= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Damn, that is a lession I forgot. Does anyone else experience this? Reading an article, agreeing with it being an interesting insight, forgetting it and then rediscovering it in a different context?
This happened to me all the time before I started putting valuable insights into Anki. I find that 1 card per outstanding article or lecture and 1-3 cards per excellent book is about right. (This is the only thing I use Anki for.)
Where did you learn these speed reading techniques?
I leaned from Matt Fallshaw, who IIRC was using something loosely based on the Evelyn Wood method.
In response to
Open Thread, May 26 - June 1, 2014
Any advice on how to increase the amount I read without increasing the time I spend reading? I'm concerned that just trying to up the pace will lower my comprehension.
My experience is that modern speed-reading techniques don't lower comprehension unless you get extremely fast (say, 900-1500 wpm). The exception is the very early stages, so it's good to practice on, e.g., mildly interesting fiction. After a couple of weeks with ~30 minutes of focused practice daily, I was reading at double my previous pace with the same comprehension.
In response to
Effective Altruism Summit 2014
Any word on this? We submitted applications ~6 weeks ago and it would be useful to find out who will be offered a spot.
We're working on putting the guest list together. I'll notify people as soon as we have definite answers.
In response to
LessWrong as social catalyst
Online stuff:
I have several friends in the DC area who I met because I made this post.
I found my job because I applied to a CFAR workshop, and that led me to attend the Effective Altruism Summit instead (funny story there), which is where I first met the team I work with.
Phil and Eliezer have critiqued my fiction, and I've done the same for Phil and Vaniver.
Meatspace stuff:
I met about a dozen good friends in Boston through LW meetups and lived with several of them before I moved to SF.
These days, my primary social group is maybe 50% self-identified rationalists and 100% people who are serious about existential risk and laugh at jokes about fundamental epistemology.
In response to
Meetup Notes: Community Building
What I still don't get is how to steer a conversation from small-talk phase to more personal topics - esp. in a group setting.
Rosenberg's book gave me a framework that I use to understand the feelings someone is experiencing and to communicate my own experience, which I think is what you mean by "personal topics." The differences between the first and second versions of Schelling Day are strongly informed by this framework, to give an (extremely mechanical and oversystematized) example.
In response to
Schelling Day 2.0
If your die shows a one, you MAY NOT speak
I suggest you change "MAY NOT" into "MUST NOT". The statement "you MAY NOT speak" could be misinterpreted to mean that you have the permission not to speak, which you do by default.
In response to
Schelling Day 2.0
I note you've dropped the 'potluck' portion from last year. Is the primary motivation for that the peak-end rule, increased portability, or something else?
It's because of the peak-end rule. Last year, Boston's potluck started out with us following up on what people had shared, and then drifted to our usual conversation topics. I think there are still good reasons to eat a meal together, and good reasons for such a meal to be a potluck, but I'd recommend doing so before the event. I'll edit that in to the post.
In response to
Meetup : Boston - Schelling Day
I'll flag that I'm currently working on revisions to the holiday based on feedback from last time. Expect that to be posted soon.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
How do you know that you have the same comprehension?
I frequently give my friends detailed feedback and analysis on their writing. They know about my speed reading thing, and none of them have noticed any change in the quality of my feedback.