|
|
|
|
|
|
by sp527
3046 days ago
|
|
|
I've found the opposite approach to be more useful: elimination, selectivity, and focus. For example: Read only the best books, take notes on them, and absorb them fully. Book lists are good, but they tend to grow unbounded and promote anxiety. It's not difficult to get to a book list of 300-500. Once you're there, there's little reason to update it often. The focus should instead become chewing through the list you've created and periodically retreading some of the best ground you've already covered. Most people who are reading are not truly learning, and even fewer are applying. When you find a book that's valuable, expending the additional time and effort to fully incorporate its content and lessons pays tremendous dividends. The best books should be given a chance to fundamentally change how you think. That doesn't happen on a first-pass read. Aggressively cultivating a frontier of possibilities (I would call this "metaknowledge") is easy, often addictive, generally not useful, and usually detrimental to your emotional health. Most people are not short of possibilities. They're short of the focus, willpower, and grit needed to convert those possibilities into hard-won experience. |
|
|
I once took it upon myself to map as much of my knowledge as I could. (I had heart surgery and wasn't sure I'd live a long time. Turns out I have.) I would collect lists of ideas, and then stare at them until I knew which categories they belonged in, and then split them up into the appropriate category. Long sentences I would compress into shorter ones, often two or three words (and maybe some symbols in an evolving language of punctuation). It's much easier to internalize a concept when it's written in few symbols.
I just looked through my Semantic Synchrony knowledge graph for an example. I found "?is thing = ?has logic". That's shorthand for "to wonder if a pattern is an entity is to wonder if it the pattern has a logic". Kind of abstruse, admittedly, but my point is the compressed version was much easier to internalize.
To create a knowledge base is to create a big collection of mandalas. Meditating on them is rewarding -- new ideas spring from them. There is a spectrum of cognitive processing states, from empty mind, to feeling an idea form, to having the words for it, to deciding it is worth writing down, to reading things (that you or someone else wrote) earlier deemed important. They are all valid and valuable.
Discovering writing was a big deal for humanity, because writing lets you collect a lot of good ideas, and then distill them into a more powerful form. We now have the capacity (with graphs) to process information nonlinearly. This lets us move faster, theoretically processing much more information than linear presentations like books permit.
I've written a little about the advantages of nonlinearity here[1].
[1] https://github.com/synchrony/smsn-why/blob/master/nonlinear-...