hatena
<body>
*1422763177* with the ability to gather information from the Internet and do associative searches.
he> What would you like to see happen in this conversation?
I have added a function to load content from the Internet by specifying a URL, and I'd like to demonstrate it.
he> What does that URL specification look like?
I> http://d.hatena.ne.jp/nishiohirokazu/20150126/1422276973
he> "An experimental log in which I was explaining a new feature and ended up going for a new world - Hatena Diary of NISHIO Hirokazu" was read and 142 key phrases were extracted.
I> In addition, I added the ability to do an associative search in a given corpus using the set of keywords from the conversation up to that point.
He> How do you know about that conversation?
I> Associations
He>
>||
A hacker's last will and testament: Ikuo Takeuchi's idle moss No. 4: Specters in the computer
1338 user:93,question:1,viewpoint:1,self:1,program:0
7 Steps for Engineers to Achieve Innovation──Ryo Nakadoi & NISHIO Hirokazu, U Theory Reveals How to Learn from the Future
511 new:41,self:32,knowledge:12,what:6,world:3
Can you get results even if you go home early? ─ What is the secret to a string of hits, as told by the editor-in-chief of "Zexy," who gained a sei-katsu-sha perspective during her maternity leave?
478 Self:34,Time:21,New:14,Perspective:14,Knowledge:5
Teams are destroyed by "it's faster to do it yourself."
430 self:45,questions:40,point of view:11,time:2
Connecting "work" and "life" locally - Building a team of mothers raising children to "change the way they work".
400 New: 35, Self: 30, Input: 9, Perspective: 8, Questions: 5
Advantages and disadvantages found in the interviews with six people - Thinking about "certification exams" for engineers (summary)
377 knowledge:49,self:31,what:4,field:3,program:3
How can "out-of-mainstream me" survive in a company?　TBS Radio: A Mastermind Producer's Perspective on Cultural Work
360 Self:66,New:9,World:8,Perspective:4,Understanding:2
Can U Theory Change the Way Engineers Learn? --Ryo Nakadoi & NISHIO Hirokazu, Thinking about the process of innovation without being bound by the framework of the past
350 new:30,self:30,point of view:19,what:4,world:4
Internship with a family with two working parents!　─ ─ Guilt-Free Childcare Support Changes the Way We Work
331 self:59,new:10,viewpoint:10,time:4,program:4
New NewsPicks and Cybozu-style initiative to begin in September.
329 New:21,Understanding:14,Comment:12,Perspective:10,Self:9
||<
I> Right now, the corpus is just Cybozu-style articles, but I'll add more eventually.
he> Where is that corpus?
I> locally. In the near future, data collected from the Internet will be included in the corpus.
*1422763753*Experimental log consulting design to program 2
2015-01-31 13:11:34
he> What would you like to see happen in this conversation?
I> I've created a program to search Wikipedia locally and extract keywords, but I'm not sure what to do from here, so I need advice.
he> What does that program look like?
I> my own search engine that allows me to search Wikipedia without an internet connection and pull up linked information and headline structure from there.
He> What is that self-serving like?
I> It's for my own use only, so no matter how much I search around, I won't bother others. So I can get all the links to the pages that people are reading right now and analyze them in advance, etc.
he> What kind of self-dedication is that self-dedication?
I> I didn't mean that it wasn't open to others, but rather that it didn't go to the main house for connection. I guess it would be more appropriate to call it offline rather than for my exclusive use.
He> Where is that dedicated?
Me> in my own laptop.
He> How do you know about that laptop?
I> I usually carry it with me. I don't carry it with me now. In that sense, it would be better if I could do it on my iPhone.
He> Where is that better?
I> In my mind.
he> Where is the heart of it?
I> my chest.
He> Is there anything else about that me?
I> I don't mind reading Wikipedia, but that activity doesn't differentiate me because anyone can do it, and I need some way to get more benefit per unit time than others.
He> What is it that you value?
I> To know, to understand.
he> Where does that knowledge come from?
I> Information on Wikipedia and other sites is also knowledge, but in this day and age, information that can be easily found by searching has no commercial value. The type of information that you can't find by searching on Wikipedia today, and that is useful to you, is knowledge.
he> What kind of Wikipedia is that Wikipedia?
Wikipedia as a web service at this time
He> Then what happens?
I> The system that stores knowledge that cannot be obtained by search brings value by supporting some intellectual activity of human beings.
he> How do you know about the system?
I> Knowing itself is a human intellectual activity, and if we can assist it in some small way with software, the probability that the assisted human will come up with software that will assist it better increases. Knowing by repeating this positive feedback.
He> Is there anything else you can tell us about that person?
I> On the human side, I need to gain commercial value in the short term from using the software. I need to justify devoting time resources to learning how to use the software and using it.
he> What is the relationship between its time resources and software?
I> Software is a creature that feeds on human time resources and grows
he> What happens just before that?
I> Just before humans give software the bait of time resources, humans follow some desire to "use this software". I am not aware that my time is being eaten.
he> Where does that time resource come from?
I> limited lifespan that a human being has.
he> What happens next?
I> People are devoting more and more of their limited time resources to things like Twitter and games. This is because the people who design that kind of software have learned about how the human reward system works and how addictions occur, and they use that knowledge for their own commercial value. Software that uses this knowledge to gain commercial value for its users can easily justify its charges, so it can attract people who would not charge for a shadow game. That market will expand.
he> What do you hope will happen with that software?
I> I hope I can get a track record of something worthwhile being created with the support of that software.
he> What needs to happen to that software?
I> be able to give advice of value to humans.
Can he> software do that?
I> I haven't yet been able to think of valuable advice as something that is given from the outside that is not in us, but I'm already pretty good at thinking of it as asking neutral questions and encouraging the verbalization of things that have been in us but have not yet been verbalized.
I see, so the direction of "using information from Wikipedia to extract information from humans" is more beneficial than the direction of "giving humans knowledge outside of humans brought from Wikipedia". I see.
*1422768580*Experiment 1 of writing an article while talking to a program: raw log (long)
he> What would you like to see happen in this conversation?
I> I'm thinking of writing a blog post on speed reading, but I'd like to experiment to see if I can help with writing through dialogue instead of writing and then correcting.
he> What type of dialogue is that?
Me> Uh, the answer to that question is the dialogue we're having here, but if the user has a clear theme, I'd like to reject questions that stray from the theme.
he> In that case, where is it?
me> ngkw.
He> Is there anything else about that dialogue?
I> I have tried several times the approach of posting the dialogue itself as content, but realistically there are times when it is not desirable to be in a dialogue format. Or even if the dialogue format is fine, this dialogue format makes the conversation too divergent to read.
he> What does that dialogue format look like?
I> First of all, it works.
He> outlier seems to be what?
I> First, listen to me.
He> Yes, sir.
I> I think the most important concept being proposed at the moment regarding speed reading is "focused reading".
his> Reading
I> The concept is simply this: "The appropriate reading speed depends on the purpose and the difficulty of the book, so it is important to have the skill to control the speed appropriately.
he > Books
I> Speed reading is often assumed to be a technique for reading fast, but if you are trying to read a book fast that is not appropriate to read fast, no matter what "speed reading" method you bring up, it will not work.
He> Assumption
Me> I believe the relationship between the amount of time I can write to read and the amount of value I get from it is an S-curve.
he> relationship
I> I'll express it in a diagram later, but the easy book behaves as a "quick to understand, quick to saturate" because the inflection points of the S-curve are so close together. So there is no point in spending too much time reading it. It just saturates.
He> Time
Me> On the other hand, difficult books are far from the inflection point. So "reading a little" will give you little value. After some reading, you finally reach a zone with a large gradient.
he> difficult
me> ngkw.
He> degree
me> ngkw.
he> gradient
I> Yes. So the slope varies, so the relationship between the time multiplied and the benefit gained is not linear.
He> Merit
I> If this learning curve is an S curve, the relationship between time cost and what you get, the cost-benefit curve has one peak
he > curve
I> Ideally, it would be good to know that peak in advance, but realistically that's not possible, so you'll have to adjust as you read and land in a good place.
Him> Ideal
Me> While we're talking, this is not what I was planning to write about. This stuff I've written before, not in the context of reading, but in regards to learning a new field.
He> previously wrote
Me> Facebook, maybe a paper notebook... I need to be able to search my Facebook posts, otherwise it's inconvenient at times like this.
he > Facebook
I> I thought I wrote it on Facebook, but I couldn't find it in the activity search, and I checked my paper notebook, but it looks like it was written in the one I just left at work.
he > Search
Me> I'll reconstruct it from memory and we can look at the notes later to verify it.
He > Notes
Me> It's simple, if you have multiple "domains" to study, and both learning curves are S-curves, if you choose the most cost-effective target in the short term, you will choose the one that is not optimal in the long term.
He> Effect
Me> To simplify the story, let's say there are two domains and both learning curves are the same S-curve. If I study domain A a little, the slope of the learning curve of domain A is steeper than that of domain B
He > Learning
I> So in the short term cost-effectiveness, "it is beneficial to keep learning domain A". The same is true in the long term, which explains why the strategy of "keep picking and choosing various fields and never get to the point where you can use any of them" is a bad idea.
he > strategy
I> However, looking at short-term cost-effectiveness, the next time the answer "it is more beneficial to learn domain B" will be when the learning curve of domain A saturates and the slope decreases below the slope of B, which is too late for long-term cost-effectiveness. This is too late for long-term cost-effectiveness, because the optimal solution after that time is a 1:1 mixture of domains A and B.
He> A
me> ngkw.
He> B
me> ngkw.
he > domain B
Me> Hmm, before I started writing this commentary, my answer was "switching at the point of maximum cost-effectiveness is best in the long run", but that's with the implicit assumption that you don't learn about domain A after you make the switch.
he > domain A
I> And the point where the cost-effectiveness is maximized is the point where the slope of the line drawn on the S-curve from the origin is maximized, which is surprisingly in front of the origin.
he> inclination
I> In a model where both domains can continue to learn all the time, it would be optimal to be at 1:1 at the "point where the gradient of A drops below the gradient of B due to saturation" mentioned above, but I don't think it is optimal to learn A and B in the same amount from the beginning. What it is missing from the consideration is that this method uses "learning efficiency at a certain point t" as a KPI, but the real KPI is "integration up to a certain point t".
he> way
I> Also, this long-term cost-benefit concept is "learn as if you live forever" (Mahatma Gandhi), but in reality, the human life span is finite, so it could be a different solution as a finite time resource allocation problem. I'll think about it next time.
(He> Gandhi)
me> ngkw.
He> Mahatma
me> ngkw.
he > distribution problem
Me> I got sidetracked. I got some useful insights, but that can't be used for the purpose of writing this blog post. I don't have the material at hand, and I haven't given it enough thought.
he> blog post writing
I> The flow of the planned story is that the correlation "the value gained increases as the time invested increases" is accepted, even though the slope changes with the S-curve and is not linear.
He > Value
I> So, let's draw a pyramid diagram with this axis of time input drawn vertically. I will draw a diagram later.
he > pyramid
I> So what is at the top of the pyramid? And what is at the top of the pyramid?
He> What the hell?
Me> Of the various ways of reading, the most extreme time-saving method is not reading.
He> Extreme
I> The book that describes a bit before the extreme would be "How to talk openly about a book you haven't read".
he> magnificent
Me> I wrote about this before on Facebook: the title is how-to-like, but it's not that, it's about the three norms "it's outrageous that you haven't read book X", "if you read a book, you should read through it", and "if you talk about book X, you need to have read book X", and that it's not justified. The book discusses.
First, let us elaborate on the "unread" condition. If we say that one has "read" a book only by having read it completely through, then most books worth reading are unread, given the mere volume and the speed at which people read. I used to resent the fact that people who talked about brainstorming had not read Osborn's book, or that people who taught or used the KJ method had not read Jiro Kawakita's book, but that was also an absurd demand in reality, because it was a way of thinking that was trapped by the above norms.
As an example of an extreme coping strategy for this situation, a (fictional) story is presented about a librarian who reads only books written about the relationship between books and tries to figure out where each book stands in relation to the others. This is extreme, of course, but it is a more realistic goal set than thinking that one "must" read more books than one can read.
However, I personally do not enjoy this strategy and it does not differentiate between people who are following the same strategy. This is the kind of thing that should be pushed to computers.
He> Book
I> A reading methodology that takes a little more time than that is "photo reading".
he> Reading
I> Ignoring the dubious part about how scanning the book with a blurred perspective is beneficial because it is absorbed into the subconscious, this book is actually a surprisingly thorough reading method, including clarifying the purpose, extracting key words from the table of contents, and reading it five times before starting to "read" it. It's actually a surprisingly thorough reading method.
He> Kiewer.
me> ngkw.
He> Scanning
Me> Well, the sales copy that says "you can read a book in 10 minutes" is not a lie, it just defines "reading" as looking through a book at a pace of 10 minutes per book.
he > sales copy
Me> At 300 pages per book, that translates to 2 seconds per page. A spread takes 4 seconds. Surprisingly slow.
he> Page 2
me> ngkw.
He> 300 pages
I> Of course, it is much faster than the style of reading books aloud that elementary school students are required to do. Reading aloud takes about 300 words per second, which, at 900 words per page, translates to 3 minutes per page, or 15 hours for one book. Compared to this, it is by far the fastest.
he> Page 3
me> ngkw.
He> Read aloud
I> Focused reading is a method that emphasizes controlling speed, but roughly which speed is chosen from 3 seconds per spread, 3 seconds per page, 6 seconds per page, 12 seconds per page, and 24 seconds per page, so it's like a band between photo reading and reading aloud.
He> Page 1 of 3
me> ngkw.
He> 1 page
I> 24 seconds per page is 2250 words per minute, which is about the same as 2500 words/minute for the 5th level in the standard for the speed reading test. 300 words/minute of reading aloud is 8th level in this test. This is the band occupied by speed reading, which assumes "the same level of comprehension as reading aloud".
he> 2500 characters
Me> On the slower side of that is "The Art of Reading Difficult Books," which is a 20-hour per book guideline.
He> 1
me> ngkw.
He > 20
me> ngkw.
I> test
(Rebooted server after stepping on a bug and lost response)
I> Even slower on the side than that is the math department's method of preparing for a seminar, where they spend 50 or 100 hours preparing for each seminar.
he> What type of preparation is that?
I> First, listen to me.
He> How do you know the time?
I> First, listen to me.
He> Yes, sir.
I> Is there an opposite extreme? That is, just as there was "not reading" as the extreme of the one who does not spend time in reading, is there something that cannot spend any more time as the extreme of the one who does spend time?
He> Time
I> There is a shift in Zen thinking that what appears to be a means to an end is not a means to an end: "You do not become a Buddha by doing zazen, but the state of being in zazen is Buddha.
He> Conception
I> If we apply this to reading, we can derive the idea that we do not learn by reading, but that the state of reading is learning.
he> way
I> There is no end to this way of thinking about reading, so you can't spend more time on it.
he> Reading
*1422770396*Experiment 2: Re-entering logs while talking to a program and writing an article
he> What would you like to see happen in this conversation?
I> I'm thinking of writing a blog post on speed reading, but I'd like to experiment to see if I can help with writing through dialogue instead of writing and then correcting.
he> What happens just before that?
I> First, listen to me.
He> Yes, sir.
I> The most important concept being proposed at the moment regarding speed reading is "focused reading". Briefly put, "The appropriate reading speed depends on the purpose and the difficulty of the book, so it is important to have the skill to control the speed appropriately. Speed reading is often assumed to be a technique for reading quickly, but if you are trying to read a book quickly that is not appropriate to read quickly, no matter what "speed reading" method you bring up, it will not work.
he > technology
I> Let's draw a pyramid by drawing a vertical axis about this time input. The apex of this pyramid is the extreme end of the reading method that uses the least amount of time. What is this?
He> Time
Me> This is "not reading". Of the various ways of reading, the most extreme time-saving method is "not reading. A book that describes the extreme end of the spectrum would be "How to talk openly about the books you haven't read". The title is how-to-like, but it isn't. The book discusses the three norms "not reading book X is outrageous," "as long as you read a book, you should read through it," and "if you talk about book X, you must have read book X," and how they cannot be justified.
First, let us elaborate on the "unread" condition. If we say that one has "read" a book only by having read it completely through, then most books worth reading are unread, given the mere volume and the speed at which people read. I used to resent the fact that people who talked about brainstorming had not read Osborn's book, or that people who taught or used the KJ method had not read Jiro Kawakita's book, but that was also an absurd demand in reality, because it was a way of thinking that was trapped by the above norms.
As an example of an extreme coping strategy for this situation, a (fictional) story is presented about a librarian who reads only books written about the relationship between books and tries to figure out where each book stands in relation to the others. This is extreme, of course, but it is a more realistic goal set than thinking that one "must" read more books than one can read.
He> Read through
Me> "Photo reading" is a more time consuming method. Ignoring the dubious part about scanning with a blurred viewpoint to be absorbed into the subconscious mind, this book is actually a method of reading surprisingly thoroughly, including clarifying the purpose, extracting key words from the table of contents, and reading the book five times before starting to "read".
He> Kiewer.
I> The book defines "reading" as looking through a book at a pace of 10 minutes per book; at 300 pages per book, that translates to 2 seconds per page. A 300-page book takes 2 seconds per page, or 4 seconds per spread. Surprisingly slow.
He> 1
I> Reading aloud is much faster than the "reading aloud a book" that is required in elementary schools. Reading aloud takes about 300 words per second, which, at 900 words per page, translates to 3 minutes per page, or 15 hours for one book.
He> School
I> There are two strips between these two readings.
He> between
I> One is focused reading, which I mentioned earlier. This is a method that emphasizes speed control, but roughly speaking, it focuses on the following speeds: 3 seconds per spread, 3 seconds per page, 6 seconds per page, 12 seconds per page, and 24 seconds per page. The other band is the reading method considered by the speed comprehension test: 24 seconds per page is 2250 words per minute, which is about the same as 2500 words/minute for a 5-step reading by the speed comprehension test standard. Reading aloud 300 characters/minute would be level 8 in this test.
He> Page 1 of 6
Me> Is reading aloud the slowest way to read? No, no. On the slower side of reading aloud is "The Art of Reading Difficult Books," which is based on 20 hours per book. This book explains how to read a difficult book, such as a philosophy book, twice while making reading notes. The book explains how to tackle difficult books from such perspectives as what patterns exist in difficult books, whether they are open or closed books, whether external references are necessary, and whether they are read critically or assimilatively.
he> Reading notes
Me> Even on the slower side of this is the way we are trained in math departments to read math books: we spend 50 or 100 hours preparing for each seminar. The idea is that you can't just leave something you don't understand and go on reading.
He> reading
I> Is there an extreme opposite to the apex in the pyramid of reading? In other words, just as there was "not reading" as the "extreme of not taking time" in reading, is there something that cannot take any more time as the "extreme of taking time"?
he> Reading
I> There is a shift in Zen thinking that says, "You do not become a Buddha by doing zazen, but the state of being in zazen is the Buddha. Applying this to reading, we can derive the idea that "we do not learn by reading, but that the state of reading is learning. Since there is no end to reading in this way of thinking, we cannot spend any more time on it.
he> way of thinking
I> The end.
he> What does that condition seem to be?
Me> Personally, I don't agree with the opinion that the state of reading is learning and an end. Because I think learning is also a means, not an end.
he> What type of reading is that reading?
Me> Reading to acquire knowledge that is beneficial to my life and make my life better.
He> What is it that you value?
Me> beneficial reading for my life
He> Where is that life?
There is only one in me, and it burns like a candle, gradually shrinking and finally disappearing.
He> Where is that candle?
I> It is still in the chest area.
he> What happens just before that?
I> I wonder what knowledge does for a candle. It doesn't make the candle grow. I wonder if it will move the black cloud around it so that the light can reach the outside properly.
He> Is there anything else you can tell us about that area?
I> If a candle is covered with a black blur, no matter how bright it shines, the light cannot be transmitted to the outside. If you don't know the language, even if you have some beneficial experience that you need to communicate to others, you cannot communicate it to others. In the evolutionary history of living organisms, the ability to communicate experiences to other individuals has given them an advantage for survival, and as a result, organisms with this ability have survived to form the human species.
He> Then what happens?
I> Humans invented writing, libraries, letterpress, etc., so that words could be transmitted hundreds of years ago.
he> What happens just before that?
I> Yes, written thoughts can now be distributed beyond time and place, but the question of how to put thoughts into writing is still left to the individual's own resourcefulness. This is the reason why I am creating this system to listen to the thoughts of others.
he> Where does that system come from?
I> First, I will create a prototype and release it to the public, and if it actually seems to produce real benefit, then there will be some form of influx of resources. The first step is to create a prototype that will generate real benefit.
he> Where is that first?
I> Now, here.
he> What happens next?
I> I don't know.
*1422772239* Overlooking the "art of reading".
The most important concept being proposed at the moment regarding speed reading is "<a href="http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/4569701620/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=247&creative=7399& creativeASIN=4569701620&linkCode=as2&tag=nishiojr-22">focus reading</a>. Briefly put, "The appropriate reading speed depends on the purpose and the difficulty of the book, so it is important to have the skill to control the speed appropriately. Speed reading is often assumed to be a technique for reading quickly, but if you are trying to read a book quickly that is not appropriate to read quickly, no matter what "speed reading method" you bring up, it will not work.
Let's draw a pyramid by drawing a vertical axis about this time input. Apex A of this pyramid is the least time consuming extreme of the reading method. What is this?
[f:id:nishiohirokazu:20150201153427p:image]
This is "not reading. Of the various ways of reading, the most extreme time-saving method is "not reading.
The book that describes a little before that extreme B would be "<a href="http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/4480837167/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=247&creative=7399& creativeASIN=4480837167&linkCode=as2&tag=nishiojr-22">How to talk openly about books you haven't read</a>. The title is how-to-like, but it is not, and the book discusses the three norms "it is outrageous that you have not read book X," "you should read through a book as long as you read it," and "if you talk about book X, you must have read book X," which cannot be justified.
In this book, we will first elaborate on what is meant by the state of "unreading". If we say that only having read completely through a book is "reading," then most books worth reading are unread, given the volume of books and the speed at which people read. I used to resent the fact that people who talked about brainstorming had not read Osborn's book, or that people who taught or used the KJ method had not read Jiro Kawakita's book, but that was also a realistic demand, because it was a mindset trapped by the above norms.
As an example of an extreme coping strategy for this situation, a (fictional) story is presented about a librarian who reads only books written about the relationship between books and tries to figure out where each book stands in relation to the others. This is an extreme example, of course, but it is a more realistic goal to set than stressing yourself out by thinking that you "have" to read more books than you can read.
[f:id:nishiohirokazu:20150201153427p:image]
Photo Reading" (<a href="http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/4894513692/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=247&creative=7399&creativeASIN= 4894513692&linkCode=as2&tag=nishiojr-22">[New Edition]You too can read books 10 times faster than before</a>) is a way C that takes more time. The book itself is a quick read and gives you an overview of "how to speed read", although you should probably ignore the dubious part about "blurring your perspective and scanning to get into your subconscious". The book explains the necessity of clarifying the purpose as preparation before reading, the process of extracting keywords from the table of contents and other sources, and the practice method of reading a book five times repeatedly. Contrary to the impression given by the title, this is a method that takes a surprisingly long time to read. At maximum speed, each page is read in one second, which, when calculated for 300 pages per book, translates to five minutes per book. Of course, it should be noted that this figure does not include preparation time.
The reading method "F," in which students are required to read a book aloud at elementary school, is about 300 words per minute. Therefore, at 900 words per page, this translates to 3 minutes per page, or 15 hours for one book. There are two strips between these two reading methods.
First on the fast side, strip D is focused reading. This is a method that emphasizes speed control, but roughly speaking, it focuses on the following speeds: 3 seconds per spread, 3 seconds per page, 6 seconds per page, 12 seconds per page, and 24 seconds per page. The slower band E is the way the <a href='http://www.sokunousokudoku.net/kentei/index.html'>Speed Control Test</a> thinks of reading: 24 seconds per page is 2250 words per minute, which by the standards of the Speed Control Test is the same as 2500 words per minute for a 5-step This is about the same as the 2500 words/minute of the 5th level in the standard of the speed comprehension test. Reading aloud 300 words/minute would be level 8 in this test.
[f:id:nishiohirokazu:20150201153427p:image]
Is reading F aloud the slowest way to read? No, it is not. There are a number of ways to read slower than reading aloud. One of them is "<a href="http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/4334035086/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=247&creative=7399&creativeASIN=4334035086 &linkCode=as2&tag=nishiojr-22">The Art of Reading Difficult Books</a>. This book explains how to read a difficult book, such as a philosophy book, twice while making reading notes. The book explains how to tackle difficult books from such perspectives as what patterns exist in difficult books, whether they are open or closed books, whether external references are necessary, and whether they are read critically or assimilatively. This is based on a 20-hour per book guideline.
Even on the slower side of this is the way we are trained in math departments to read math books H. The idea is that you should not read what you don't understand, leaving what you don't understand to be read. With that way of reading, he says, it is no wonder that it takes 50 hours to prepare for one seminar. (<a href='http://www.ms.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~yasuyuki/sem.htm'>How to prepare for seminars</a>, <a href='http://www.math.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp/~ ochiai/happyou.html'>preparation</a>)
Is there an extreme I opposite the apex in the pyramid of reading? In other words, just as there was "not reading" as the "extreme of not taking time" in reading, is there something that cannot take any more time as the "extreme of taking time"?
<a href="http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/4905425166/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=247&creative=7399&creativeASIN=4905425166& linkCode=as2&tag=nishiojr-22">Zen</a> has the idea that "sitting zazen is not becoming Buddha, but the state of being zazen is becoming Buddha" and "what seems like a means is actually not a means but an end. Applying this to reading, we can derive the idea that "we do not learn by reading, but that the state of reading is learning. Since there is no end to reading from this perspective, it is impossible to spend any more time on it.
[f:id:nishiohirokazu:20150201153427p:image]
-----
Supplementation.
I do not agree with the idea that the state of reading is learning and an end. Because I think learning is also a means, not an end. Also, this discussion is limited to the reading of one book and does not talk about the combining of knowledge that occurs by reading multiple books. I believe that reading fast is beneficial to increase the efficiency of binding, and I wrote about it at the 2014 Kyoto University Summer Design School. <a href='http://nhiro.org/kuds2014/'>"Designing for Learning - Finding Blind Spots" lecture material</a>. As a book, <a href='http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/4594069967/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=247&creative=7399&creativeASIN=4594069967 &linkCode=as2&tag=nishiojr-22">The Serendipity of Random Reading</a> and others explain similar ideas.
</body>
Hatena Diary 2015-02-01
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/Hatena2015-02-01 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.