3 ms·
The other problem is what you read; if you’re reading 2 books a week... you’re probably not reading very good books, if only because it would be difficult to ma
by setr 8y ago
The other problem is what you read; if you’re reading 2 books a week... you’re probably not reading very good books, if only because it would be difficult to maintain a backlog of good stuff at that pace. You normally build a library of hundreds of books over a decade, and a thousand books in a lifetime is impressive.
I wouldn’t be surprised if most people reading at this pace have a library similar to barnes and noble, with perhaps the cult classics of their field. But I can’t imagine their actually committing to much research in each subject area, and thus, not much depth
- projektir 8y agoGiven that many people don't read in the first place, I'd be very happy having people reading a library similar to Barnes and Noble, and I think this attitude discourages reading overall. People generally get into reading by finding things they like first. I think this falls into an optimization fallacy, where you are trying to optimize for some faraway conclusion like success and miss the forest for the trees. Reading, even a fun novel, is very beneficial.
- setr 8y agoSure, but reading 100 books by michael crichton doesn’t offer much value beyond the first. My point is that both quality and quantity are important (and diminishing returns apply). The speedreaders described in the article Im assuming have focused primarily on quantity, leading to the lack of value derived.