3 ms·
I'll go out on a limb and suggest that reading something in order to learn it will always fail: you're trying to understand something exactly the way someone el
by sabat 19y ago
I'll go out on a limb and suggest that reading something in order to learn it will always fail: you're trying to understand something exactly the way someone else does, and that's impossible.
Also, learning is like birth and death: there might be other people in the room, but you do it alone. Learning is an experience, not the result of reading something. You can understand what you read, but understanding an idea != learning.
- wumi 19y agoI say your limb breaks ... although I like your thought pattern I'll say this, if you've had a teacher , don't they teach you the way they see it? Reading a book does nothing to force you to think or understand something the way someone else does: why else can you watch the movie of a book you've already read and say "I imagined that differently" Reading has been used for learning for thousands of years, if only as a tool for greater discussion
- bouncingsoul 19y agoRelated to what you're saying, I think, is what's on the back of The Little Lisper regarding its question-and-answer presentation versus the expositional presentation of normal textbooks: Reading a conventional textbook with expositions followed by problems may keep the reader a passive follower of the displayed line of reasoning. What is wrong about passive reading? It is not always wrong, of course. It can be quite relaxing, but passive reading does not invite the reader to think over the twists of reasoning he may be inclined to. This reflection is necessary in order to doff the wrong twists and to fully appreciate the line of reasoning of the authors.