[janeroe]

> Why books donʼt work

They do. First, just like with everything else there are brilliant, good, mediocre, and outright poorly written books. Among those some may work for you, others miss the mark completely depending on your prior experience and background (as the author rightly notices, books are just a medium). Second, did the author expect to become a domain expert after finishing a single book? Clearly, his expectations are unrealistic then. You start somewhere, then use references to deepen your knowledge. That's a task requiring interest and dedication, but no "several lifetimes of research" (of mnemonics and learning methods) as he puts it, will replace that.

[agucova]

I'm uncertain if you read the entire article, but the point is that even the greatest non-fiction books aren't optimal when the objective is learning.

His expectations aren't unrealistic, the methods he's suggesting have decades of research suggesting to learning that's much more efficient than traditional reading.

[janeroe]

> even the greatest non-fiction books aren't optimal when the objective is learning

Says who? I say he's doing it wrong.

> the methods he's suggesting have decades of research suggesting to learning that's much more efficient than traditional reading

Where are the results of that research then, the culmination in the form of medium superior to books? His mneumonic quantum book doesn't look like one. People need understanding, not memorization.