Comments
  1. andymatuschak.orgAndy Matuschak25 min
    2 reads2 comments
    6.5
    andymatuschak.org
    2 reads
    6.5
    You must read the article before you can comment on it.
    • workingmom12924 years ago

      He attacked books! Not cool, man, not cool!

      While reading this article I felt like I was trapped in the movie scene during Ferris Bueller's Day Off where Ben Stein repeats, Bueller...Bueller...

      In my opinion the author has such a spirally sense of topical thought that you aren't sure even at the end exactly what the heck it is that he was trying to say. If I was talking to this guy in person I would nod, smile, and very very slowly take steps backward, praying he didn't follow.

      "How might we make books actually work reliably? ......... But I believe it’s possible, and I’ll now try to share why."

      My last cognitive thoughts were, Dear Lord, please stop this article from getting any longer or I am going to have to scratch my eyes out while reading.

      All that said, some (so very little) of what he wrote I could get behind.

      Basically a book is a medium to utilize, to begin gaining an understanding of a more knowledgeable experience, that should be backed up with discussion, testing, utilization, employing all five of the human senses, and then put in to practice and shared with fellow partners in learning the topic in which the book was addressing.

      Your welcome, I just saved your retinas and brain cells from sure destruction.

    • bill
      Top reader of all time
      4 years ago

      This was profoundly inspiring and contains some truly interesting insights, but, unfortunately, the author really bungles a few key points.

      First, there is a lack of clarity around the idea that reading is work, hard work, and that the work is what makes it work. (I’m pretty sure that that sentence makes sense if you read it slow enough.) The piece explores the possibility of an easier, smoother way to turn the act of reading into a vehicle for hyper-efficient knowledge transfer, and yet the author admits outright the fact that there is no easy way, that the reader has to learn how to learn, constantly, at every step of the way.

      The article is extremely repetitive. Quite ironic, really. This is one of the biggest mistakes that writers (and lecturers) make to try to sink a point - saying the same thing over and over again. It’s much more effective to use metaphors, analogies and, of course, compelling stories to get a point across. I literally LOL’d at the paragraph that begins “in summary” because it’s basically an exact reiteration of the immediately preceding paragraph. I also cracked up at “I’ve oversimplified here a bit,” because, yeah, you’re damn right you did. And it’s long-winded. Double whammy. Technical foul. This is a writer who would benefit greatly from a better editor.

      Despite the many flaws, there’s some good, smart thinking here, especially given that the author is just an armchair expert on reading and cognition. I’m glad I read through the absurdity of the opening lines (“Paper or pixels—it hardly matters.” What?! WRONG!) because the overall experience of reading and commenting on this article was/is extremely meta. Especially since I’m using my prototype Readup eReader right now. When it comes to reading for the sake of learning (which, as the author, thank God, admits is not the only reason to read a book) Readup is still a clunky overall experience. This article reminded me that we’re building more than just an awesome new tool and community. It’s a new medium. (I think I’m overdue to return soon to McLuhan and Nicholas Carr.) It’s one thing that we’re “purifying” the text (no ads, no links, no distractions) but we need to really think hard about things like in-line comments, commenting WHILE reading, search within text, article organization and management, and so much more. When I read books, I always have pen in hand and I have an entire code system: underlines, double underlines, checkmarks, exclamation points and question marks in the margins, etc. Readup needs the equivalent. And it needs to be social in a way that doesn’t at all interfere with the holy grail, the sanctity of focused, linear reading.

      Last thing. My ultimate pet peeve: a brutal typo! This makes me nuts because it means that the author didn’t even do a final post-publish proofread. It looks like an accidental copy/paste kinda thing and I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the only person who would ever notice:

      “At this point, a typical narrative in educational technology would observe how AI-based learning systemsFor instance, intelligent tutoring systems have for decades specifically aspired to shoulder more task-oriented metacognitive burden. could offer automated feedback and task planning outside of the classroom.”