What is the best way to study a book?
I'm asking this question because I have one of those classes this semester where all of the material is right out of the professor's own book. But this question is also extremely relevant to this forum, considering that most of us get our economics and philosophy education from books. It's my belief that studying Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State is all one needs to get a very solid foundation in economics. In fact, if anyone ever asked me what's the best way to get to "know" economics, I'd just say "study Man, Economy, and State until you understand all of the material inside." And if you wanted to specialize in a field of economics, you'd have to study the literature in that field, obviously.
Anyway, so what's the best way to study a book? Obviously, repetition is important. So reading a re-reading a given chapter or subchapter is important, but what about note taking? Should the chapter be read first as a "dry run" without note-taking, and then maybe on the second reading notes should be taken? Or should notes be taken first?
Does it really matter? I feel like I'm overcomplicating this matter, like I do most things. Should it just be "study and take notes until you thoroughly understand the material?"
Political Atheists Blog
Annotations?
krazy kaju: What is the best way to study a book?
Here's my advice from a while ago:
I. Ryan: I think that one of the most helpful practices to do is to restate the important arguments that you read in their fullest form possible. People often think that, if you don't have anything "original" to write, you should just stick to writing fragmentary notes in a journal, which tend to remind you of the arguments but be incoherent to other people. But I disagree. If I am reading what I think is an important, elegant, and convincing argument, I will try to restate the entire thing in the clearest and most concise way possible but in my writing style. In fact, If I can't think of a better way to write a part of it, I literally just copy what they wrote. It doesn't matter to me whether it would seem to other people that I am just copying or "parroting" what they wrote. My only standard is whether or not the way that I am writing it is the best way that I can think of. I think that the reason why people tend to hold that opinion is because of the copyright system. With the system in existence, to write something that people are going to pay attention to, you have to write it so it is original enough that it doesn't get struck down by the copyright system. Which makes people tend to forget that it of course is possible to make a piece of writing better by just slightly tweaking it instead of rewriting the entire thing, synthesizing the works of many different people so the contribution of any of those people is dissipated enough to allow you to evade the arm of the copyright system, or making the majority of it original. When I was in middle school and high school, I found it bizarre and ridiculous that, when they assigned us papers to do, the teachers always wanted us to "change the wording" of information that we found but then cite it. Why should we change the wording? What if the way that I found it is the best way of wording that I can think of? It seemed like "cheating", like we were changing the wording just to look like we were being more "original" than we really were. Why not just be honest? I felt ridiculous sitting there trying to figure out how to state it differently when I usually couldn't think of a better way to do it. When you're not a good writer having developed your own style, however the person worded what you found feels inescapable, like it is the best way to write it. With the destruction of the copyright system, I think that this bias will disintegrate, I think that people will stop identifying writing and the ideas of the writing so strongly with an individual of a group of individuals and ideas will become more "autonomous". Large numbers of people will start colloborating on projects with no central plan, just as a spontaneous, undesigned order, tweaking the writing of each other to create the final product. People will feel okay about "parroting" most of something and changing only the content of one example or the clarity of one paragraph. People will stop feeling like messing, for example, with the wording of Murray Rothbard, is blasphamy, and start thinking of it as a good exercise and maybe even a way to improve what he wrote. In fact, we are already seeing things like that happening. The open source movement, including, most importantly, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Wikipedia, and others, are heading people in that direction and putting stress on the copyright system. (By the way, to see a good example of that reaction of "blasphamy", check out this link where a guy does a "techno remix" of the 5th symphony of Beethoven only to get buried under tons of pages of flaming of people saying, for example, "WHY THE FUCK WOULD SOMEBODY REMIX OR EVEN TRY TOUCHING A MASTER PIECE LIKE THIS....AND TRY TO MASKE IT BETTER!!!??", "Beethoven would be rolling in his grave", and "Why would someone want to take this masterpiece and completely ruin it?".)
I think that one of the most helpful practices to do is to restate the important arguments that you read in their fullest form possible. People often think that, if you don't have anything "original" to write, you should just stick to writing fragmentary notes in a journal, which tend to remind you of the arguments but be incoherent to other people. But I disagree. If I am reading what I think is an important, elegant, and convincing argument, I will try to restate the entire thing in the clearest and most concise way possible but in my writing style. In fact, If I can't think of a better way to write a part of it, I literally just copy what they wrote. It doesn't matter to me whether it would seem to other people that I am just copying or "parroting" what they wrote. My only standard is whether or not the way that I am writing it is the best way that I can think of. I think that the reason why people tend to hold that opinion is because of the copyright system. With the system in existence, to write something that people are going to pay attention to, you have to write it so it is original enough that it doesn't get struck down by the copyright system. Which makes people tend to forget that it of course is possible to make a piece of writing better by just slightly tweaking it instead of rewriting the entire thing, synthesizing the works of many different people so the contribution of any of those people is dissipated enough to allow you to evade the arm of the copyright system, or making the majority of it original. When I was in middle school and high school, I found it bizarre and ridiculous that, when they assigned us papers to do, the teachers always wanted us to "change the wording" of information that we found but then cite it. Why should we change the wording? What if the way that I found it is the best way of wording that I can think of? It seemed like "cheating", like we were changing the wording just to look like we were being more "original" than we really were. Why not just be honest? I felt ridiculous sitting there trying to figure out how to state it differently when I usually couldn't think of a better way to do it. When you're not a good writer having developed your own style, however the person worded what you found feels inescapable, like it is the best way to write it.
With the destruction of the copyright system, I think that this bias will disintegrate, I think that people will stop identifying writing and the ideas of the writing so strongly with an individual of a group of individuals and ideas will become more "autonomous". Large numbers of people will start colloborating on projects with no central plan, just as a spontaneous, undesigned order, tweaking the writing of each other to create the final product. People will feel okay about "parroting" most of something and changing only the content of one example or the clarity of one paragraph. People will stop feeling like messing, for example, with the wording of Murray Rothbard, is blasphamy, and start thinking of it as a good exercise and maybe even a way to improve what he wrote. In fact, we are already seeing things like that happening. The open source movement, including, most importantly, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Wikipedia, and others, are heading people in that direction and putting stress on the copyright system.
(By the way, to see a good example of that reaction of "blasphamy", check out this link where a guy does a "techno remix" of the 5th symphony of Beethoven only to get buried under tons of pages of flaming of people saying, for example, "WHY THE FUCK WOULD SOMEBODY REMIX OR EVEN TRY TOUCHING A MASTER PIECE LIKE THIS....AND TRY TO MASKE IT BETTER!!!??", "Beethoven would be rolling in his grave", and "Why would someone want to take this masterpiece and completely ruin it?".)
And otherwise that whole thread would be pretty useful for your question.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Ehhh, I'm not so sure about the annotations. Have you found they work for you? The annotations don't seem like a good idea, because it seems to me like it's better to have your notes separate from the book. That way, you can study your notes, and then reread the chapter or subchapter you took notes on. Part of the utility of note-taking is that you then have a separate resource to study from that's easier then a book. The ideas are condensed in a few pages, so it's more portable, and easier to find the key points. And besides, do you really want to be writing inside a treatise like HA or MES? Defacing books like that is sinful! (;
Have you tried mind mapping?
It is better to read the chapter through first to understand the argument before taking notes, that way you can lose the thread of the argument. Well that's my experience.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Good timing for this thread. I will be starting Man, Economy, and State soon.
Thanks for all of your responses. I'll be going with I. Ryan's and Physiocrat's suggestions.
yoshimura:Have you tried mind mapping?
No... I feel like it makes sense to do something like that when you already know the material, not when you're trying to learn it.
I.Ryan:Here's my advice from a while ago:
Excellent advice. A good test of knowledge is whether or not you can explain what you know to others. Also, I agree with your ideas on occasioinally copying the work; it fits with the old idea of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
The best way to study a book is to debate it with someone that holds an opposing view. Preferably someone intellectually honest honest who won't just resort to ad hominem and the like.
Right, but how many people are going to provide an informed critique of a textbook you're using for some esoteric higher-level course in college?
I have a low attention span, so sometimes it's hard for me to sit down and read a book. What helps me is reading almost the point that it's uncomfortable, and keep reading. Eventually, your mind will adjust and you will "soak" in a lot more information.
The LA Times wrote about a study the other day talking about this very subject. I wish I could find it (my professor told us about it just yesterday in my human genetics class), but basically, the best way to study is to read over something twice and then having some kind of exam to recall that information.
Annotation of something I've read always seemed redundant to me as a visual learner. I do it for lectures just to get what they're saying through my eyes. So this part probably depends. Find out what kind of learner you are so you know what you have to do to memorize something.
Yes, I am a huge Dodgers fan.
Anti-state since I learned about the Cuban Revolution and why my dad had to flee the country.
Beer, Guns and Baseball My blog
I also remember reading about a study which showed that you learn something better if you are taught it in two different settings. The study took one group, that read the same material twice in the same room, and then the second group read the same material once in one room, and then once in another room that was painted a different color. The study found that there was a significant difference between the first group and the second group, when the two groups were later tested on the materials. The second group did better. I take this into account by reading and rereading things indoors and outdoors in the summer. I enjoy the sun and the summer warmth, so I do my best to get as much of it as possible. Reading outside helps me do that.