no substance. They can repeat things they read on a blog but they have no original ideas because they don't spend the time to do the reading. I think being a smarter person with original ideas has a lot of social value so it's not completely incompatible. Quality over quantity.
I'm sensitive enough to criticism and guilt that I actively avoid people a lot of the time. I didn't blink reading that. It makes sense to me.
I am really surprised he is really suggesting that!
If I may, I would like to point out the following related discussion at Infinite Injury and Less Wrong on the virtues of reading original sources in the sciences:
(original) http://www.infiniteinjury.org/blog/2010/02/25/reading-origin...
(response) http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ul/for_progress_to_be_by_accumulati...
(I agree mostly with the arguments made in the Less Wrong post, viz. "If one wants to know the Standard Model, sure, study it directly, but if you want to actually understand how to do the sorts of things that Newton did, you would be advised to read him, Feynman and yes, Plato too, as Plato also did things which contributed greatly to the development of thought.")
(original) http://www.infiniteinjury.org/blog/2010/02/25/reading-origin...
(response) http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ul/for_progress_to_be_by_accumulati...
(I agree mostly with the arguments made in the Less Wrong post, viz. "If one wants to know the Standard Model, sure, study it directly, but if you want to actually understand how to do the sorts of things that Newton did, you would be advised to read him, Feynman and yes, Plato too, as Plato also did things which contributed greatly to the development of thought.")
The infinite injury article is (IMO) complete hogwash. Its author assumes (but never explores or explains the assumption) that there's some unidirectional arrow of improved understanding and pedagogy through time (“progress”) and that therefore modern explanations are inherently more sophisticated/subtle/polished than the original grapplings with a subject.
What he misses is that the seminal papers in any field are forced to really grapple with a subject for its own sake, while later works fetishize dogma and ceaselessly pander to the interests of whoever is paying for the work to be done, simplifying concepts to be understood by those of uncertain prior experience, and packing in features (ooh, glossy pictures! companion website!) that will sell copies.
There are some areas where studying the originals is not especially helpful, because subjects weren’t yet understood. For instance, the founders of quantum mechanics really had no clue what was going on at the beginning, and their early papers are mishmashes of math pulled from other sources which sometimes fortuitously explained their experimental results. So by all means, go grab Townsend’s Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics (2002) as a more practical and informative work.
In other areas, the famous “originals” (which is to say, those works which were good enough to last centuries while their contemporaries faded into oblivion) are wonderful. There’s much more insight packed into Machiavelli, Tocqueville, or James Madison’s writing than any modern political science textbooks.
And yes, economics as a field would be way better off if its practitioners had any idea what its foundational assumptions were about, or tried really deeply considering (e.g.) Smith, Veblen, Marx, or Keynes (or even, say, Von Neumann and Morgenstern), who had a real world to answer to, not just other economists.
What he misses is that the seminal papers in any field are forced to really grapple with a subject for its own sake, while later works fetishize dogma and ceaselessly pander to the interests of whoever is paying for the work to be done, simplifying concepts to be understood by those of uncertain prior experience, and packing in features (ooh, glossy pictures! companion website!) that will sell copies.
There are some areas where studying the originals is not especially helpful, because subjects weren’t yet understood. For instance, the founders of quantum mechanics really had no clue what was going on at the beginning, and their early papers are mishmashes of math pulled from other sources which sometimes fortuitously explained their experimental results. So by all means, go grab Townsend’s Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics (2002) as a more practical and informative work.
In other areas, the famous “originals” (which is to say, those works which were good enough to last centuries while their contemporaries faded into oblivion) are wonderful. There’s much more insight packed into Machiavelli, Tocqueville, or James Madison’s writing than any modern political science textbooks.
And yes, economics as a field would be way better off if its practitioners had any idea what its foundational assumptions were about, or tried really deeply considering (e.g.) Smith, Veblen, Marx, or Keynes (or even, say, Von Neumann and Morgenstern), who had a real world to answer to, not just other economists.
Maybe instead of actively alienating people and getting rid of hobbies, you can find people who share the hobby of reading?
I don't agree with some of Aaron's suggestions, but I enjoy reading and have thought about this some too. I have a FT job, a wife, a 7 yr old and a 7 mo old and I mangage to read 2-6 books a month. Here's what I do:
1. Audiobooks - I subscribe to Audible.com and get books audiobooks from library and occasionally Librivox. I listen on my 20 minute commute, while I exercise, and when I'm doing mundane tasks like the dishes or cleaning.
2. eBooks - I put the icons for Stanza and GoodReader on the homescreen of my iPhone. When I find myself about to tap a game or feed reader or YouTube or whatever I check myself and ask myself if I'm in a good state to read (e.g. awake enough, have more than 3 minutes). I don't feel like I'm denying myself the entertainment of another game of Doodle Jump as much as consciously encouraging myself to opt for something that I generally find to be more satisfying.
3. Books by the bed. Nothing new there. I sometimes squeeze in a little time to read real, paper books before bedtime or when I wake up.
I haven't turned down the thermostat, alienated people, ordered stacks of library books or blocked any blogs (though I have drastically reduced the number of blogs I subscribe to). In fact, I feel like my life is generally the same as it was before I started reading a lot, except for the value I've found in what I read.
If you're curious, here's what I've been reading: http://goodreads.com/zzzmarcus
1. Audiobooks - I subscribe to Audible.com and get books audiobooks from library and occasionally Librivox. I listen on my 20 minute commute, while I exercise, and when I'm doing mundane tasks like the dishes or cleaning.
2. eBooks - I put the icons for Stanza and GoodReader on the homescreen of my iPhone. When I find myself about to tap a game or feed reader or YouTube or whatever I check myself and ask myself if I'm in a good state to read (e.g. awake enough, have more than 3 minutes). I don't feel like I'm denying myself the entertainment of another game of Doodle Jump as much as consciously encouraging myself to opt for something that I generally find to be more satisfying.
3. Books by the bed. Nothing new there. I sometimes squeeze in a little time to read real, paper books before bedtime or when I wake up.
I haven't turned down the thermostat, alienated people, ordered stacks of library books or blocked any blogs (though I have drastically reduced the number of blogs I subscribe to). In fact, I feel like my life is generally the same as it was before I started reading a lot, except for the value I've found in what I read.
If you're curious, here's what I've been reading: http://goodreads.com/zzzmarcus
I read about 40 books a year[1]. The main way I do this is not alienating my friends but by not watching TV. I have started watching DVDs and Netflix instant stream recently and this has cut into my reading time.
I do recommend requesting books at your library. It is awesome, like Netflix for books.
I would like to try blocking my favorite websites. I don't know if I would read more, but I certainly would work more.
[1] I have kept track of this since 2006, inspired by Kevin Drum. Here's my lists:
http://justlooking.recursion.org/2009/Jan/2#books-2006
http://justlooking.recursion.org/2007/Dec/31#books-2007
http://justlooking.recursion.org/2009/Jan/2#books-2008
http://justlooking.recursion.org/2010/Jan/24#books-2009
I do recommend requesting books at your library. It is awesome, like Netflix for books.
I would like to try blocking my favorite websites. I don't know if I would read more, but I certainly would work more.
[1] I have kept track of this since 2006, inspired by Kevin Drum. Here's my lists:
http://justlooking.recursion.org/2009/Jan/2#books-2006
http://justlooking.recursion.org/2007/Dec/31#books-2007
http://justlooking.recursion.org/2009/Jan/2#books-2008
http://justlooking.recursion.org/2010/Jan/24#books-2009
> I’ve read a hundred books a year for the past couple years.
I read about 30 books a year. I read about 15 books for the first time, and then I reread a few of my favorites over and over.
I find some books are worth 1000x more than others. So when you've identified these great books, it would be a shame to not reread them frequently.
I read about 30 books a year. I read about 15 books for the first time, and then I reread a few of my favorites over and over.
I find some books are worth 1000x more than others. So when you've identified these great books, it would be a shame to not reread them frequently.
I fully agree with the value implicit in having that library book deadline to push you to finish something that you wouldn't have finished otherwise (100 Years of Solitude was that book for me). At the same time, you can avail yourself of the cost-free access to try something that you can't find in bookstores in case you won't like it. I got to surprise myself with enjoying Asterios Polyp and hating Chris Ware's Jimmy Corrigan.
If you try and like it, please donate to your local public library! Just think of how much you're not spending on books and how much you'd spend for Netflix discs
As a side tip, I've usually got notions towards more books than I actually want to check out at a time, so creating an Amazon wish list is a really easy way to track interests.
If you try and like it, please donate to your local public library! Just think of how much you're not spending on books and how much you'd spend for Netflix discs
As a side tip, I've usually got notions towards more books than I actually want to check out at a time, so creating an Amazon wish list is a really easy way to track interests.
Beside the point of this article I'm amazed by the following: "The average person spends 1704 hours a year watching TV".
From my understanding an average work year is around 2000 hours. If 'the average person' worked in an enjoyable environment that was as pleasant as watching television or reading a book they could easily almost double their input at the workplace by cutting out television.
Whether that would double their output is a different question all together.
Would be interesting to see a breakdown of time spent watching television vs. per capita productivity for different first world countries.
From my understanding an average work year is around 2000 hours. If 'the average person' worked in an enjoyable environment that was as pleasant as watching television or reading a book they could easily almost double their input at the workplace by cutting out television.
Whether that would double their output is a different question all together.
Would be interesting to see a breakdown of time spent watching television vs. per capita productivity for different first world countries.
Also note that 1074 hours per year is just shy of 3 hours per day, seven days per week. Unbelievable!
It is a lot of time, but don't forget that to watch TV you basically just need time. To work you need time and attention, and at some point you don't have the energy to give work the attention it needs to get done.
I'm in agreement with one point at least.
I used to force myself to complete books that I wasn't enjoying out of some misplaced sense of achievement on completing a "difficult" book.
I had the misfortune of reading "A Chancer" by James Kelman (otherwise, one of my favourite authors.) I was on a 4 hour bus trip, I was a captive audience. It was dreadful.
I stopped reading the boring story that I didn't care about and let my mind wander for 4 hours instead.
After that I now feel empowered to put down a book that I'm not enjoying, even one I feel is meant to be "good for me."
I used to force myself to complete books that I wasn't enjoying out of some misplaced sense of achievement on completing a "difficult" book.
I had the misfortune of reading "A Chancer" by James Kelman (otherwise, one of my favourite authors.) I was on a 4 hour bus trip, I was a captive audience. It was dreadful.
I stopped reading the boring story that I didn't care about and let my mind wander for 4 hours instead.
After that I now feel empowered to put down a book that I'm not enjoying, even one I feel is meant to be "good for me."
IMHO, at least 85% of the books sold at Amazon (for instance) are better not being published at all.
Being obsessive about reading books is nothing but an instance of OCD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_di...).
Not daring of judging the author of this post. Yet, you cannot live this way for too long, it might be good for a while. If this situation become a constant form of life of one, that one is about to go insane.
Being obsessive about reading books is nothing but an instance of OCD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_di...).
Not daring of judging the author of this post. Yet, you cannot live this way for too long, it might be good for a while. If this situation become a constant form of life of one, that one is about to go insane.
Why not to read more books:
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/lit/chap...
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/lit/chap...
You might like this quote, which is in a similar vein:
Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind
too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who
reads too much and uses his own brain too little
falls into lazy habits of thinking.
-- Albert Einstein[deleted]
Keep a book in the bathroom. It encourages one to slow down and let nature take its course, and get some education/entertainment at the same time.
Just make sure you really do slow down.
http://www.esquire.com/features/answer-fella/toilet-reading-...
http://www.esquire.com/features/answer-fella/toilet-reading-...
There was a site here on HN that was basically about what books you were reading and finding books your friends were reading. What was that site?
A PDA with a good ebook reader boosted my reading rate by about 1 book a week. During the day, there's an innumerable amount of 1 - 10 minute pauses in your life that you can use to whip out a PDA and read a couple of pages.
Unfortunately, now I have an iPhone where the web browser is better than the ebook reader so I find myself reading hacker news rather than novels.
Unfortunately, now I have an iPhone where the web browser is better than the ebook reader so I find myself reading hacker news rather than novels.
I don't like carrying books around. An ebook reader has me reading a lot more now. Just load it full of good reads, and you feel obligated to get through it all. Also, scanning through HN for good book recommendations. I'm reading "The Art of Learning" right now, and loving it (it's got me back into chess!).
I've found that simply setting aside some time every day or every couple of days for reading is sufficient. Once I start reading I have no problem continuing.
I used to visit http://www.bn.com store on every saturday & sunday to read more books.
My idea of hanging out is to read books with the other friend.
Though, my friend is a theoretical physic geek.
Though, my friend is a theoretical physic geek.
He doesn't seem to motivate his post, but I think reading (more) (books) should not be a goal in itself...
But if I blocked hacker news, how would I find this informative article?
how to read more books: pirate them. or buy them online or to an ereader. however you get them, convenience is key. i read 2,000-3,000 pages a month since putting books on my computer. love it.
I wonder if pg ever considers paying Aaron to stop writing stuff. People that read stuff like this have got to start wondering, "Is it really a good thing to get a payoff before I am ready for it?"
Haha, my technique is also blocking websites. Here it goes, might be useful for someone: http://pastebin.com/AhY3mgU4
That's giving me almost 2 hours per day for pretty uninterrupted reading. Not that I read 100 books per year but it seems that it's much more than my co-workers, so I guess I'm above average.
Because of that I actually enjoy commuting. :)