3 ms·

That’s one of the issues with summaries. Not only are some written by writers who couldn’t write as well as the original author, but you also lose information,

by ElFitz 4y ago

That’s one of the issues with summaries. Not only are some written by writers who couldn’t write as well as the original author, but you also lose information, no matter what you do. Sometimes it’s just the form. Sometimes it’s fluff. But sometimes it’s actual information. And sometimes the form is (or is a part of) the point.

maegul 4y ago
My simple take on this is that summaries are for consumption or extraction in pursuit of a task essentially extraneous to the source material. Reading the original (properly) is for participating in the discourse, which entails the potential of writing a response in essentially the same medium and so continuing the discourse. Unfortunately much of our education with its emphasis on assessment leans hard on extraction and habituates us the same way. Shallow and attention seeking content online hasn’t helped at all, obviously. With universities, I always found it confusing the cognitive dissonance evinced by the attempts at signalling the importance of discourse through seminars/tutorials and Socratic methods while pretending we all weren’t reading the assessment schemes on day 1. When you read and pay attention to the original source, the extra information you get are contextual clues, biases and emphases … essentially insights into the cognitive structure behind the piece and how it might play out at more general levels or in response to future conditions. You capture more of the “thinking”, not just “the thought”, and so can adapt, continue and extend it.
- ElFitz 4y ago
  I also see them as a way of filtering content. Sure, it could lead one to miss out on some relevant things. But there is just so much out there. Most of it mostly noise. Most of the rest, irrelevant to us individually. Being able to navigate through the fluff, to focus on what matters to you, no matter what it is, seems more valuable now than ever.

by ElFitz 4y ago

maegul 4y ago

My simple take on this is that summaries are for consumption or extraction in pursuit of a task essentially extraneous to the source material. Reading the original (properly) is for participating in the discourse, which entails the potential of writing a response in essentially the same medium and so continuing the discourse. Unfortunately much of our education with its emphasis on assessment leans hard on extraction and habituates us the same way. Shallow and attention seeking content online hasn’t helped at all, obviously. With universities, I always found it confusing the cognitive dissonance evinced by the attempts at signalling the importance of discourse through seminars/tutorials and Socratic methods while pretending we all weren’t reading the assessment schemes on day 1. When you read and pay attention to the original source, the extra information you get are contextual clues, biases and emphases … essentially insights into the cognitive structure behind the piece and how it might play out at more general levels or in response to future conditions. You capture more of the “thinking”, not just “the thought”, and so can adapt, continue and extend it.

ElFitz 4y ago
I also see them as a way of filtering content. Sure, it could lead one to miss out on some relevant things. But there is just so much out there. Most of it mostly noise. Most of the rest, irrelevant to us individually. Being able to navigate through the fluff, to focus on what matters to you, no matter what it is, seems more valuable now than ever.