←back to thread

666 points georgemandis | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.525s | 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. itsoktocry ◴[] No.44380419[source]
>Slower is usually better for thinking.

Yeah, I see people talking about listening to podcasts or audiobooks on 2x or 3x.

Sometimes I set mine to 0.8x. I find you get time to absorb and think. Am I an outlier?

replies(1): >>44383195 #
2. LanceH ◴[] No.44383195[source]
Depends on what you're listening to. If it's a recap of something and you're just looking for the answer to "what happened?", that can be fine for 2x. If you're getting into the "why?" maybe slower is better. Or if there are a lot of players involved.

I'm trying to imagine listening to War and Peace faster. On the one hand, there are a lot of threads and people to keep track of (I had a notepad of who is who). On the other hand, having the stories compressed in time might help remember what was going on with a character when finally returning to them.

Listening to something like Dune quickly, someone might come out only thinking of the main political thrusts, and the action, without building that same world in their mind they would if read slower.