I've been learning illustrative drawing and while studying anatomy have reached this axiomatic conclusion, one which I've seen elsewhere: make it a laborious effort to take notes and your recall of them will subsequently improve.
You see, the way in which I've taken up the anatomy study is simply to copy every drawing in "Morpho" (a 300-plus page volume full of anatomical reference material, different perspectives and poses). This takes months, even with the relatively brief treatments I've giving to each drawing. No school class sits you down at the start and says "your assignment for the class is to copy every page in the textbook".
But the results speak for themselves. My understanding of figures and faces has improved a ton by simply going through the book and drawing what I see over and over. Where it's lacking the most is in the places where I haven't yet finished my study.
And it makes sense. We don't teach sports by quizzing athletes with lengthy descriptions of the situation, but by drilling the muscle memory in small chunks and then putting it together. There's no reason why learning of other topics wouldn't be the same.
But it's also high effort to put in that degree of drill. Most people searching for an ultimate knowledge system aren't willing to forsake that much and want to focus on the tools and the data collection process. But this isn't a good adaptation to an info-saturated world. Collection and organization is a professional field all its own: that's the type of thing a library scientist does. If you collect in an overly general way, you compete with the librarians. To do better than them you have to filter and apply the more intensive method to a smaller number of topics.
For example, a mediocre way to keep up with news is to consume predigested news products. The headline usually says about as much as is necessary; the rest is formulaic and designed for engagement. Looking to an expert is also misleading because they'll make a statement from within their own self-interest(e.g. medical professionals with disease) and build up an echo chamber around their seniority. To go deep on any one news subject you have to start compiling your own data, ask your own questions, pursue your own leads. But you can't do all of them.
What you can feasibly do(and which I do from time to time) is look at statements coming from within corporations and public institutions about data: earnings reports, surveys, and so on. While occasionally misleading, these modes of information are usually designed to clear up confusion and present credible explanations for stakeholders. They are not as exciting as gossip journalism, but they often signal underlying trends, and you can summarize those into small-p principles that you'll filter future data through. So then you become more efficient without changing any of your habits around consumption.
You see, the way in which I've taken up the anatomy study is simply to copy every drawing in "Morpho" (a 300-plus page volume full of anatomical reference material, different perspectives and poses). This takes months, even with the relatively brief treatments I've giving to each drawing. No school class sits you down at the start and says "your assignment for the class is to copy every page in the textbook".
But the results speak for themselves. My understanding of figures and faces has improved a ton by simply going through the book and drawing what I see over and over. Where it's lacking the most is in the places where I haven't yet finished my study.
And it makes sense. We don't teach sports by quizzing athletes with lengthy descriptions of the situation, but by drilling the muscle memory in small chunks and then putting it together. There's no reason why learning of other topics wouldn't be the same.
But it's also high effort to put in that degree of drill. Most people searching for an ultimate knowledge system aren't willing to forsake that much and want to focus on the tools and the data collection process. But this isn't a good adaptation to an info-saturated world. Collection and organization is a professional field all its own: that's the type of thing a library scientist does. If you collect in an overly general way, you compete with the librarians. To do better than them you have to filter and apply the more intensive method to a smaller number of topics.
For example, a mediocre way to keep up with news is to consume predigested news products. The headline usually says about as much as is necessary; the rest is formulaic and designed for engagement. Looking to an expert is also misleading because they'll make a statement from within their own self-interest(e.g. medical professionals with disease) and build up an echo chamber around their seniority. To go deep on any one news subject you have to start compiling your own data, ask your own questions, pursue your own leads. But you can't do all of them.
What you can feasibly do(and which I do from time to time) is look at statements coming from within corporations and public institutions about data: earnings reports, surveys, and so on. While occasionally misleading, these modes of information are usually designed to clear up confusion and present credible explanations for stakeholders. They are not as exciting as gossip journalism, but they often signal underlying trends, and you can summarize those into small-p principles that you'll filter future data through. So then you become more efficient without changing any of your habits around consumption.