And at least for non-fiction books, one implied assumption at the foundation: people absorb knowledge by reading sentences. This last idea so invisibly defines the medium that it’s hard not to take for granted, which is a shame because, as we’ll see, it’s quite mistaken.It's an important idea in the context of the piece - it comes up in the very first paragraph and serves as the unofficial thesis statement for the remainder of the work. The thought obviously caught my eye right away and my interest in learning more pulled me on through the rest of the piece. By the end, the conclusion posed by the author (which I'll grossly oversimplify here) suggested that readers who interact with a book the way I do (by incorporating a version of spaced repetition with the material) would retain far more information from the book than someone who had simply read the book one time from cover to cover.
After my inflated head returned to normal size, I thought about this conclusion again. No doubt, I'll attest to the merit of a method that longtime readers are surely familiar with - here's a reminder:
1) I read a book over several days, marking down passages to reread later
2) A week later, I return to the book to reread those passages and take notes
3) A month later, I review, trim, and organize the notes into related categories
4) In the ensuing months, I write a short essay or two (or ten)
5) Within a half-year of finishing the book, I proofread those essays and publish them on TOA
If you work through that entire timeline, it comes out to a range of between three and nine months that I'll interact with a book. That's a long time, and that's kind of the whole idea behind space repetition - instead of getting one shot at absorbing the information, you deal with it in chunks that your brain can handle and end up absorbing more of it in the end.
But here's the catch - if you add up all the time I spend on a book, it also comes out to a lot more than the initial reading investment. Writing notes, organizing categories, and all the BS of TOA - that's a lot of time. I would estimate that compared to just reading it once, I spend an additional 2-3x more time. It begs a really simple question - is my method better for retention than just reading the same book one or two more times? I have a hunch (hint: actions speak louder than words). But I'll be honest, I'm not sure I'm right. Quite frankly, I don't think anyone else is capable of being sure, either. It's not that I think anyone is lying about it - I just don't think there is any real way to know the answer for sure.
This inability to tease out the affect of accumulated time on certain observations is the most universal challenge in figuring out the cause-effect relationship for anything. Did the medicine cure me, or did my immune system just require more time? Did the new workout whip me into shape, or did my body simply respond to the increase in overall time spent exercising? The problem with absorbing information from a book might indeed have something to do with the medium - it's highly unlikely that humanity got the form of the book just right at the first moment of asking. But like with anything else, I'm inclined to suggest that a failure of retention is just a failure of time investment. The next time you think you've missed something - whether it be from a book, a conversation, or even the passing scenery - my suggestion isn't to overthink it, just slow down, and see if investing a little more time doesn't lead to a better outcome.
