Read. Write. Execute. RWX. I'm going to piss some people off. Here goes: you are wasting your time if you watch videos. At all. A video moves at the pace it plays. It is linear. You can't jump around easily. Reading? You can jump wherever you need immediately. You can have multiple sources at once. If you use a book, yes a physical book, you learn where things are and jump right to them. Read
Write down a paraphrased version of what you read. Do not copy. Include references so you can return to source if needed. Note taking is a skill. Your notes should be organized in a way you can skim what you wrote as easily as the sources themselves.
Execute. You don't learn anything unless you do it. I've had too many students who watch Khan Academy, and think they understand it when they haven't done it. They don't score well on exams. Not my fault. I told them they have to do it to understand it.
RWX. I await the flame war I just started with the video people.
It might depend from person to person? I agree with you, tho. That's also my preferred method.
However, if the stuff you're reading is fairly dense and not that well organized, you're gonna have a harder time than watching a well written educational video or lecture and taking notes along the way.
I can see where you are coming from, but that is a skill in and of itself. Go far enough into any technical field and you reach that boundary. Especially if you do research.
It's this kind of thing that develops into imposter syndrome. You've gotten this far doing things this way, and it's always worked. You are told you are smart. Fixed mind set. Maybe you aren't that smart at all. It effects your mental health dramatically. I've literally seen it hundreds of times.
But I do get it. Students are expected to perform at a high level. That approach is expedient and it works well to get everything done.
I recognize things are different than they were 'back in my day', but I was a C student. I did the bare minimum, except for the subjects I cared about. Those I was exemplary.
Now 'kids these days will' say "no that's bullshit. It doesn't work anymore'. That I can tell you isn't true. I have those students. You just need to figure out how to get around the artificial red tape that keeps you from focussing entirely on what you want.
(Sorry for sp. I haven't installed spell check on this phone)
I post my ignorant opinions somewhere. There’s always someone who will correct me with correct information.
I post my ignorant opinions somewhere. There’s always someone who will correct me with correct information.
Not always.
(see what I did there)
The life of the shitpoaster.
But for real comment section can be very useful to learn if you are willing to do it.
There is generally somebody who knows what they are talking about. Just got to figure out who.
Reddit had so much fluff and moderation as if they didn't want you to find good info.
So basically, we have an instinct to treat misinformation as a priority threat. We are naturally obsessive/compulsive about eliminating misunderstandings?
There’s probably a solid evolutionary reason for that.
Well you see I’m a major GEN er alllllllllllll
But seriously Wikipedia, YouTube guides, enthusiast forums. Usually try to read from multiple sources
With lyrics.
There used to be these buildings full of books that I could just borrow for free.
Love books and huge fan of libraries but how do you find the right book in the ocean of books?
"Don't you know the Dewey decimal system?"
Sorry, stupid reference. In seriousness though, type in a topic into your library's search and start browsing, check out a few that seem useful.
I'm an academic and I find my University's library useful for finding knowledge on a new topic. If an introductory textbook exists on the subject, can be a good starting point.
For Most hobbies though, youtube is a great resource. I've gotten into woodworking and fishing, and youtube is a superb resource for information.
Ask the librarian nicely and they'll probably be able to point you in the right direction. Cataloguing information is kind of their thing, and helping people get access to that information is why many of them join the profession.
Just sit at the library for a while, sit near the shelf that has the topic you're interested in and grab a few books at a time and go through them to see if any seem like the right book
I was taught in school how to use the library catalog. It was considered essential, for success in life, at the time.
I actually do know how to use Dewey Decimal, if I haven't forgotten.
In these modern times, there's generally a PC near the information desk, with the browser home page set to a library catalog search tool, specific to that library.
And as someone else mentioned, we can ask the librarian for help, when we don't find what we need. I actually shortcut the process and ask for a quick lesson in how to use the search, if I'm feeling uncertain.
Don't watch or listen....READ!
Idk man. YouTube tutorials are pretty helpful. Especially when I was studying electricity. Those Indian dudes are geniuses
Why do we have teachers then? Listening and watching is absolutely a valid strategy of learning. You just need to make sure that the speakers are trustworthy on the subject.
Probably meant don't rely on youtube, (as people produce fake info) while text books are rypically vetted, except in USA where Texas writes the curriculum supporting oil and gas and denying clinate change--and the other states purchase the Texas curriculum
And do
Wikipedia rabbit holes every time lol.
I am fascinated by medical stuff, especially conditions I have and similar conditions. Spent like 2 weeks reading about so many kinds of diseases.
Escalate. Start with early digestible low quality sources (AI chat bots, short YouTube videos, old Reddit threads, etc.) to build a general familiarity with the subject matter space.
Once you grasp the basic vocabulary and concepts, you know well enough what questions to ask to find more nuanced discussions and the right Wikipedia rabbit holes.
If you need more comprehensive understanding than that, use your newfound familiarity to start skimming primary sources.
Once you get more involved than deep dives into primary sources, you start blurring the lines of developing a new area of relative expertise.
Wikipedia link hopping. Other sources may not be reliable at all.
Watch and read as much youtube and article as possible, and try to join a discussion with open mind.
I'd caveat that with watch reliable well researched channels and not pop-sci or even god forbid pseudoscientific, or pseudo-intellectual channels that seem helpful but are actually BS wrapped in foil.
Any of the PBS science channels are typically good for science.
How money works, Wendover, are great for Economics stuff.
The engineering mindset, practical engineering are great for engineering related stuff.
My flat earther forums have a stickied Q&A where you can find the real truth on any topic. Did you know that dolphins are aliens sent to spy on us?
No, that's mice.
Dolphins are native but capable of space travel as they are far more intelligent than us. It's an understandable mistake to make.
So long and thanks for all the fish!
Oh boy
So long and thanks for all the fish!
Wikipedia>references>libgen
Same way I’d inform myself on topics that are my field of expertise: reading, talking to experts, doing my own experiments and exploration, writing about it
I prefer to make unfounded comments to tired experts and note their answers, whilst spamming them with severe negative feedback to the point that they develop other interests out of exhaustion.... leaving me the new expert in the field!
Wikipedia and books, depending on the subject matter and my degree of interest. For example, I've been reading historical research books because I love history. If it was something about the moon, it'd be Wikipedia and good enough.
The same way as topics in my field of expertise, of course.
YouTube.
Follow up question: how do you find actual good and trustable channels on a specific topic?
Not the other guy but I learn a lot of high quality information of YouTube. The golden rule for me is longer-form video is generally higher quality. People that know what they're talking about typically aren't going to explain complex things in 30 seconds, or at least not to the depth you should understand it.
Aside from that, I look for people with actual qualifications first. Example, I love psychology so I will look for psychologists, licensed professional counselors, and so on. I'll even listen to life coaches, but more selectively.
The lower on the "chain" they are, the more I will do "spot checks" on information and see if they know what they're talking about (ESPECIALLY if they're making big or new claims about something). For that I'll look into peer-reviewed studies and such for that.
Once you get a small knowledge base it's a little easier to continue. Talk something you have a clue about, and watch a video with that topic from another content creator.
Do all of this for a while and you'll find what you need to.
I'm going to think about that and get back to you. I think it's mostly intuitive, based on many years of experience, but I'm not sure at this point.
I also have to mention that I was half joking. I don't use YT all that much for my profession. I would, but it's just not entirely relevant.
My first stop is always Wikipedia. The rest of the internet is a minefield.
sci-hub and annas-archive
I want to be less reliant on Wikipedia and Google Scholar, but in truth I still use them a lot
So you directly read papers on those topics? I tried doing that but I feel it requires a huge amount of background
I am not the person you are replying to.
I read a lot of papers and it is hard if you don't have background knowledge of the subject. If it's something I am really interested in, then I will dive deep, if it's not I will probably let it go when I get to the point where I no longer grasp what's being said.
Why do you want to be less reliant on Wikipedia?
Wikipedia editors are petty and incredibly biased. Start reading the talk pages, especially on controversial articles, and your opinion on Wikipedia’s objectivity will rapidly plummet.
Also, it’s a bit like reddit: you find yourself learning so much about new topics, until you start reading about things you have actual expertise on, and you realize the people writing this shit are uninformed idiots, and, when you try to fix the information, the petty nerds who control it revert your changes and ban you.
A review paper from a reputable journal. The Annual Reviews series was great for this. Some of the Nature journals also used to run mini-reviews associated with research papers in the issue.
For lesser known subjects, a literature review in a dissertation works. It at least gives you a list of papers to review.
That's what a forum is for.
I watch videos and read articles and use LLMs to give me the key points to grasp the basics. Then build upon that knowledge with more focused learning.
I do this plus follow competent people in those fields on Mastodon/reddit/etc for current news relevant to practitioners in the field
I skim the Wikipedia page on whatever topic is being discussed and pretend to be an expert.
I'd usually start with easily digestible content like YouTube videos or ChatGPT. At this point, I'm not too concerned about the correctness of the information. It mainly gives me vocabulary that I can then look up for further reading along with the perspective of one or two individuals. That might be all I care about, and if so, I'd stop there and go on with my day. If I want to dive deeper, I'll look up textbooks and papers on the topic, or any other relevant primary sources. Basically do a light literature review.
You have to set a goal of what you want to understand and why you want to understand it, then read accordingly. If your goal is to know the usual number of eggs laid by a bird because you are trying to identify one from its nest in your yard, sure just read some Wikipedia and maybe read its sources. If you need to understand a broad topic in the social sciences in order to do your job or organize politically, well sucks yo be you, you need to spend months to years getting a handle on the various schools of thought and approaching them humbly and critically, reading many books.
Isaac Asimov wrote books on a wide range of topics.
Start with him
Reading papers and contacting people in that field. I've found that university professors can especially direct you to materials in their field, and even like to chat about it sometimes. Half of my book collection was found this way.
YouTube, Wikipedia, and asking people I know about it. Send emails and make phone calls to people who might know.
I read everything I can find about it, especially if its people arguing thoughtfully, or sharing their advice/experience, or if its about the history of the topic. I get kind of obsessive about researching things so I usually come at a topic from a lot of directions.
The Internet.
Youtube u gotta get the widest set of opinions possible. Unfortunatly peertube just lacks content.
I repeat what I said to the other commenter: how do you find actual good and trustable channels on a specific topic?
Finding a trustworthy source is the hardest part. I generally avoid anyone speaking too loudly of the subject. Someone who’s knowledgeable and confident, most times, can present calmly with context that’s accessible to most people.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is a good example. He’s a good place to start for a broad range of topics. Then if I want more details I can dig deeper on my own. A lot of times, his commentary requires digging deeper because he speaks too broadly.
I always check the source of a report or article; if there is no source, I don’t trust it. The source is usually a good place to ‘bookmark’ for further research.
Edit: a few days later and I’ve come across the perfect example. Here Tyson explains “the tide doesn’t come in and out”. What I think he should more clearly say is there’s no “high tide” and “low tide”. To me, and I could be an idiot, I thought he was going to explain the action of the waves coming in and out at the cost line every 30 seconds or so. It’s not that he’s wrong but sometimes his choice of words isn’t super on point. Here’s more info about Tidal Range https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/tides.html
Go with people who are willing to use their real name, a lot of times it'll be in the channel description, or sometimes in a channel trailer or intro video. Sometimes in an interview some other outlet/creator has done on the content creator. Then google that real name and check their work history and education credentials. You can usually find a LinkedIn. If they're a proper academic, their university will usually have a brief page on them on the official university website. If they're an alumni, they can sometimes be found in an alumni list, various class lists, or publicly accessible projects they worked on, though not always. Work history often cannot be as easily verified, but sometimes can be if you dig a little. Depends on field.
It's not too different from what you'd do if you wanted to hire someone to work for you in a small business or something.
Once you have a significant knowledge base yourself, you can start to use the sniff test, though that's always far from perfect. Less time consuming though.
I highly disagree with looking for the widest set of opinions. Some opinions are stupid and/or baseless and just muddy the conversation (that’s part of how you get screaming talking heads on cable news shows).
Personally I look for those with expertise who speak to their expertise. Just because someone has an advanced degree in one field does not mean their opinions in other fields are worth listening to. Also, I do a gut check. If is smells like BS, such as unfounded blanket statements or it seems like they’re pushing/selling something, I look into their qualifications a bit more or find someone else.
Well u need to know enough about sonthing before you cant tell if your being bullshit or not. Generally i just try get every single perspective i can and make my own decision. I assume everyone has a slant but by watching everyone u can cancel that out.
for what kind of topics?
Um…read?
