[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 436 KB, 1351x1054, IMG_0356.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23073077 No.23073077 [Reply] [Original]

Is this chart legit? What exactly am I going to take away from this? Just looks like meta-learning stuff but I think I’ve already absorbed most of this implicitly and don’t need it laid out. And do people really still need to read whole books about grammar and how to form sentences properly?

>> No.23073081

>>23073077
>start here
>how to read a book
lmao

>> No.23073087

if someone refers me to a book on how to read their book I'll simply not read it and assume they're too much of a retard to create simple flowing sentences, with a right amount of visual language.

>> No.23073099

>>23073077
Mortimer J. Adler's 'How to Read a Book' is very fluffed up. Probably about half of it, maybe even three-quarters of it could be removed without any loss of valuable information.

>> No.23073107

I looked up a review on how to read a book and here's a summary

How to Read a Book offers a couple of nuggets of decent advice about reading over 330-some-odd pages that could’ve been explained in about 50. None of their methods, recommendations, or observations are backed up by any semblance of data or empirical evidence, and it appears they were motivated more so by a paycheck and shameless self-promotion than they were in actually helping audiences learn to read better. Can this book help the average reader? I’d venture to say it’s within the realm of possibility (as long as everything is taken with a grain of salt); however, if you’re a life-long reader who has made it a habit of challenging yourself with books and texts outside of your comfort zone here and there, I can safely tell you: you don’t need this book. Carry on, and happy reading.

>> No.23073110

>>23073087
>flowing
he's retarded

>> No.23073132

>>23073099
Agreed.

>> No.23073141

>>23073099
it's fluffed up so you spend more time thinking about the concepts. you really ought to have it internalized, hence the perceived "fluff".

>> No.23073143

>>23073110
>green text random word
>write insult
I applaud you for your bravery, updoot

>> No.23073147

>>23073141
>no you don't get it the author actually WANTED to make it a bloated slog!!

>> No.23073152

how you gon read the how to read a book book before you learn how to read a book
that don't make no damn sense

>> No.23073156

>>23073143
>he doesn't know about flowing

>> No.23073170

>>23073152
how to read a book initializes a magic word in your brain which lets you load the first chapter, and during that you're programmed to read the second chapter
in the second chapter the reading OS gets loaded to your memory and from there you're golden.

>> No.23073174

>>23073170
i don't got no bootloader

>> No.23073189

>>23073077
I'm the person who initially made that chart six years ago. I wouldn't make the same chart again, but I still think there was a lot of value to it, and you would be served well by it. Another anon was inspired to make a new chart, which I posted a few weeks ago:
>>/lit/thread/22990334#p22990334
I actually like the new chart better because as my thinking matured, I found that what I most appreciated about the Trivium and the Quadrivium was having a "general science of things" (science being used loosely), and there's no better way to do it than getting deep into Aristotle. In fact, most of SMJ's Trivium exercises are modernized versions of Aristotle (and by this logic, if you find SMJ difficult, you're better served by going straight to the source or at least reading a "baby Aristotle" like Kreeft's book).
>Just looks like meta-learning stuff but I think I’ve already absorbed most of this implicitly and don’t need it laid out.
I don't believe that anything absorbed "implicitly" is truly known. It's the difference between having a knack for things and having a science of things. And there's no guarantee that you'll reach the pinnacle of "knack-hood" if you don't understand the underlying principles.

Unfortunately, with regards to most self-help learning books, there's a lot of fluff. But most of the common ones have a lot of value regardless.

>> No.23073213

>>23073141
That's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read in my goddamned life

>> No.23073237

>>23073141
exactly
>>23073147
>>23073213
fluff isn't a bad thing. if you make a point, you want to talk about it for a bit. give a few examples, address potential concerns, summarize what you said, and then connect it with the big picture. if done right, then "fluff" isn't really fluff but rather the bare minimum you should expect from a clear educator isn't trying to bullshit you with vague hints at an idea.

>> No.23073280

>>23073237
The problem is that the fluff in How to Read a Book is actually fluff and it often has nothing to do with the main points or rules that Adler provides.

>> No.23073317
File: 1.12 MB, 842x842, 1707159804563734.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23073317

>> No.23073319

>>23073317
Terrible and absolute baity.

>> No.23073324

>>23073319
Where's the bait? I can't wait to see you make a mockery of yourself.

>> No.23073336
File: 18 KB, 396x107, us literacy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23073336

>>23073081

>> No.23073355

>>23073336
Literacy is bad.

>> No.23073405

>>23073355
>Literacy is bad.
Papist hands wrote this post.

>> No.23073482

I followed the chart last year and I would recommendn it. The maker already posted the updated chart, so follow that one. The way you come off I don't think you're serious about this, you probably won't read anything there.

"Implicit learning" is cope. And yes, grammar is needed if you want to master the language.

>> No.23073672

>>23073099
Maybe if you actually applied the book to the book you would understand.

It’s not complicated stuff but the school system is terrible so a lot of people graduate without knowing the basics.