6 ms·
> You can test this theory by reading three similar books in a row on an unfamiliar subject. You’ll remember more of the third book than the first. That's not
by NOGDP 6y ago
> You can test this theory by reading three similar books in a row on an unfamiliar subject. You’ll remember more of the third book than the first.
That's not a very useful scenario when talking about reading X books a month and retaining Y percent. If you don't control for how much of the information is new, then the % retention is pretty arbitrary. You can read the same book 3 times and I'm sure you'll get better retention on the third repetition.
- 1123581321 6y agoMy point is Bill Gates, and anyone who reads for retention, does control how much of the information is new by picking books they bring a lot of context to. But you are right that reading the same unfamiliar book three times would also be a way to bring more context to the third reading.
- NOGDP 6y agoYeah, I agree with what you said. My point is that it's pointless and misleading to bring up retention numbers if most what you're retaining you already knew previously. It's not a measure of how much you're actually learning.
- 1123581321 6y agoTrue. I originally jumped in to object to the original poster’s idea that trying to control retention is pointless or impossible. There are too many variables that go into how much is objectively retained and for how long, especially since not every subject, author or title is read for the same purpose so success varies. I would, though, assume Bill Gates could retain 90% of a given book with less context than most people would need, i.e. retain a higher volume of new information than most people. That would be true whether measuring retention of everything in the book or just the new parts.
- thatcat 6y agoIt's about being related to what you knew because you have more connections to make, the info itself is still novel.