[Barrin92]

can we kill this entire fad of speed reading and productivity life hack nonsense already? I propose we start to advocate slow reading in the spirit of Peter Norvig's learn programming in 10 years, and tell people to actually enjoy what it is they're reading.

[irjustin]

I disagree. There are things I want to learn and I really don't care for the fluff.

Ironically (or not?) self-help books are absolutely full of fluff but at their core can have very useful/helpful ideas. They just get expounded upon back up with 10 specific examples where each example starts at the beginning of the person's life in full detail.

Speed reading has helped me get through those books and learn something where I would have wasted so much time or actually never even picked the book up.

[tablespoon]

> Ironically (or not?) self-help books are absolutely full of fluff but at their core can have very useful/helpful ideas. They just get expounded upon back up with 10 specific examples where each example starts at the beginning of the person's life in full detail.

That's not fluff. It's an artifact of people being different and the goal of the book being to connect with someone and make an impact. A list of pithy principles would have no impact and make no connection. The exposition can do that (e.g. relatable story, example of an application that's close enough to the reader's circumstances), but not all of them will connect with every person.

[waterhouse]

> A list of pithy principles would have no impact and make no connection.

In case anyone wants to put it to the test, here is a book consisting of precisely that (by Rochefoucauld, from the 1600s): https://www.gutenberg.org/files/9105/9105-h/9105-h.htm#linkm...

[tablespoon]

Maybe "no impact" was overstating it a little bit, but I think the point still stands. They often have far less impact when they're not reinforced by the right story or example, but that story or example won't be the same for everyone.

[chmod775]

How could an author who knows nothing about you possibly be better than yourself at construing an example applicable to you?

It then seems to me these kinds of books must be made for people who want others to think for them.

So maybe all these books should say is: "Think. Your problem is a lack of aforementioned activity. If you need some food for thought here's a list of ten pithy principles. Flip to page two for an afterword by my publisher."

Of course that wouldn't be good business sense. Why show someone the spring when you can sell them water?

[tablespoon]

> How could an author who knows nothing about you possibly be better than yourself at construing an example applicable to you?

He can't. The author can't predict which story or example will connect with you, so he includes many that connected with someone, with the hope that some fraction will connect with any given person. That's why people complain about "fluff": they're annoyed but the stuff that doesn't connect with them, but they haven't thought about it beyond their own personal experience. Maybe they could redact the book down to 10 pages, but so can everyone else, and all the redactions would be different.

> It then seems to me these kinds of books must be made for people who want others to think for them.

You're being uncharitable and kind of conceited. Would you say Calculus textbooks are for people who want others to think for them? Do Real Men take a short primer on mathematical logic and the axioms of ZFC set theory, and go derive Calculus for themselves?

[solarmist]

People can’t think deeply about everything they do.

Examples are shortcuts find relevance. Once I’ve decided a topic is relevant to me then I think deeply about it.

[mike_hock]

Variable-speed reading. Quickly skim over the fluff and slow down for the actual information.

[therealdrag0]

Agree. Even beyond enjoyment I’ve heard multiple very accomplished people in a variety of fields (from theology to math) say in interviews “I’m actually a very slow reader.”

So sure reading fast would be nice, but I think that’s mostly biological whereas slow quality reading you have full control of and we need to focus on that instead.

[dr_dshiv]

Ok, but… I love being able to speed read. Love it. And I can’t speed read many things, like philosophy or “zorba the Greek.” Lol just kidding I totally speed read that shit (but slow down when necessary)

[ffhhj]

“Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested; that is, some books are to be read only in parts; others to be read, but not curiously; and some few are to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.”

[spoonjim]

Well there is some stuff you want to enjoy and there's other stuff you want to process as fast as possible so you get more time to read the stuff you enjoy :)

[ggm]

As a life-long speed/skim reader, 100+

It's been increasingly pointed out to me that my fiction reading habits, which permit enjoyful re-re-re-reading (the constant surprise of things missed each prior reading) are anti-patterns for legal or technical writing: in these cases reading deep, slow, is far better.

There's nothing wrong with re-reading per se. It's about context.

[tartoran]

> in the spirit of Peter Norvig's learn programming in 10 years, and tell people to actually enjoy what it is they're reading.

Not everything should be enjoyed though and that needs to be better known lest people feel they’re doing it wrong when reading skimmable material back to back.