how to read more critically?

[u/Same-Mushroom-2057]

for the people that read ,I never annotated my books but I realized that writing makes me understand things more and I don't know really how people annotate their books.
I'm looking for advice and techniques on how to get the most out of books, I meanly read classics, non fiction book evolving around different topics : neurology, neuroscience , psychology, philosophy...

[u/Ok-Lion-6767]

i also read mostly nonfictional books but because you never annotated before i’ll start there and it help with active engagement rather than skimming through the words as well with memory retention :)

also this is just me because i don’t like writing on books so i don’t use highlighters but those transparent sticky notes instead and it comes in different sizes

this link can help you start off on how to annotate -

https://pin.it/3RCtzJtw4

[u/Same-Mushroom-2057 → u/Ok-Lion-6767]

thanks alott

[u/MarionberryEast9136]

I'd suggest starting with shorter books rather than jumping straight into long, complicated ones. Try reading a small book, take notes while reading, and after finishing it, write down what you learned, which ideas changed your perspective, and what you disagreed with. Don't just focus on what the author is saying; ask yourself why they're saying it and whether their arguments actually make sense.

You can underline important passages, write your thoughts in the margins, and note down questions that come to mind. For nonfiction, try connecting the ideas to real life instead of simply memorizing information. For philosophy, question the author's assumptions and consider whether someone could argue against their conclusions.

One more thing: if you spend a lot of time on the internet, especially scrolling through short-form content, try reducing it gradually and give yourself more uninterrupted time to read. At first, even 15–20 minutes of focused reading a day is a good start. After finishing each book, explain its main ideas in your own words, as if you were teaching someone else. That will help you discover what you've actually understood rather than what you merely remember. The goal isn't to read as many books as possible, but to think more deeply about what you read.

[u/Same-Mushroom-2057 → u/MarionberryEast9136]

I actually read thick books before but I didn't annotate. I think I will annotate them in my second read

[u/Imaginary-Can-6862]

The way I see it, a book is a medium between you and the author, trying to include you in the knowledge it represents. Therefore for every introduced elements, I suppose these would always be nouns, you write about this element. It depends if it is an object, a person, etc., but it is mainly about organizing a proper overview of what is going on, and what to expect within what you read. When done properly, you may even be more aware of what to expect as the material progresses.

While it is a very generalized methodology, you could consider the element in regards of what makes it interesting to consider, this is usually in relation to something else (introducing it), what you currently know about it (the mechanics, or theory), what it has done so far in the work (i.e. what it actually is, and not what it claims to be), what you predict from it, and what actually happens (the conclusion), from which you can further link it to other interesting fields. It is very relevant to realize the scope of the conclusions, i.e. assumptions (weaknesses), how confident you can be (how much the element actually demonstrated its ability), and the limit at which it is tested, so some further expansion of application isn't taken for granted to be true.

When it comes to actually reading some scientific literature, I think starting with the topic, and then go straight to the conclusion, tells you what you can expect. Unlike something we read for our pleasure, where we enjoy how the world evolves, and where we only make qualified guesses, when it comes to learning something, it seems sensible to actually know where we are headed, what is the idea behind what the author is doing, so it doesn't seem like another thing added for no obvious reason. If the conclusion to the topic is something which interests you, then you can make notes for each part in the process of reaching said conclusion, i.e. the introduction which justifies how come we are even considering this, to the theory, the tests to verify the theory, the conclusions, the perspective in regards to already existing knowledge and other fields of interests which links to this, as well as the weaknesses, such as assumptions made (mainly definitions), the scope (what region we actually tested, and attempted to verify, the theory within), and how well these tests themselves are supporting the claim that is made in the conclusion. This provides you with notes, not only words, but drawings as wells, and taking notes is only the first step in understanding something (I think it also helps a lot to use other senses than only the visual one, so when you write something down it enhances our ability to remember). The difference between memorization and understanding, is when we understand something we link the things together (associations), while when we memorize something, the things are independent of each other. Our understanding may still be incorrect, but from the notes you should be able to first of all, recreate what you have read. Then explain it to someone else so they can understand it, at first someone who is not familiar with the topic, because this allows you to realize the assumptions (weaknesses) you make along the way. Then you ought to actually test your understanding by using what you have learned, see if what you predict is also the result which happens, but usually books come with assignments of some form, which allows you to do this, when applying the material we are more likely to find the understand we did build, wasn't exactly what the author tried to convey, but once we get the hang of these assignments, the next step would be to be able to explain (teach) someone who is also working with the material, it is only here group work in a studying kind of way comes into it, and once you have reached a common agreement, or went with the questions your group disagrees about to the lecturer, you can go back and redo the explaining part to someone who is not familiar with the topic, and compare the differences between those two occasions. The only step that is missing is that you use the material you worked on afterward, you should not be afraid of having long time periods where you do not use it, once you have learned it, to refresh it in your mind is much easier, similar to how if you have at one point exercised to become really fit, even if you let go afterward, it becomes much easier for you to return to being very fit. Once again here your notes is hopefully going to make the refreshing very easy, as it is organized in accordance to how you understand the topic. Similarly when you work with what you have learned in your daily life, organizing what you do in some structured manner can make it a lot easier for you in the future to continue said work, not having to reinvent the wheel all the time.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, taking breaks are important to be able to keep concentrating on doing this. You ought to feel when it starts becoming more of an annoyance to take notes, if you time yourself, you might find that the annoyance generally starts after the same amount of time. A break should not contain anything which requires you to concentrate, such as when you take notes, should not contain another task, should at minimum be a couple of minutes, and should not be longer than the time you already used when working with the material. If done properly you're likely to find you'd need fewer breaks -, and can work concentrated for a longer period of time, while finding enjoyment in what you do, but also realize there will be a plateau, and this hardly matters, because the added efficiency of not taking a short break, if you didn't need it, quickly drops as your levels normalize.

[u/MasterDeathless]

If the book just states things without basing them upon meaningful things that you can fully grasp with your current knowledge then you cannot read critically because you and the author have non-overlapping core-values such as- truth and false, which are always used as a reference when measuring how true and how false a thing is, which is the core of critical thinking.

Which means- you would have to find your way to realize the basis for the statements of the author, so reading critically sometimes forces you to open up other books or learn things from other sources, just to understand your book.

if cannot find a basis- then one would just say the author is wrong or lacking a base, which is fair, and thats what critical thinking is all about.

[u/HommeMusical]

do not annotate books! You will regret it. I did.

Use notebooks. It's also useful to keep all the information in one place.

The best advice is to stop every so often and think - what are the consequences of this? Is this true? Is this literally true, but stated in a way to mislead? What's missing?

Who is this person? Do they have some agenda, or an angle, or a bias? None of these are necessarily good or bad.

My favorite example for critical thinking is this famous experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Does it really prove what it claims to prove?

Try asking how you would change the parameters of the experiment, and then why they didn't explore certain variations.

No one ever gets to go home and think about it, or have any sort of pause before being rushed into a series of escalation actions in a complicated routing. Con artists use exactly the same technique. So another hypothesis is that if you keep fast-talking people and getting them to do things, they'll do almost anything. This does not extend to e.g. concentration camp guards, who got to go home and think about it. And only a minority of soldiers would accept an offer to serve in a concentration camp. The real message is not, "Everyone's potentially evil", but "A fairly small number of fuckers fuck things up for the rest of us."

[u/svarthale]

I agree with what others are saying— keep it simple to start! For example, in annotating fiction, you could start by flagging/highlighting just your favorite quotes, the ones that feel the most impactful for you while you’re reading. Then, if you feel like you can do more, try to start noticing themes throughout a book. If it’s talking a lot about how someone handles grief, then annotate every time someone thinks about handling their grief or talks about it with another character.

[u/butterflyweeds34]

some strategies for classics in particular: have a dedicated sign for when something doesn't make sense to you (circling, a question mark, an asterisk, etc) and a different dedicated sign for when you're noticing a pattern, like a reoccuring piece of imagery or phrasing, or a theme that you find very interesting. when you're done with the paragraph or after a certain number of pages, go back and followup on depending on the length of the chapter, writing in definitions for the stuff you didn't understand. also, when you're done with a chapter, write a three sentence summary of what you just read: you can also do this by paragraph, page, whatever works. hope these help.

[u/Horror-Reply7808]

Challenge assumptions you have about the universe and connect it to the information you are absorbing.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Same-Mushroom-2057 → u/[deleted]]

thanks alot

[u/mrs_misandrist → u/[deleted]]

This is great advice. Thanks!