For example, yesterday I just asked myself a simple question: Why and when should I buy insurance? I felt like I learned more from that and got more brain exercise than almost any book.
Show this thread
I'm feeling like reading books is a way overrated way to learn. Maybe they're good for inspiration or new perspective, but I find it more rewarding and productive to analyze the features of life using "first principles."
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think books are better for deeper understanding of context in a narrow topic, or genuine pleasure / inspiration with fiction. Also, I find the repetition of a book helps ingrain certain concepts in a way that just reading it once in a tweet/blog rarely does
-
Even at 32 I have to force myself to read. I wish there were more movies that were so informative that you
@davekopec and I could discuss them. - 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Not sure i understand the distinction. Books can argue from first principles. Maybe what you mean is you're method is more effective because it's shorter, more to the point, dialectical?
-
Most books don't argue with first principles. Those that do pack in tons of filler. I don't know what dialectical means but what you wrote sounds right.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.