4 ms·

The worst is some arbitrary goal of reading X books per year. That clearly optimises for short, easy to read books (eg New York Times Best Sellers) and avoids m

by j7ake 6y ago

The worst is some arbitrary goal of reading X books per year. That clearly optimises for short, easy to read books (eg New York Times Best Sellers) and avoids more technical and difficult books (eg Art of Computer Programming)

Moncefmd 6y ago
That criticism is warranted but I feel that having a "goal" of books to read is a very useful tool to develop the habit of reading in people that never read. As for the type of people that do not typically read, I would encourage them to read what they would love reading (even if its NYT Best sellers) until they love reading.
2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
The worst is the obsession with min/maxing books and disdain for fiction around here as easy and plebeian.
matthewfcarlson 6y ago
I love to read and always have since I was a kid. Over the years I’d just fallen out of the habit, similar to how I don’t watch movies much anymore. I set a goal to read a large number of books since I’d slowly collected a long list and just went in order. If I wasn’t enjoying a book as much as I thought I would, back to the library it went. I found it quite helpful to have a goal in mind. I will agree with you that the temptation was there just to read fluff. I think having the list effectively mitigated that. The only downside is that many books reference other books so the list would just expand exponentially. Am I magically able to access the secrets of universe just because I read a lot? No. But when people ask me “read any good books lately” I can talk about the new Brandon Sanderson book, neuroscience of aging, or the art of non violent communication and the interesting parallels between all three of them. Reading does make you more interesting but so does watching Sundance film festival movies or listening to obscure podcasts. Anything off the beaten path is interesting by definition.
jk7tarYZAQNpTQa 6y ago
Setting a goal, even if arbitrary, is positive if an increased in the measured activity is positive. I think we'll all agree that, in most cases, reading more is a positive outcome. Instead of "read X books" think "run Y miles", do you still feel it's "the worst"? > That clearly optimises for short, easy to read books (eg New York Times Best Sellers) and avoids more technical and difficult books (eg Art of Computer Programming) Some will "cheat", but most won't. Even if you cheat, is reading 15 short, bad books better or worse than reading 0?
- dawg- 6y ago
  >Even if you cheat, is reading 15 short, bad books better or worse than reading 0? If it's done as a chore to hit a certain number, or in a performative spirit to show others how much one has read, I think that person would get more value spending those hours doing something in which they have an authentic interest. Also, it's not an all-or-nothing prospect. A better question might be, "Is it better to read 15 short, bad books or 3 longer, more challenging books that one may not even fully understand on the first reading?"
misiti3780 6y ago
I agree. I used to try to read X books a year, participate in Goodreads year in books, etc. This year I decided to stop consuming 90% of news and 99% of social media (mostly instagram) and try to read at least one 800+ page book per month (usually historical biographies). After reading two of these larger books in 2021, I feel like (and this is nothing new or profound) that concentration really is a lost art and it just takes practice. I also feel like these large books probably help with retaining info because you spend so much time in them, being inculcated on the subject. It's kinda like a giant monthly experiment in SRS.
- dorchadas 6y ago
  I completely agree. I decided to ditch my Goodreads goal of 52 books a year halfway through 2020 (even though I was on-pace at the time to meet it), thanks in part to /r/bookscirclejerk. I just realized that I was reading quick things to finish them, and often returning to books I had read multiple times simply for an easy read to round off my list (Harry Potter being a prime example of this). Instead, I decided to focus on getting more out of the books I'm reading, and to read more challenging books, both non-fiction and fiction. I've also started putting more time into understanding what the books are saying and analyzing them. Overall, I think I'm better off for it and enjoy it more than rushing through 52+ fantasy books in a year.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mcguire 6y ago
Please try to avoid gatekeeping in public, particularly with regards to what people read. Please?
- goostavos 6y ago
  Please try to avoid gatekeeping gatekeepers with regards to where they gatekeep. Also, is it actually "gatekeeping" to say that arbitrary numeric goals optimize for a different kind of reading than what you'd get with different kinds of goals?
- dawg- 6y ago
  I'm not sure it's fair to say that I'm gatekeeping what people read. It's more about the spirit behind the reading. Anyway, if it's gatekeeping to suggest that people should pursue personal growth through their own authentic interests rather than reading as a chore to be "more efficient", then call me president of the gatekeeping club for all I care.
  - mcguire 6y ago
    "That clearly optimises for short, easy to read books ... and avoids more technical and difficult books..." If someone reads short, easy to read books for any reason, that's dandy. I'm sure they'll get something useful out of it. On the other hand, are you reading The Art of Computer Programming? (Oddly enough, I can currently answer yes, since I've been playing around with the section in Seminumerical Algorithms on testing random number sources. :-) )

by j7ake 6y ago

Moncefmd 6y ago

That criticism is warranted but I feel that having a "goal" of books to read is a very useful tool to develop the habit of reading in people that never read. As for the type of people that do not typically read, I would encourage them to read what they would love reading (even if its NYT Best sellers) until they love reading.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago

The worst is the obsession with min/maxing books and disdain for fiction around here as easy and plebeian.

matthewfcarlson 6y ago

I love to read and always have since I was a kid. Over the years I’d just fallen out of the habit, similar to how I don’t watch movies much anymore. I set a goal to read a large number of books since I’d slowly collected a long list and just went in order. If I wasn’t enjoying a book as much as I thought I would, back to the library it went. I found it quite helpful to have a goal in mind. I will agree with you that the temptation was there just to read fluff. I think having the list effectively mitigated that. The only downside is that many books reference other books so the list would just expand exponentially. Am I magically able to access the secrets of universe just because I read a lot? No. But when people ask me “read any good books lately” I can talk about the new Brandon Sanderson book, neuroscience of aging, or the art of non violent communication and the interesting parallels between all three of them. Reading does make you more interesting but so does watching Sundance film festival movies or listening to obscure podcasts. Anything off the beaten path is interesting by definition.

jk7tarYZAQNpTQa 6y ago

Setting a goal, even if arbitrary, is positive if an increased in the measured activity is positive. I think we'll all agree that, in most cases, reading more is a positive outcome. Instead of "read X books" think "run Y miles", do you still feel it's "the worst"? > That clearly optimises for short, easy to read books (eg New York Times Best Sellers) and avoids more technical and difficult books (eg Art of Computer Programming) Some will "cheat", but most won't. Even if you cheat, is reading 15 short, bad books better or worse than reading 0?

dawg- 6y ago
>Even if you cheat, is reading 15 short, bad books better or worse than reading 0? If it's done as a chore to hit a certain number, or in a performative spirit to show others how much one has read, I think that person would get more value spending those hours doing something in which they have an authentic interest. Also, it's not an all-or-nothing prospect. A better question might be, "Is it better to read 15 short, bad books or 3 longer, more challenging books that one may not even fully understand on the first reading?"

misiti3780 6y ago

I agree. I used to try to read X books a year, participate in Goodreads year in books, etc. This year I decided to stop consuming 90% of news and 99% of social media (mostly instagram) and try to read at least one 800+ page book per month (usually historical biographies). After reading two of these larger books in 2021, I feel like (and this is nothing new or profound) that concentration really is a lost art and it just takes practice. I also feel like these large books probably help with retaining info because you spend so much time in them, being inculcated on the subject. It's kinda like a giant monthly experiment in SRS.

dorchadas 6y ago
I completely agree. I decided to ditch my Goodreads goal of 52 books a year halfway through 2020 (even though I was on-pace at the time to meet it), thanks in part to /r/bookscirclejerk. I just realized that I was reading quick things to finish them, and often returning to books I had read multiple times simply for an easy read to round off my list (Harry Potter being a prime example of this). Instead, I decided to focus on getting more out of the books I'm reading, and to read more challenging books, both non-fiction and fiction. I've also started putting more time into understanding what the books are saying and analyzing them. Overall, I think I'm better off for it and enjoy it more than rushing through 52+ fantasy books in a year.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mcguire 6y ago

Please try to avoid gatekeeping in public, particularly with regards to what people read. Please?

goostavos 6y ago
Please try to avoid gatekeeping gatekeepers with regards to where they gatekeep. Also, is it actually "gatekeeping" to say that arbitrary numeric goals optimize for a different kind of reading than what you'd get with different kinds of goals?
dawg- 6y ago
I'm not sure it's fair to say that I'm gatekeeping what people read. It's more about the spirit behind the reading. Anyway, if it's gatekeeping to suggest that people should pursue personal growth through their own authentic interests rather than reading as a chore to be "more efficient", then call me president of the gatekeeping club for all I care.
- mcguire 6y ago
  "That clearly optimises for short, easy to read books ... and avoids more technical and difficult books..." If someone reads short, easy to read books for any reason, that's dandy. I'm sure they'll get something useful out of it. On the other hand, are you reading The Art of Computer Programming? (Oddly enough, I can currently answer yes, since I've been playing around with the section in Seminumerical Algorithms on testing random number sources. :-) )