Support NeoGAF

[Hanzou]

I have heard so many good things about Robin Hobby but I read the first book in the assassin series and got through a bit of the second one before I have up. The series just did not grab me. I think Fitz kind of annoyed me, he just seemed to make a lot of bad decisions and I found the plot to be somewhat dull.

Is there another series of hers (it's a she right) that I should look at? Are they different enough where just because I kind of hated this series I still may like some others?

 

[Mumei]

I finished Kokoro.

I enjoyed it quite a bit. One of the things I like most about Japanese storytelling is the understatedness, and their penchant for atmosphere over content, the archetypal "mono no aware" that is very at odds with typical Western storytelling modes. Even if the emotional impact of Sensei's backstory wasn't heavy, it still drew you in with its steady, rhythmic ennui. I like how every main character was emblematic of a social tug of war. K's was the struggle between ascetic ideals and base, sinful reality. The narrator was caught between the cynical modernity of Tokyo, embodied in Sensei and the myopic provincialism of the country, represented by his father.

And then there was Sensei, a man torn between Meiji Japan's warrior code and the increased westernization of post-Meiji Japan. The real beauty of the metaphor comes from his betrayal of K's trust. By sacrificing K for his own ends, he's displaying the selfish individualism that was infecting Japan at the time. And yet, his crushing guilt can only be attributed to his loyalty to the Confucian, collectivist morals of Meiji Japan. He is literally destroyed by this tension, which could be taken as a warning that Japan might destroy itself in its inevitable transition to an alien culture.

Anyway, great book. Highly recommended if you want a look into the shaping of modern Japan. If anyone knows of a book like this for 20th century China give me a heads up. I'm interested in the psychology of that period as well.

Glad you enjoyed it!

And I was not personally enamored with it when I read it in 2011, but I think this is what you're looking for. Hopefully the stories click for you better than they did for me.

 

[Haly]

Thanks Mumels~

 

[Piecake]

I finished the book and it was very very good. I would recommend it to anyone who wants to get a deeper understanding of the war and how both the West and China view the war, how that changed over time, and how that event changed the views of those nations as well. I talked about the West's attitude previously, so now I will take up China.

The current view of the Opium War that the Chinese government promulgates was that the Opium War was the start of China's decline, that British, in their evilness, conspired to make China weak, steal its wealth, turn it into a semi-colonial and semi-feudal state. These evil imperialists, later joined by Russians, Germans, French, Japanese, and Americans, kept China down until the Glorious Communists rescued China from that Imperial yoke and created a new society and prosperous state and society that will see China take its rightful place on the world stage. As you can guess, this viewpoint heavily stresses humiliation and a desire for revenge to stoke nationalist fever for the glory of the Chinese state.

This is not a new viewpoint of the War, and in fact, was first declared by the Nationalists when Sun Yatsen finally agreed to get support of the Soviets. In return, he had to expose some Communist ideology, anti-imperialism being a major factor. The Communists obviously continued this sort of historical thinking and propaganda. Before this, the Opium War was not even actually known by that name, and instead of humiliation and revenge, the war evoked feelings of shame. Shame of China's weakness and backwardness compared to the West. During and right after the war, the Opium War wasn't even considered a war. It was thought of as a minor border skirmish or raid, similar to those raids by those nomadic horse archers on the western borders.

What is very interesting is what happened in the 80s and 90s. Obviously, the 80s were a decade of rapid change due to China adopting capitalism, rejecting mass campaigns, and basically reversing every Maoist policy. This created an ideological and propaganda problem. If the Chinese government was so badly wrong, as can be seen in the dramatic government policy shift (which was obviously felt by the people), the natural question is why the hell do we need the party? Why not democracy or another form of government? This can be seen in the increasing discontent with the party, protests against the government, the best known being the ones at Tiananmen.

Well, up until that point, ideology and propaganda was basically ignored since they were just so focused on changing China economically (and were probably just sick of propaganda). Tiananmen convinced them that they needed to create a new ideology, new propaganda, and a new reason why the Party should be ruling China. They came up with Nationalism and using history to serve that purpose. For example:

The campaign encompassed three big ideas: first, to indoctrinate the Chinese in the idea that China possessed a unique, glorious, millennia-old ‘national condition’ (guoqing) unready for democracy; second, to remind them of their sufferings at the hands of the West; and third, to underline the genius of Communist leadership. In practice, this meant talking up the ‘great achievements’ of the Chinese People, Nation and Communist Party, in stirring films, in feel-good sing-songs, in top-hundred lists of heroes, great events and battles and in numbing references to China’s ‘century of humiliation’ inflicted by foreign imperialism, always beginning with the Opium Wars, always passing slickly over the CCP’s own acts of violence (the Maoist famine of the early 1960s; the Cultural Revolution; the 1989 crackdown). ‘How can we give our youth patriotic education?’ asked Seeking Truth (Qiushi), the party’s leading policy journal. ‘By teaching them to understand the historical inevitability and correctness of choosing the socialist road . . . since the Opium War.’

What is amazing is that Chinese textbooks didn't even teach about the Opium War until 1990, so this is clearly a concentrated effort by the party to foster a certain historical narrative for their own political purposes.

Was it successful? Well...

Chen Xitong – Mayor of Beijing through the spring and summer of 1989 – termed Patriotic Education a ‘systematically engineered project’; and it seems to have produced results. A survey of 10,000 young people in 1995 already found most of them expecting China’s status to surge over the next thirty years; that year, patriotism rose to number two in the list of values important to China’s youth, from number five only ten years previously.28 In 2003, almost half of a 5,000-strong sample of students surveyed expressed confidence that in twenty years China should and would be able to become a leading military world power.29 Popular, anti-Western nationalism has regularly erupted since the mid-1990s.

So, that clearly indicates a rise in Nationalism since the Historical Nationalism campaign. However, the situation is a bit more complicated than that. For example, the author states that many of the youth going through these history class find it incredibly boring, that the teachers complain about them not being patriotic and only caring about their future and finding Ancient Chinese history far more interesting.

Of course, it has produced a notoriously super nationalistic community on the internet, but even in that situation it is a bit interesting. The author notes that these people are quick to criticize the Chinese government for not standing up for CHina enough and backing down to the Imperialist dogs too often. Moreover, even though they claim to be super Nationalistic, the author notes that they are usually quite comfortable in participating in the global economy and culture and even going to Britain and other places to study.

Well, then, what is the problem with China's construction of its own past? I think the author makes a very good point that it isnt so much as historical errors that are the problem, but emphasizing some parts and de-emphasizing or not even mentioning others create a false-narrative.

Well, let us deconstruct China's version of the Opium War.

Was it the start of China's humiliation and Decline?

No, China had massive massive problems before the Opium War. The major being that China found itself in a Malthusian Trap. They did not have enough agricultural land to support their population and they did not have the technology to increase yields on the agricultural fields that already existed. For a pre-industrial economy this is absolutely devastating because the entire economy is dependent on agriculture. A shortage of land means peasants are living in poverty and that many don't even have land. It also hurts the economy of the cities, merchants and craftsman because there is less wealth, less population to fuel those industries.

What this results in is peasant rebellions, and, starting in the late 18th century, there began were frequent and massive peasant rebellions that caused just an insane amount of death and destruction.

Did the Opium Trade cause China to lose all of its silver?

Well, why is Silver such a big deal for China? THis explains it quite well:

The threat posed by opium to political stability was intensified by the government’s financial worries. By the early decades of the nineteenth century – also years of rising opium consumption – the empire seemed to be running out of silver, crucial to the smooth running of the economy because it was the currency in which taxes and the army were paid. If silver became scarce and therefore more expensive, relative to the copper currency used for small, everyday transactions, the tax-paying populace were left squeezed and resentful.

Vagrancy, strikes and riots resulted: 110 incidents of mass protest took place between 1842 and 1849, precisely because of the rising cost of silver.

So this just compounded the issue of poverty in China. Therefore, it is clear that Britain and Opium was the cause of this right? That Britain was sucking China dry? Well...

Despite this perception, it is far from clear that opium was exclusively to blame for the silver famine. Until 1852, China never imported more than eight million pounds of opium per year. Over the next forty years, opium imports exceeded this quantity in all but four years, sometimes nearing 10.6 million. And yet, after a decline in silver revenues up to around 1855 – and a concomitant decline in the effectiveness of the Qing state – bullion supplies picked up in the second half of the century (despite increases in opium use), enabling the Qing to hold on through the massive civil crisis of the Taiping Rebellion. From 1856 to 1886, the Chinese economy was once more in credit, with some $691 million flowing back to the empire.63 If opium truly was the villain of the piece in the first half of the century, why did the Chinese economy not go further into the red after opium imports soared after 1842? To answer this question, we have to look beyond the British–Indian–Chinese trade triangle, and at the impact of South American independence movements on global silver supply.

Curiously – for it was a dynasty preoccupied with questions of security and sovereignty – the Qing had long allowed itself to be dependent on foreign silver supplies: on imports from South America, gained through Chinese trading in the Philippines, or through exports to Europe. In the forty years up to 1829, Mexico was producing around 80 per cent of the world’s silver and gold. But independence movements between the 1810s and 1820s caused an estimated 56.6 per cent decline in world silver production relative to the 1790s. Given late-imperial China’s involvement in the global economy through its need for foreign silver, the sudden reduction in Latin American supplies was bound to have a noticeable effect

So, the Opium trade certainly made it worse by sucking silver out, but China certainly wasnt getting any new silver during the 1840s thanks to the disruption in the global silver supply. I feel like the author is implying that silver would have poured out of China without the Opium trade due to the shit happening in Latin America, but does that make much sense? I really don't think so. I think my first sentence makes the most sense, but if anyone has a different viewpoint then please let me know.

Did the Chinese heroically defend against this evil opium?

They did not. There was massive amounts of bribery and tons of people were complicit in the opium trade. In fact, many helped out the British even while the war was going on. Why did they do that?

What kind of men were they, to betray the great Qing empire to a Pomeranian preacher? Some were desperate rebels, clearly doing it for the money alone: making up stories where necessary, serving happily as double agents to maximize their profits. Others again were more respectable. One of Gützlaff’s first collaborators was a frustrated examination candidate who swore to serve Gützlaff ‘like a horse or dog’ if only he would pay for him to travel to Beijing to take the civil-service examinations.27 Another was a physician who sat in teahouses picking up scraps of information for which he got paid a dollar or two apiece – one of which choice titbits turned out to be the correct date of Yijing’s counter-offensive. Another was apparently well-connected enough (being excellent friends with the lieutenant-governor of Zhejiang) to escape punishment on being exposed as a spy.28 Clearly troubled by the epidemic of espionage that had broken out, the Qing authorities tried hard to woo back local populations. By the winter of 1841, the problem was seen as so severe that simple cash rewards would no longer work.

Obviously, there was a severe lack of feeling amongst many to the loyalty to the Chinese government. Was it because it was a foreign ruled government that was the problem? That many people decided to do what was in their immediate best interests instead of the best interests for the State?

It shouldnt surprise anyone, but Chinese merchants also got in on the Opium growing industry. In fact, China produced more Opium internally than was imported starting around 1870s, What is even more interesting, is that the Chinese Communist Party, who rallied against the evils of foreigners and the evils of Opium was deeply entrenched in the Opium trade. In fact:

For decades, Communist propaganda held that the Maoists worked their way out of their predicament through frugality and popular democracy (by introducing rent reduction and cooperative farming practices), until a historian called Chen Yung-fa noticed at the end of the 1980s that account books for the period were scattered with references to a ‘special product’ that rescued the Communists from their trade deficit of the early 1940s and that, by 1945, was generating more than 40 per cent of the state’s budget. A little more detective work revealed that this was opium, processed in ‘Special Factories’ and transported south and west to generate export revenue for Communist armies.

40% of the state's budget was from opium. That is just crazy.

And that, is essentially the problem with China's historical narrative. They highlight events that show China's humiliation to stoke Nationlistic feeling, then produce a narrative that says that the Party will be the ones to guide China to prosperity, effectively tying those feelings of humiliation, revenge and Nationalism to the Party. In this narrative though, they ignore aspects of those 'humiliation' events that would contradict that narrative and either strait-up ignore or downplay events that put the party in a bad light, such as the Great Leap Forward, The Cultural Revolution, and Tiananmen Square.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

Finally finished Superfreakonomics. As expected, I fucking hated it. Just like the previous one. I have no idea why I own this book.
They even manage to become shills for a company having clear infeasible plans at the end, all to score point on global warming 'potentially not being that bad'. Six years later, I would be willing to bet they regret writing that entire chapter. I would.

moving on to either Merchants Of Doubt or The Black Swan. Which is more interesting in the long term?

 

[Cade]

I finished The Last Policeman. I liked it a lot, but the ending didn't compel me to immediately go to the next one. For people who've read all three, is there a consensus on whether books two and three are as good?

I'm still reading The Shining and it's still great.

 

[kinoki]

Finished Egenmäktigt förfarande [Wilful Disregard] by Lena Andersson.

A love story about the different power position we have in relationships. It's very interesting to side with both sides who want so different things out of the relationship. You understand them and their respective reasoning. It's interesting to see how it plays out even though you know how it's going to end.

 

[whatevermort]

I finished The Last Policeman. I liked it a lot, but the ending didn't compel me to immediately go to the next one. For people who've read all three, is there a consensus on whether books two and three are as good?

I'm still reading The Shining and it's still great.

So, I think the series only gets better as it goes on. But honestly, the structure is the same. Gentle procedural while you get to see the world increasingly fucked up and apocalyptic.

 

[lawnchair]

you all were right about The Alchemist.

:\

 

[eznark]

Finished The Abyss Beyond Dreams. I think it was probably the weakest of the Commonwealth books. It was mostly garbage outside of the last 15% or so.

That last 15% was fucking great though, and will sucker me into reading the next one.

 

[KidDork]

Finished Idoru. I was going to fly straight into the next book, All Tomorrow's Parties, but I thought I'd space it out. I enjoyed Idoru. I'd be happy just reading about the near future of this world without the thriller aspect tossed in. If Gibson ever creates a VR world of his books, I'll be first in line.

Going back to finish that massive Eisenhorn door stopper of a omnibus. I've also started reading Dragonball by Akira Toriyama because I never have and my god the internet is filled with Dragonball references I don't get.

 

[Cade]

So, I think the series only gets better as it goes on. But honestly, the structure is the same. Gentle procedural while you get to see the world increasingly fucked up and apocalyptic.

Excellent. The overall tone of the main character was super refreshing, so I'm definitely in for the whole series knowing it doesn't go to shit halfway through.

 

[Hanzou]

Finished Idoru. I was going to fly straight into the next book, All Tomorrow's Parties, but I thought I'd space it out. I enjoyed Idoru. I'd be happy just reading about the near future of this world without the thriller aspect tossed in. If Gibson ever creates a VR world of his books, I'll be first in line.

Going back to finish that massive Eisenhorn door stopper of a omnibus. I've also started reading Dragonball by Akira Toriyama because I never have and my god the internet is filled with Dragonball references I don't get.

Where did you get Eisenhorn? It seemed hard to find for a reasonable price.

 

[Switch Back 9]

I have heard so many good things about Robin Hobby but I read the first book in the assassin series and got through a bit of the second one before I have up. The series just did not grab me. I think Fitz kind of annoyed me, he just seemed to make a lot of bad decisions and I found the plot to be somewhat dull.

Is there another series of hers (it's a she right) that I should look at? Are they different enough where just because I kind of hated this series I still may like some others?

No. While there are certainly a lot of Hobb fans on here, I've read both Assassin's trilogies and I've never retroactively hated a book series more upon reflection. Don't feel bad.

I got the end, realized I hated Fitz, I hated the Fool, and I hated myself for getting dragged along such a boring story with such terrible characters.

 

[Haly]

you all were right about The Alchemist.

:\

What did people say about The Alchemist?

I liked it.

 

[KidDork]

Where did you get Eisenhorn? It seemed hard to find for a reasonable price.

I just picked it up in Chapters for cover price. It was the last one, but I didn't think anything of it. I just went onto Amazon to check prices and OH MY GOD.

 

[Linkhero1]

Halfway through Men At Arms. I got this book a while back but put it aside for the longest time. I'm really enjoying this as much as I enjoyed Guards! Guards! Looking forward to continuing the rest of the Nights Watch Discworld books.

 

[Pau]

What did people say about The Alchemist?

I liked it.

I found it rather plain and trite. And I typically like fables and optimism in my books. Maybe it's the translation's fault?

Halfway through Men At Arms. I got this book a while back but put it aside for the longest time. I'm really enjoying this as much as I enjoyed Guards! Guards! Looking forward to continuing the rest of the Nights Watch Discworld books.

They only get better from here.

 

[Cyan]

I liked The Alchemist. Not gonna make it my life philosophy, but it was a nice story.

 

[Linkhero1]

They only get better from here.

Great. I love Pratchett's writing style. He makes it so easy to lose yourself in his books.

 

[Nymerio]

It's been a very long time since I read The Alchemist. The only thing I remember about it is that I liked it and that feel-good story is a pretty good description of it.

 

[Mussah92]

How quickly can you guys read?
i read really slow and its a shame because i want to read more... lol

 

[You Know Nothing]

How quickly can you guys read?
i read really slow and its a shame because i want to read more... lol

Last test I took had me at about 210 wpm or so. I tend to sub-vocalize every word as well as add voices for different characters in my head.

 

[TheKaeptain]

Great. I love Pratchett's writing style. He makes it so easy to lose yourself in his books.

I want to dive into his books it just there are so many. I've only read Colour of Magic. However, I picked up the hardcover of Going Postal and the paper back of Guards! Guards! at a used booked store for about $5 bucks.

 

[Linkhero1]

I want to dive into his books it just there are so many. I've only read Colour of Magic. However, I picked up the hardcover of Going Postal and the paper back of Guards! Guards! at a used booked store for about $5 bucks.

There are a few flow charts that breaks down reading order pretty well. I'm currently sticking with the Nights Watch story all the way through before checking out the other stories. I really love the world Pratchett created.

 

[Atraveller]

I have heard so many good things about Robin Hobby but I read the first book in the assassin series and got through a bit of the second one before I have up. The series just did not grab me. I think Fitz kind of annoyed me, he just seemed to make a lot of bad decisions and I found the plot to be somewhat dull.

You're not the only one.

 

[Gnome]

I'm reading Discworld books for the first time, I started with Colour of Magic and am now on The Light Fantastic which I have to say I'm enjoying more than Colour of Magic.

 

[Number45]

I'm all done with A Song of Ice and Fire for now, finally. Dance of Dragons done... fortunately I had the main surprise of the book spoiled for me (by a random SDCC article about Star Wars, no less) so it didn't come as much of a shock. Not my favourite, but I think that's largely because it takes place mostly away from Westeros and frankly the names confuse the shit out of me.

Picked up Neuromancer on a recommendation from this thread (although I promised myself I wouldn't pick up any more non-standalone books for a while and didn't realise this was a #1) as well as Who Goes There which I've been meaning to read for some time because I'm a big fan of The Thing.

If anyone sees me talking about picking up medieval/fantasy books in the near future feel free to give me a slap.

 

[Piecake]

This is an absolutely fantastic and essential book, and I would recommend it to anyone who considers themselves to be a lifelong learner or wants to become one. Like the title indicates, this is a book about the science of how we learn, what are the best strategies to learn effectively and what methods can we use to improve cognition/intelligence. In addition to that, this book provides up-to-date research on similar and related topics in cognitive psychology and neuroscience, specifically, mindset, cognitive biases, intelligence, and neural plasticity. However, I am going to specifically focus on learning strategies and ways to improve cognition/intelligence because I think that is what most people here will find useful. If anyone is interested in one of the topics and you don’t think I covered it in enough detail and are interested in it, I will write about it further.

Common learning and study strategies and why they are ineffective​

Most students and learners study by reviewing notes and highlights, re-reading text, and doing this all in one big burst, otherwise known as cramming/massed practice. I know that is what I did in high school and college and, until recently, have just read, highlighted and commented in the margins of the non-fiction books that I have read. Does this sound like you? Well, that sort of learning/study strategy is ineffective.

Why is this ineffective?

Because simply being exposed to the material again does not actually make the material ‘stick’ in your mind. Going over the material in a cram session might allow you to pass the test, but the problem is, is that all of that information will just be stored in your working memory. You are not creating long-term memories because to create a long-term memory, it needs to be deeply encoded by understanding the underlying principle, making connections to prior knowledge, and/or that information be deeply personal. Essentially, performance in the moment is not an indicator of durable learning. Remembering and reciting information weeks after is. Reviewing and cramming can’t help you with that.

The most important component, however, is retrieval. Retrieval strengthens and consolidates this deep-encoding process. You can also identify areas that you struggle with, make adjustments to your learning, and, through repeated testing, make the information ‘stick’.

Why do most of us use such ineffective learning strategies? Shouldn’t we be good judges of our learning? Well, we should, but we arent. We delude ourselves into thinking that we are learning when we are really not (learning meaning it ‘sticking’ in our brains). We are masters of self-deception. The first self-deception when it comes to learning is that we mistake the ease and fluency with which we comprehend a text with learning. So with looking over notes and highlights and re-reading texts, we get more practice reading that material, and thus be able to comprehend it more, but we are not consolidating the information and taking steps to actually recall it when we need it. This was illustrated by a number of studies and experiments, but I will just briefly summarize a few. People actually learned more when the font’s text was slightly blurry. Crazy huh? But it makes sense if you realize that they had to concentrate a lot more reading the text and were less likely to confuse fluency with learning. The other studies have to do with the best learning strategies kicking the common ‘review and cram’ learning strategies butt.

Well, then what are these awesome learning strategies?​

The first one is testing. Yes, testing is the best learning strategy, and if you take one thing from this post, then you should understand that testing yourself is vastly superior to cram and review as a learning strategy. In fact, that is precisely why I am writing this post (and all the other long book review posts that probably only a few people, if that, read). This is a form of testing, and I definitely want this information to ‘stick’ with me.

Well, then why does it work? You just need to go back a few paragraphs above to realize why it is better. review and cram uses working memory. Working memory, however, is temporary, and we forget about 70% of what we read and hear very quickly, the other 30% we will lose more slowly, but we will still lose it. Therefore, you can think of learning as interrupting the forgetting process. Testing yourself does this because you are not taking that knowledge from your working memory. You are taking it from your long-term memory, and the process retrieving this information from your long-term memory results in that learning being consolidated in that long-term memory and you actually being able to recall and recite that knowledge.

How should I test myself

The most effective way to test yourself is spaced-repetition testing. What is that? Well, it means test yourself before you read or learn something (this has been shown to increase learning in studies), test yourself after your learn something, and then continually test yourself if it is something that you want to ‘stick’ in your brain. That repeated testing after the fact is the most important part. Studies indicate that testing once helped learning, but repeated testing at spaced intervals yielded significant improvements in learning retention. I think this is best illustrated in a study in a middle school where a researcher tested the students in the beginning of class and at the end on some of the material. Come final test time, the students remembered that tested material a lot more than the non-tested material. And this experiment did not even use testing at spaced-intervals, which studies indicate is by far the most effective. Remember, we are masters of self-deception, so do not stop testing something you want to learn because you ‘think’ you ‘learned’ it. You can increase the time you go back and test yourself with that material, but never stop testing yourself.

How should I Test myself

Anything works. Flashcards, multiple choice tests, essays, reflections etc, but the simple rule is that the more cognitive effort you put into the test the better the results, so an essay, teaching, or a discussion will be better than flashcards. Feedback is also essential. You need to know what you are struggling with so that you can change up your learning process.

Test to understand the underlying principle, the rule, the theme, etc of what you are learning. This is essential because this creates a foundation of knowledge that you will be able to add new relevant learning to. Without this foundation, you will not know whether or not any new learning you do is relevant or necessary to that body of knowledge.

Interleaving

What is interleaving? Well, this test has informed me that I need to do a bit more learning on this process. However, my understanding is that your learning will improve if you ‘interleave’ two+ related subjects into your learning. This means that focused repetitive practice is not as effective, that ‘burning’ some knowledge or skill into your brain until you ‘get’ it, is not effective.

Two helpful examples that the book provided is that a company found it more beneficial to train employees in a new procedure by hopping from process 1 to 3 to 5 to 8, etc, rather than making sure the employee really understands 1 before going on to 2. Why? Well, this does not ‘feel’ effective to us, but it helps better understand the underlying principle of things and helps us distinguish and make connections.

A good example is batting practice. The book discusses a study where they had a college baseball team take 2 extra batting sessions a week for like 6 weeks (or something). The control group continued with their normal batting practice of 15 fastballs, 15 curveballs and 15 changeups. While the study group had no idea what pitch was going to be thrown at them. The study group struggled at first, but at the end of the study, they improved their batting average significantly. Why? because they were interleaving the pitches instead of doing a focused mass practice and they were studying how they play. Even though they struggled at first, they were improving their ability to distinguish pitches. This is pretty significant considering that these were already very good hitters.

practice how you play and vary it up

Test in a manner in the way you are going to actually use the knowledge. As for variability, the book gives an example of drill stations on a hockey rink. That is not effective because a hockey player is just learning how to do a touch-pass on that specific area on the rink in that specific context. Vary it up.

how do I improve cognition/intelligence?​

First off, what is the difference between learning and cognition/intelligence? Basically, the learning strategies will be tied to the domain of what you are learning. You will learn and remember that domain very well, but it doesnt increase your natural ability to learn other things faster. You will simply know the best ways to learn. Well, what actions do result in a cognition multiplayer? For adults, there are three scientifically supported ones (babies and little kids have a lot more)

Mindset

This is by far the next most important component of learning. if you don’t want to do every strategy, then you should at least do testing and mindset. Well, what is it? Basically, this revolves around the research of Carol Dweck who wanted to find out why some people give up when they are confronted with failure while others persevere and overcome that failure. Her findings (extensively studied) is that it all comes down to mindset.

Well, what characterizes the people who take failure badly? They see failure as an indication of their innate ability. They think failure means that they are stupid, not intelligent and do not have any hope of overcoming that failure. Their mindset is ‘fixed’. They also see the purpose of learning to be achievement, not actual learning. Why? Well, since they see success and failure as an indication of their fixed ability and intelligence, then learning is simply a way to show the world how smart they are.

What does this result in? A fear of failure. Students who are successful with this mindset do not take risks. And if they are confronted with a hard problem that they do not know how to do, they give up and provide some sort of excuse. They are trying to protect their identity as intelligent. Their main priority isnt to learn, because taking risks and putting forth effort is essential to learning. It is even worse for students who have experienced repeated failure. They internalize a feeling of learned helplessness and simply give up. They think they are stupid and so what is the point? They don’t even try. I will admit that I had a fixed mindset for quite a while. ‘Luckily’, I was ‘successful’ one, but the negative impacts of this mindset definitely impacted my life in a negative way.

How about people who handle failure well? They see learning determined by effort, not by intelligence. Therefore, when they experience difficulty or failure, they view it as an opportunity to learn. This is the proper way to view failure because failure provides you with valuable information. It is one of the main reasons why testing is so effective as a learning strategy. Moreover, because they see learning as determined by effort, they are also willing to take a lot more risks in their learning and persevere through failure.

I am sure a few of you are thinking, is mindset actually backed up by ‘hard’ science or is it just a way to trick the mind. In fact, it is! Besides the loads and loads of studies that Dweck has done, neuroscience also backs it up thanks to neuroplasticity. Our brain changes based on our actions, which means that the power to increase our ability is largely within our own control. Intelligence isnt fixed, but does increase when you put forth cognitive effort.

Deliberate Practice

Increasing our ability being largely in our own hands is also born out by this. Deliberate practice is how you gain mastery in a certain domain. It is goal oriented, mostly solitary, and its purpose is to constantly exceed your past performance. To obtain mastery takes an incredible amount of time and really disproves the notion of ‘they are simply a natural’. No, they achieved mastery through long hours of deliberate practice.

The takeaway is that anyone can achieve mastery in a specific domain if they have the time and focus because what determines mastery is not innate ability, but the quantity and quality of practice. I am sure innate ability helps some, but the point is you can master a domain with just average abilities and deliberate practice, but you certainly can’t master it with natural abilities but no deliberate practice.

Memory Cues
I first should point out that memory cues are a method to organize knowledge that is already learned. You won’t learn anything from using these cues, and you won’t understand the underlying principle or theme of a topic without learning and mastering that first. So remembering a bunch of names and dates and thinking you know history is just stupid, because you dont.

So what is the point of memory cues? Well, it is to organize everything that you have learned and attached cues to what you have learned so you can immediately recall it. The most famous and extensive memory cue system would probably be the memory palace. Basically, it ties what you want to remember to mental images (the more shocking and out there the better) and ‘hangs’ them in an imagined physical location. When you want to recall something, you just mentally walk through that location and the images you placed in that location will trigger what you were trying to remember. Why does it work? Well, we are far better at remembering images than basically anything else. This takes advantage of that fact.

In conclusion, or holy crap that is a long post, just give me the essentials ​

If you take away two things from this post, then it should be that testing as a tool for learning is by far the most effective study method, and that you need to make sure that you either have or develop a growth mindset so you are psychologically ready to learn.

If you are looking for a good spaced-repetition testing program, then I would check out Anki. It is limited to flashcards, but it is very effective if you want to learn vocabulary or a bunch of terms and definitions.

Interested in learning more? Well, first read this book, but you could also read Mindset by Carol Dweck, Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, and/or The Power of Habit by Charles Duhigg. I am sure there are many more, but these are the ones that I have read.

 

[Hanzou]

I'm all done with A Song of Ice and Fire for now, finally. Dance of Dragons done... fortunately I had the main surprise of the book spoiled for me (by a random SDCC article about Star Wars, no less) so it didn't come as much of a shock. Not my favourite, but I think that's largely because it takes place mostly away from Westeros and frankly the names confuse the shit out of me.

Picked up Neuromancer on a recommendation from this thread (although I promised myself I wouldn't pick up any more non-standalone books for a while and didn't realise this was a #1) as well as Who Goes There which I've been meaning to read for some time because I'm a big fan of The Thing.

If anyone sees me talking about picking up medieval/fantasy books in the near future feel free to give me a slap.

Neuromancer is a stand alone book really. I didn't know it was part of a "series" until you mentioned it just now. I would say it reads like a one and dine. I read it a couple years ago but font remember any sort of loose ends.

 

[Mumei]

Piecake, how do you have time to write such long reviews? Do you write reviews while you are in the middle of listening? That's it, isn't it.

 

[besada]

As a Texan, and someone that lived in Galveston for a year, this book is absolutely fascinating. Terrible that so much of the death could have been avoided if most involved in the Weather Bureau weren't stuck up their own ass and listened to Cuban scientists.

I highly recommend it to everyone in the mood for non-fiction.

It's a great book, and after reading it walking the sea wall never feels quite the same. It's hard to go there and not see what Larson has described for us. The story about the nuns who tied the children to them in hopes of saving some of the orphans was particularly tragic, and is commemorated by a sign that's just heart-breaking.

 

[Piecake]

Piecake, how do you have time to write such long reviews? Do you write reviews while you are in the middle of listening? That's it, isn't it.

It actually didn't take that long! Probably like an hour and a half. I do take notes when I listen and highlight quite frequently when I read, so that I can simply 'pull' quotes from the kindle. For this one, while I did take a lot of notes and 'tested' myself after listening to each chapter, it was basically all from memory. Like I said in that long ass post, the purpose of this was to test myself so that the info would 'stick'.

I look at it as an investment and just good sense (that I finally acquired in this regard about a month ago). If I read a book, I don't to forget the vast majority of that knowledge a week after I read it and the rest of it in the upcoming months. This is simply an effective way to help me remember what I think is important and not let all that reading time go to 'waste'.

 

[sparky2112]

Blew through Apocalypse Now Now by Charlie Human since it was an easy read; full of death, horror, destruction, twists, and tentacles that go bump in the night. Good stuff.

Now to ride into The Coming of the Horseclans by Robert Adams.

Man, my long-departed dad was a HUGE Adams fan. Thanks for the trip in the waaaaay back machine....

 

[sparky2112]

I am reading a children's book. No idea what to expect.

Well...

1) Park died in the last few months.

2) The kid I read these to...I just dropped him off at school yesterday, so....

 

[Mumei]

It actually didn't take that long! Probably like an hour and a half. I do take notes when I listen and highlight quite frequently when I read, so that I can simply 'pull' quotes from the kindle. For this one, while I did take a lot of notes and 'tested' myself after listening to each chapter, it was basically all from memory. Like I said in that long ass post, the purpose of this was to test myself so that the info would 'stick'.

I look at it as an investment and just good sense (that I finally acquired in this regard about a month ago). If I read a book, I don't to forget the vast majority of that knowledge a week after I read it and the rest of it in the upcoming months. This is simply an effective way to help me remember what I think is important and not let all that reading time go to 'waste'.

Oh, yeah. I do that by arguing with people who are dumb disagree with me. I find that I have worse recall on things I have never really discussed. For instance, I read a really excellent book on the Reformation, but I couldn't argue it because I haven't had those discussions and it didn't stick. It also helps when I've read the same information a lot. I've found more than a couple times that information I thought was new in a book I read about, say, race in the United States was actually something that was briefly glossed in another book I'd read before - just not in as much detail, and I missed it or forgot it or something.

And an hour and a half is a loooong time with my limited free time.

 

[Dandy Crocodile]

Well...

1) Park died in the last few months.

2) The kid I read these to...I just dropped him off at school yesterday, so....

She actually passed away in November 2013!

Really sad, but her work will live on for sure. These books were popular when I was in elementary school and they're still popular with the kids that come into my library.
They really love 'em.

 

[Piecake]

Oh, yeah. I do that by arguing with people who are dumb disagree with me. I find that I have worse recall on things I have never really discussed. For instance, I read a really excellent book on the Reformation, but I couldn't argue it because I haven't had those discussions and it didn't stick. It also helps when I've read the same information a lot. I've found more than a couple times that information I thought was new in a book I read about, say, race in the United States was actually something that was briefly glossed in another book I'd read before - just not in as much detail, and I missed it or forgot it or something.

And an hour and a half is a loooong time with my limited free time.

That sucks. Long hours at work?

But yea, I definitely agree. Discussion helps as well. I mean, that is another form of testing. You gotta recall that knowledge and then put it into your own words. Problem is, is that I really don't have anyone to discuss a lot of the books I read anymore. Sometimes a topic pops up on this board that I can then get into. For example, The British Imperialism thread is a good example since I was able to talk about the Opium War (the last book I read). But that is not a terribly common occurrence.

 

[Haly]

Try being unemployed Mumei.

That does wonders for my long-form posting.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

Interested in learning more? Well, first read this book, but you could also read Mindset by Carol Dweck, Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, and/or The Power of Habit by Charles Duhigg. I am sure there are many more, but these are the ones that I have read.

for those who care:

Moonwalking with Einstein by Joshua Foer is similarly focused on learning and the memory palace in particular (and the 'okay level', which is where the curve suddenly flattens due to how people practise).
The Power of Habit doesn't really anything specific on the topic, as far as I remember. There is an obvious overlap between them, as E.P. is featured in both. Foer recounts meeting the guy and focusses on his memory, whereas Duhigg describes his behavior in relation to what his doctors learned from him, which is that he can't remember anything but can perform habits that bypass active memory. Like knowing where the toilet is to take a piss. Or a walking route. The other vital research subject was H.M., but I can't quite retrieve his 'problem'.

alternatively, there is Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers and his championing of the "10.000 hours rule" (which Foer destroys with the okay-level). All of them are written in agreeable non-academic styles though.

 

[lawnchair]

just started

 

[Rug Monkey]

No. While there are certainly a lot of Hobb fans on here, I've read both Assassin's trilogies and I've never retroactively hated a book series more upon reflection. Don't feel bad.

I got the end, realized I hated Fitz, I hated the Fool, and I hated myself for getting dragged along such a boring story with such terrible characters.

My feelings exactly. For your reasons and also the clean boring medieval world 'feel' and language styling. The storytelling is good which propells you through it, but you end up feeling you wasted your time.

 

[Rug Monkey]

Reading Daniel Abraham's The Dragon's Path. Loved The Long Price Quartet and liking this very much too so far.

 

[Piecake]

for those who care:

Moonwalking with Einstein by Joshua Foer is similarly focused on learning and the memory palace in particular (and the 'okay level', which is where the curve suddenly flattens due to how people practise).
The Power of Habit doesn't really anything specific on the topic, as far as I remember. There is an obvious overlap between them, as E.P. is featured in both. Foer recounts meeting the guy and focusses on his memory, whereas Duhigg describes his behavior in relation to what his doctors learned from him, which is that he can't remember anything but can perform habits that bypass active memory. Like knowing where the toilet is to take a piss. Or a walking route. The other vital research subject was H.M., but I can't quite retrieve his 'problem'.

alternatively, there is Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers and his championing of the "10.000 hours rule" (which Foer destroys with the okay-level). All of them are written in agreeable non-academic styles though.

Moonwalking with Eisenstein was a very interesting book. It is actually mentioned in How to Make it Stick, along with Gladwell's book, (didnt read that). I didnt include that in my list because I honestly did not feel like I got a good idea how to create a memory palace. Though that could have been my fault since the process of actually creating one just seems very daunting to me. That sort of defeatist mindset might have limited by understanding of it.

Curious, has anyone actually constructed a memory palace? Was it difficult? And did you find it effective beyond just memorizing numbers, dates, and basic facts?

 

[Mumei]

That sucks. Long hours at work?

But yea, I definitely agree. Discussion helps as well. I mean, that is another form of testing. You gotta recall that knowledge and then put it into your own words. Problem is, is that I really don't have anyone to discuss a lot of the books I read anymore. Sometimes a topic pops up on this board that I can then get into. For example, The British Imperialism thread is a good example since I was able to talk about the Opium War (the last book I read). But that is not a terribly common occurrence.

I have been averaging 60 hour weeks (with some variation from ~45 - 75) all year, actually. We've been on unlimited overtime so I've been trying to take at least some advantage, though tutoring and wanting to at least get some reading and me time balance did put something of a damper on that.

Right now we're at 10 hours a week, which makes me feel like I have a surfeit of free time now. It's splendid.

Try being unemployed Mumei.

That does wonders for my long-form posting.

I was unemployed in 2011 from about the 23 of August through most of that Fall/Winter, aside from a few temp jobs.

 

[Haly]

Are you using the IGN scale of review scores or do you just not read bad books?

 

[Mumei]

Are you using the IGN scale of review scores or do you just not read bad books?

Are you asking me?

 

[Haly]

Yes! You only have 3-5 stars.

 

[Mumei]

Yes! You only have 3-5 stars.

Ahh.

Well, there are probably some three star books that I should have given two stars, honestly (and you'll sometimes see me fiddle with scores...), but for the most part I tend to be good at picking out books that I like. And my ratings are subjective representations of how much I enjoyed the experience of reading that book rather than an attempt to give an objective score. I tend to rate on something of a curve, depending on what I'm reading. If I gave four stars to, I don't know, a mystery thriller, it doesn't necessarily mean that I thought it was better than a literary classic I gave three stars to.

So, yes. That's my excuse.

 

[nailbombxx]

awesome post

Wow, I really love this write-up. You just sold me on that book.


On an unrelated note, anyone ever buy books from a website called Thriftbooks? I didn't want to make a new thread, but a few days ago I ordered 5 books for about $20. Not a bad deal I think, I'm pretty hyped about it. I also made sure that everything was in atleast "good" condition. I'm just curious to see if others have had experience with them. I dont know if they are reliable or sketchy yet.