Part of my attempt to provide a bunch of unsolicited, anecdotal evidence that probably doesn't work for everyone.

-

Of course you already know how to read.  But do you know how to read well?

Many people who read a book want to read for entertainment.  That's perfectly ok -- it seems like a great way to take a break and enjoy yourself.  But many times people pick up a book with the intention to learn something important.  If you're one of those people, it's important not to fool yourself, end up not learning anything, and just waste your time.  That's how you end up reading for entertainment without realizing it.

This was a big problem for me, and I realized I was wasting a lot of time when I otherwise could have been productively reading books.

While I'm still not the best reader, here's how I think I solved that problem:

I'm choosy about which books I read.  There are millions of books in the world.  I can't read them all.  So I have to be choosy.  I think about what I stand to gain from the book.  Is it worth my time to read it?  Is the book actionable?  I personally aim to read books that come to me in reviews, that from a skim of their table of contents look like they'll provide real value to me.

I think about what else I could be doing instead of reading.  Reading is great, but in many cases experience can be a better teacher.  Moreover, picking up some experience can help me understand and apply the lessons in books better.  I try to adopt a "doing-reading" loop, where I read something, act upon it, then read another something, etc., continuing to iteratively improve in whatever skill I'm after.  This also helps validate the advice of books.

I'm not afraid to ditch an underperforming book.  If I don't like it, it's wasting my time, and it's time to move on.

I consider sources other than books. Books are often the best source of information on any topic, and are often higher quality because they're intensely reviewed.  But many blog posts and online resources can be great too.  I Ignore them at my own peril.

I read a summary, read the book, then re-read the summary.  My favorite loop for retaining the main ideas of the book I read is to first find a high quality summary of the book and familiarize myself with the basic points.  Then I read the actual book.  Then, when I'm finished, I look back on the summary and remind myself of the key points and think of the examples that came up in the book.  Note that I can't just read the summary because summaries often only work to remind myself of the book and not to replace the book's content.  (Also note that this summary-read-summary loop might not work well with some books, like textbooks.)

I skim and read actively. If I'm hunting for information, there's no need to read every word on every page.  I feel free to skip through parts I already know, or when the author is belaboring the point too much.  Conversely, I re-read important sections.

I use Audible, Pocket, and Kindle.  Even with the best of intentions, I never actually make the time to read.  Instead, I've found much more success with fitting reading into the gaps of my day.  I use Audible to listen to audiobooks when I'm exercising, cleaning, or commuting.  I use Pocket on my phone to read blog posts when I'm standing in line or in the bathroom.  I use Kindle on my computer when I'm between tasks, or waiting for a program to run.  Substitute other apps as you see fit, but fill your time.

I take notes during, or at least after. Ideally, I should be taking notes on what I read as I read them.  But this usually doesn't end up happening.  Either way, I aim to take some time after reading the book to summarize the book and internalize my lessons learned and figure out what it is about my life (and/or my research program) will be different after reading the book.  If I can't come up with an answer, I probably wasted my time reading the book.

I slow down to digest the books.  Many good books teach a lot at once, and I need to slow down to reflect upon each piece.  Many times, this means I have to take some time away from the book to reflect.

Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

In the same vein as skimming - I sometimes like to just read a bunch of abstracts or literature reviews in a row.

In the same vein as being choosy - textbooks are really good places to start reading about a new subject.

I find that it can help me to read several books at once, also choosing the one I'm most excited to read in that particular moment. I often get bored of books in middle, especially if I'm reading them to learn and don't feel like I'm learning.

The way I fit reading in is on a stationary recumbent bicycle. This can be done in a gym, but it is generally cheaper and less time to have it in one's apartment, even including the increased rent for more square footage.

I'm choosy about which books you read

I'm hoping this is a typo

It's not.

...but fixed, thanks.

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f