= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Risto_Saarelma comments on Open Thread, May 26 - June 1, 2014 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (245)
I tried this but went about it wrong, I wrote a whole bunch of cards like I was making comprehensive notes (around the level of detail of the MineZone book notes), and ended up getting frustrated by the chaff of disordered small notes that the system threw back at me. One card per article / book section seems like a good rule of thumb.
Do you have any conventions for turning insights that don't necessarily go into a neat question/answer format into card halves? Just put the whole thing on the front of the card?
I've found that the process of creating the cards is helpful because it forces me to make the book's major insight explicit. I usually use cloze tests to run through a book's major points. For example, my card for The Lean Startup is:
"The Lean Startup process for continuous improvement is (1) {{c1::identify the hypothesis to test}}, (2) {{c2::determine metrics with which to evaluate the hypothesis}}, (3) {{c3::build a minimum viable product}}, (4) {{c4::use the product to get data and test the hypothesis}}."
This isn't especially helpful if you just remember what the four phrases are, so I use this as a cue to think briefly about each of those concepts.
Does this become a single card with four blanks to fill or four cards that have all but one blank visible?