My Notes on How to Read Better and Faster
Time to Hit the Books
When I was a kid, I used to read books all day. During meals, I used to hold a book in my left hand and eat with my right hand. At some point during college, though, I stopped. It was around the time I got my first laptop, after which my meals were spent surfing the web. Nowadays, with faster internet, I spend meals watching YouTube videos and TV shows.
No more. I want to get back to where I was (and surpass it). So, I’ve decided to reread Norman Lewis’s How to Read Better and Faster in the hope that it will make me read more, which by the way is one of his top tips for reading better and faster.
Chapter 1
[2020-09-04 Fri] Speed on the first passage: 629 wpm. Second passage: 846 wpm.
Chapter 2
Hypothesis: Most questions and discussions about a passage will be about the variables mentioned in the title and opening paragraphs, in the form of the causes of a variable, the effects of a variable, or the effect of one variable on another.
For example, the discussion at the end of the hydrogen-bomb passage asked “can bigger explosions of hydrogen bombs set off thermonuclear reactions on Earth?”, but not “was Sir Robert Robertson the president of the British Association for the Advancement of Sciences?”
Hypothesis: Getting the input factors before and after is a relevant factor for figuring out what led to some change.
Reading that A led to B and that B changed later is a relevant factor for ignoring the exact changes in A that led to a change in B and explaining the change by saying that the person did something-that-changed-B.
Pattern: A is more X than B.
[2020-09-04 Fri] Speed on the first passage: 765 wpm.
Test: [2020-09-04 Fri] I failed to notice the title (“Can the H-bomb destroy the Earth?”).
Also failed to see the question buried in the second paragraph; basically, can a nuclear bomb lead to a thermonuclear reaction that destroys life on Earth? I would have noticed it if I’d actually read the title.
My summary: Certain people said that a powerful nuclear bomb could lead to a thermonuclear reaction (dependent variable) similar to that on the Sun. A scientist pointed out the Earth lacks the time spans, raw materials, and environmental conditions (relevant factors of the dependent variable) for such a thermonuclear reaction and is thus safe.
Second passage: 775 wpm. I knew the answer to the comprehension question was (1) but I went with (2).
I took the dependent variable to be the fact that he was writing a letter to his former teacher. I said that he was blaming her for neglecting him in class and showing impatience when he struggled. His later teachers “did better”. However, I didn’t note down exactly what they did better. So, I accepted answer (2): teachers should treat victims of this affliction in an especially considerate manner, constantly pointing out to them the areas in which they excel and the things they can do better than others. I could see that his later teachers had been more considerate. I didn’t actually recall concrete examples of them pointing out things he can do better than others or even areas in which he excelled.
Contrast that to answer (1): A stutterer needs and craves acceptance - only from this will he gain the feeling of confidence and personal security that will help him improve his speech. That sounded like the right answer.
I think I got the dependent variable wrong. It was not why he wrote the letter. It was what helped him get over his stutter. I saw the concrete example of his teacher making him sit separately. However, when I read the rest of the paragraphs about Mrs. Ray and the helpful teacher, I just skimmed them saying “they helped him get over his stutter”. True, but how did they do it?
Basically, I explained his recovery using an unobservable variable: they did “stutter-improving” things to improve his stutter. I should have asked for the exact relevant factors. Not making him the center of attention, asking him to take it easy, and … damn, it says at the end of paragraph 14: help him acquire a feeling of personal security so that he can face the future with confidence. Then, at the end of paragraph 16: improve myself by seeking outlets through school activities. At the start of paragraph 19: That teacher’s kindly interest changed my life.
Second attempt at a summary: He’s writing a letter to his teacher to describe what hurt his stutter and what helped him overcome it. His stutter was worsened by her neglect of him, her impatience, and her putting him in the spotlight. It finally improved with the feeling of acceptance and security he got when Mrs. Ray encouraged him without making him the center of attention and when his later teacher got him involved in handball.
Third passage: “Atom Bombs and X-rays” - 632 wpm.
I missed his comprehension clue: “Of much more practical concern to the average citizen …” I should have realized there that we were comparing the effects of atom bombs and x-rays (the two variables from the title). I got it only when I read “the genetic hazards … are probably not as great as …”.
Fourth passage: “Johnny, A Rejected Child” - 867 wpm.
I asked whether the rejection was a cause or an effect. Saw in paragraph 1 and 2 that he wet his pants in school and that his father was a disciplinarian. Paragraph 7 gave some statistics, which I skipped, and described him as doing poorly. So, I said that rejection from his dad was making him do poorly in academics and in general.
Ok, and he did better later on. What changed? Did I notice that or did I just skim it as “he did things-that-improved-his-results”? Well, I recall that they asked him direct questions, helped him finger-paint with other kids, and asked his dad to ease up. That is probably what they call “acceptance”, which is the opposite of rejection. So, rejection to acceptance improved his results.
Chapter 7
Test: [2020-09-07 Mon] Selection 7: 765 wpm.
Selection 8 - 757 wpm.
Selection 9 - 1117 wpm.
Selection 10 - 843 wpm.
Selection 11 - 833 wpm.
Selection 12 - 1159 wpm.
Selection 13 - 888 wpm.
Selection 14 - 820 wpm.
Selection 15 - 732 wpm.
Chapter 8: How to Skim
(I skimmed this chapter when I was a kid.)
Hypothesis: Skipping a paragraph when its first sentence is irrelevant to the title is a relevant factor for not wasting time on details.
For example, paragraph 3 in skimming exercise 3 started with “Then, there are those with an annual income above a million” - this is not relevant to “how to make a million”. Turns out that the remaining two sentences in the paragraph are also relevant. So, the lead sentence was a good indicator of the entire paragraph’s relevance. Hardly ground-breaking, I know, but still useful to establish this as an observable variable.
Hypothesis: Skipping a paragraph when its first sentence supports the current “idea” is a relevant factor for not wasting time on details.
For example, paragraph 6 starts the point “It is harder to make a million now than it was forty or fifty years ago”. Paragraph 9 starts with “Statistical support for the theory … is provided in a study …”. Turns out that the remaining 9 sentences in the paragraph were supporting sentences too, including a table with lots of dollar sums. So, the lead sentence was a good indicator of the nature of the rest of the paragraph.
“This is obvious, Pradeep.” Yeah, the issue isn’t that we don’t agree with these hypotheses. It’s that, I believe, we fail to apply them. I was wading through the mass of details in irrelevant sections for no reason.
Test: [2020-09-09 Wed] Skimming exercise 3 - I read it one paragraph at a time, from the beginning. The title was “How to make a million”, but I kept reading stuff like “Styles change, they point out, in millionaires as in millinery”. Interesting, but not relevant to the title - how to make a million.
What happens if I look over the essay once to find out its “structure”? First, I notice that there are 27 paragraphs. In paragraph 5, he starts a list of three points that lasts till the end. In fact, the first two points are not how-tos, they’re just warnings about the difficulty of making a million on a salary. The third point is itself a list of three money-making “gimmicks” and is basically the meat of the essay. I could have safely skipped the previous 17 paragraphs. That’s nearly two-thirds of the entire essay. I would have basically tripled my reading speed with this one weird trick.
Chapter 10
Selection 16: 978 wpm. Skimmed a lot of the details.
Selection 17: 1021 wpm.
Selection 18: 1036 wpm.
comments powered by Disqus