Not get rid of this knowledge, no use to read the book more (revolutions knowing almost)
**
Do not get rid of this knowledge, read more books did not use the past few years, I found that many people reading, learning, there are always three characteristics.
1) the pursuit of "collection." Treasured collection of all kinds of ready-made notes, reference materials, although it is likely he will never see the collection.
2) the pursuit of "concentrated." Compared to reading, prefers a variety of "Photo thoroughly publicize a book", "five minutes thoroughly publicize a book", "an article thoroughly publicize a book."
3) the pursuit of "simplified." The more user-friendly as possible, the more concise as possible, to see the story would never see discussed, and resolutely not cost a little brain power. Thus, we can see what phenomenon?
On the one hand, the reader vigorously pursued various aids, such as mind maps, books REVIEW, dry extract, split the book notes, listen to audio books ...... can not wait to read a book of time, from weeks to days, a few hours, or even minutes.
On the other hand, various intimate knowledge of popular products: 7 days a knowledge industry, a book thoroughly publicize an area five minutes a day to learn the knowledge, self-improvement with fragments of time, with a story to help you understand a subject ...... dazzling, numerous.
What are their common characteristic is it? We can help you "save time", "provincial mental." A book is too complicated, I do not understand? It does not matter, there are a variety of dismantling, explain, resolve.
After reading a book, not remembering? It does not matter, there are all kinds of maps, context diagram, and tips to help you summarize.
At first glance this is a good thing: save time, and make the brain, we can put more resources to absorb, to receive more information, so as to continuously improve themselves. But this really true?Consider the following two scenarios. 1) you read my article, turn off the page, the memories in the brain, "the article wrote" "What I have just read what" "what I got."
2) you read my article, at the end there is a context diagram, you sort of knowledge point of this article, structure, logic context. You watched this chart, while it according to remember: Mr. L talked about what? What have I learned?
These two scenes, which one do you prefer? Needless to say, it must be the latter, right?
In fact, there are indeed many readers, in the background message: hope in the end of the article, add a context diagram, drawing frame, combing at the overall structure of the article.
I opened the camp, including six of intellectual, writing class 2, each of the students has a request: Can you give an outline? Can you give a framework of knowledge? Can you sum up the lesson content?
...... Why I did not do it? Because I'm lazy it? It seems really is ......
joke. what is the reason? It is simple: It looks efficient, labor-saving, easy to use, but in fact, you understand and internalize its knowledge, is not helpful, but will have a negative effect.
This is why many people are learning biggest misconception: We always want to read, to learn, easier, a little more effort, but in fact, our study results, with the degree of effort, basically inversely proportional.Back to the very beginning of the article. This knowledge services, knowledge products popular, what would be the result?
As if overnight, intellectual and cognitive level rise straight public, various "XX model", "XX theory", "XX effect" can be seen everywhere, everyone can talk for a few.
But do we really "know" this knowledge it?
A while back, talking to a friend, between dialogue, he mentioned a great deal of knowledge. "Not to say such and such a theory," "so and so is not mentioned in the book" "Is not that so and so model it", and so on.
However, I found him to these cognitive knowledge, only stay at level "cognition dictionary", and even a lot of errors and omissions. What is the "dictionary cognitive" mean?
For example: What is Maslow's hierarchy? This problem is very simple, most people can blurt out: not to say people have five layers demand, are physiological, safety, social, respect and self-realization do.
However, this framework is proposed under what circumstances? It is mainly used to do what? Academia look at how this framework? What controversy, additions and modifications have? What is now generally used to do? Is there a better, more efficient alternative? -
these, maybe a lot of people will answer does not come out.
This is the "dictionary-style cognitive." Our understanding of knowledge, to stay in the degree of "recognition", like dictionaries: What is the meaning of the word, to explain what it is, in a word finished, gone.
But more importantly, what is it? Its source, its use, its development context, its application scenarios, its research, discussion, and, through it, we can think of, from which integrate relevant knowledge, build into a larger framework of what ,and many more.
These will never exist in the "five minutes a day, a knowledge" "a picture book thoroughly publicize" these "knowledge products" inside. Are you really learn something, or just to meet the "Learning illusion"?The most fundamental problem is that: the key to reading, never lies, "read", but rather "think."
In short: you spend much brain power, be able to obtain and consolidate the knowledge there are that many. Racking their brains to save time, save brain, the result is to reduce the proportion, the resulting harvest and so on. 2014
years, he published
a paper in Psychological Bulletin, for testing over the past 10 years - to do a memory test meta-analysis, come to such a conclusion:
on three common test strategy, in accordance with the sort of memory effect, the worst is recognition (recognition), followed on cue memories (cued
recall), there is no clue of the best free recall (free recall). What does that mean? For example with the second paragraph of scene:
After reading the article, turn off the page, recalls, "I just saw what?" Is a free recall. Based on context diagram, to complete the rest of the supplement, it is a cued recall.
And let you do multiple-choice questions to ask you: these options, which is the author's point of view? Which appears in the article inside too? It is recognition.
These three strategies, which make it the easiest, least brainer, most save time? Certainly recognition, then cued recall, free recall and finally, right?
You will find: three strategies, the most labor-saving practices, the worst effect; the most troublesome practice, the best results.
The reason is simple: our knowledge and understanding of memory, depending on what it? It depends on the brain think "if it is important."
How to make the brain think a knowledge important? The easiest way is to "think." Brains and do everything possible, from different angles and at different levels to "want" to lay siege to it, break it, and then re-assembled.
It is this "break up the re-assembly" process, the knowledge we learned, firmly "embedded" into our brains.
But this process is the need to consume a lot of brain power, it is not easy, on the contrary very hard. However, we can say exactly what you put into the extent of mental, determine your thorough understanding of, and within the grasp of a knowledge level.
So, no matter how much you read dry, look no amount of notes, not brains, to no avail.
Instead, these knowledge products, in order to allow you to better absorption, which will reduce the information density, which simplify the logic, structure, makes you feel "better understanding" of.
But "better understanding" behind what is left to do? What you really get, the less of it.So, I say that learning is an anti-human thing.
Why do you say? Humanity will always be avoiding disadvantages. We are always looking for simple, labor-saving, but if you follow nature, we can not get a real lift.
What approach is more effective? It is to guide his brain, the "brains" a pleasure. (How the brain a pleasure can refer to:? How to make learning as fun as playing games?
This is my own practice summary) We know that learning can be divided into such a process: input → process → output.
Invalid learn what it is? A large number of pieces of information to absorb, and then hoarding on one side, leave it, but not output, the brain into a warehouse.
Effective learning is like? Not the pursuit of quantity and "save time", but to build a set of orderly, good handling processes, the information obtained by recombinant break up, and then according to their own understanding to output, floor, so each input are gone again process.
Based on this framework, I would like to talk to you some common questions.
做笔记就是摘抄和复制粘贴？ 这可能是许多人从学生时代起养成的习惯。说到做笔记，第一印象就是把书里的原话抄下来、记下来。
我之前在智识营里，试验过一段时间的「知识卡片」活动，结果也是一样的：许多同学响应，非常活跃，但做法仍然是，把读到的知识点复制粘贴下来，原话保留。
很遗憾，这种做法除了练字之外（复制粘贴连练字都做不到），基本没有用。
原因很简单：摘抄、复制，是最省力、最不过脑子的做法，它可以令你感到很舒服，但它本身不经过大脑加工，所以对于内化和巩固知识点，起不到任何作用。
有同学可能会问：在摘抄和复制的过程中，我好歹也重复了一遍读到的内容，怎么能说没有用呢？
实际上，有大量研究表明：单纯重复是效果最差的学习方法。单纯重复只能在短期内提高「熟悉程度」，对形成长期记忆几乎没有帮助，甚至，可能会造成负面结果。
这个结论可能是比较反直觉的。
为什么会有负面结果呢？原因很简单。摘抄和重复，会在短时间内造成一种「熟悉感」，这会给大脑释放一个信号「我知道它」——
恰恰，大脑最不喜欢「熟悉」。一遇到熟悉的东西，大脑就会想避开它，尽量腾出认知资源。
另一种常见的认知是：我不需要记住它，我把它复制粘贴，存到我的知识库里面，等到需要的时候再去搜索、提取，不就好了？
然而，如果你连自己记录了什么都想不起来，你又如何去提取和搜索呢？
有多少人就是这样，做了几千条笔记，一直放着积灰，从来都没有翻看过？甚至，抽空重读笔记，才发现：啊，原来我还记录过这个东西；原来我读过这本书呀。
更好的做法是什么呢？我们叫做「深度加工」。 最简单的方法，也就是我强调过无数次的：用自己的话去表述。「强行」让自己的笔记，跟原文不一样。
不要小看这个做法，单单只是这么一个改变，就能显著地提高你的学习成果 —— 当然，它是需要消耗脑力的。
最后提一下：单纯重复、背诵，不能说完全无效，但性价比非常低。一个简单的问题：你小学、中学时要求背诵过的文章，现在还能记得多少？
我们的教育之所以崇尚这种模式，无非也是因为人多，而这种做法最直观、最简单，最容易被老师和学生接受，不需要「因材施教」而已。读书最重要的是记住书里的内容？ 我在前面写了非常多的「记忆」，也许会给一些朋友造成误解：读书是不是就是要记住里面的信息？如果记不住，是不是就表明没有效果？
实际上，完全不是。
在信息检索和互联网如此发达的当下，「记住」大量信息，是一种对资源的浪费。再者，大脑天生也不适合记忆，它的储存能力虽然非常强，但提取能力和处理能力极其有限。
那么，我们要去「记忆」的是什么呢？是关于知识的框架和位置。 什么意思呢？还是以前面的马斯洛需求层级为例。你需要记住的是什么呢？
1）它的含义。 2）它在学术界的大致位置（用在哪儿、属于什么范式、现在还有没有用，等等）。
3）它跟其他知识之间的联系（通过它，你能联想到其他什么知识点）。
这样就够了。至于它有哪些争议、讨论，分别是哪位科学家提出了什么样的论点，需要记忆吗？完全不需要。你只要知道大致的关键词，靠查书和搜索就能立刻获取到。
这就是一种提纲挈领的理解和思考方式。
重点在于：你的脑子里要有一张网络，对于每个知识点，有明确的位置。看到它，你能迅速知道它在哪儿、跟其他哪些节点有联系，这才是最重要的。
一切阅读、学习，最终都要归结到这张网络里面，才是真正有效的做法。 如同我经常说的：大脑是用来思考的，不要拿来记忆。
这里的思考，就是把知识嵌入网络的过程。读书一定要做「思维导图」？ 这是许多人爱用的做法。我自己不用，所以我不评判这种工具。 但要指出一点：我见过很多所谓的导图，内容是什么呢？就是把一本书、一篇文章的目录画出来，把各个小标题、篇章结构画出来，完了。
这有什么用呢？
很多人会觉得，这样省力、省时间，毕竟目录都是现成的，小标题、章节结构也都看得见、摸得着 ——
但正如第一点所说，不费脑子的行为，往往都是无效的。 这样做，只是给自己一个心理安慰：用一张图概括整本书，仿佛这本书就真的被自己吃透了。
实际上，真正有效的做法是什么呢？是两点： 1）立足于知识点，突破书的局限，用主题阅读把不同书里、文章里的知识联系起来。
举个例子：关于拖延，可能有好几十本书都在讲，像《拖延心理学》《拖延方程式》《战胜拖延》……每本书的角度、内容都不一样，那究竟听谁的？
当然是把这些书都看一遍，找出他们的共性、差异点，再整合起来，形成一个整体的、对「拖延」的认知。这才是有效的学习。
2）不要太注重书籍、文章的「结构」，而应该去探寻它们背后的逻辑脉络。
简而言之：这本书讲了哪几个点、这个点可以分为哪几个小点……这个重要吗？完全不重要。你要寻找和思考的，应该是： 这个知识点是怎么得来的？
它背后的逻辑是什么？ 它跟其他知识点有什么联系？ 工具本身不重要，能够实现这两点，才重要。
最后提一下「思维导图」这个名字。这个词汇的认知，在国内是蛮混乱的，就我所知，至少就存在着两种理解：
1）强调开发右脑，大量运用色彩、图案、手绘，以中心的主题词做发散思考的 mind map —— 这也是托尼巴赞的原教旨思维导图。
2）强调分类和层级，对一个内容不断向下拆解，理清结构的 tree map —— 这也是前面讲到的「常见的思维导图」。
所以，当你想讨论思维导图的时候，不妨先定义一下，你想聊的是哪一种。
这些属于题外话了。还是强调一下：我并不是在否定这种工具，它当然是有用的，比如理清思路、弄清结构、发散思维……但按照前文的用法，在学习、阅读上起到的作用，可能远不如你的想象。
还是那句话，工具本身并不重要，能够良好地使用工具、达到我们的目的，才重要。读书一定要把整本书一字不落地读完？ 很多读者会觉得：不把一本书完整读完，不就是断章取义吗？这样能算真正地在「阅读」吗？
实际上，把整本书一字不落地读完，是一件非常低效的事情。
它只在一种情况下成立：当你开始接触一个领域、一窍不通的时候，找到一本很好的基础教材，从头到尾啃一遍，是一个必经之路。
但你要明白：这种办法属于无奈之举 —— 因为一窍不通，所以不具备辨别能力，不知道哪些可以跳过、哪些可以舍去、哪些必须牢牢记住。
当你入门了，知道这个领域的范式和术语了，基本就可以抛弃这种做法。 大多数情况下，习惯于「整本书读完」「一字不落地读」，通常源于三种心态：
1）我也不知道要从书里获得什么，那就都读读看吧。 2）跳读和略读会不会遗漏信息？还是全部都读吧。
3）没什么原因，就是单纯觉得，不把一本书读完不放心。 实际上你会发现，这三种心态的本质是什么呢？都是一种「不过脑子」的偷懒。
第三种就不说了，我们聊聊前两种。
「不知道要获得什么」是一种被动学习，这是非常低效的。因为在被动学习的过程中，我们会缺乏「自上而下」的认知模式，只使用「自下而上」。
这会导致，你会陷入信息的海洋，无法从中真正找到有效的信息，建立信息之间的连接。
你会发现，这种做法，你能够得到的，永远只是一些碎片，很难得到真正有价值的体系、洞见 ——
连你也不知道你想获得什么，怎么把信息连接、整合起来？
所以，我一直说：一定要带着问题去阅读。因为只有这样，你才能让大脑真正参与进来，而不是听之任之、被动接收信息。
"Missing information" is also an unnecessary worry. Skipping and skimming, does not mean you can only read from start to finish - if you read a message, the author may find the foregoing mentioned, it turned forward thing.
Break up of the structure to its own framework, logic main line, so in order from among the author's wording, to find valuable content.
Furthermore, you can further found that the author's ideas are reasonable? Logic, argumentation is tight? Follow from beginning to end without the author's ideas, is completely "brainwashed."
Perhaps the latter is more important. Of course, more difficult, but we should take it as a destination.Finally, to sum up: Learning is against human nature, there is no shortcut, try to bypass all obstacles, no brainer approach, just numb, in order to give himself the illusion.
What we can do, it is a positive learning difficulties, and to this difficulty, a pleasure, let the "brains" has become a kind of instinct, habits and preferences. And you encourage each other. :)
