I'm not sure the article's title quite reflects its point, which is that the amount one reads is not by itself a very useful measure of anything; better to focu

I'm not sure the article's title quite reflects its point, which is that the amount one reads is not by itself a very useful measure of anything; better to focus on what you're reading, why you're reading, and how you're reading. A better title might be: "The amount you read doesn't matter... as much as other factors" ... or something. Some random thoughts: 1) Indeed many nonfiction books are full of fluff and filler. While there's a completionist in me that wants to read every word and finish all books started, I'm now in the more useful habit of skimming and reading the few chapters that interest me. I've been intrigued to see services like Blinklist that summarize the main points, and sometimes I think even those have too much fluff. Sometimes I grab my notebook to take notes only to find there's not much to take note of. But I confess, perhaps up to 95% of the nonfiction I read is ends up being forgotten because it's just not all that useful to me (more useful is just knowing where I can find the info later if needed). (Although there are quite a few books, like Taleb's books, that have changed the way I think about and see the world, but I don't remember the details and wouldn't be great at giving a worthy summary of them; I'd just recommend the book.) 2) This topic reminds me of Mortimer Adler's book "How to Read a Book"; although I don't remember all his specific syntax, it really encouraged me to be more self-conscious about my reasons for reading.