←back to thread

685 points georgemandis | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.271s | source
Show context
heeton ◴[] No.44378250[source]
A point on skimming vs taking the time to read something properly.

I read a transcript + summary of that exact talk. I thought it was fine, but uninteresting, I moved on.

Later I saw it had been put on youtube and I was on the train, so I watched the whole thing at normal speed. I had a huge number of different ideas, thoughts and decisions, sparked by watching the whole thing.

This happens to me in other areas too. Watching a conference talk in person is far more useful to me than watching it online with other distractions. Watching it online is more useful again than reading a summary.

Going for a walk to think about something deeply beats a 10 minute session to "solve" the problem and forget it.

Slower is usually better for thinking.

replies(6): >>44378391 #>>44378560 #>>44379201 #>>44379324 #>>44379750 #>>44380419 #
1. georgemandis ◴[] No.44378560[source]
For what it's worth, I completely agree with you, for all the reasons you're saying. With talks in particular I think it's seldom about the raw content and ideas presented and more about the ancillary ideas they provoke and inspire, like you're describing.

There is just so much content out there. And context is everything. If the person sharing it had led with some specific ideas or thoughts I might have taken the time to watch and looked for those ideas. But in the context it was received—a quick link with no additional context—I really just wanted the "gist" to know what I was even potentially responding to.

In this case, for me, it was worth it. I can go back and decide if I want to watch it. Your comment has intrigued me so I very well might!

++ to "Slower is usually better for thinking"