_bramses

Half right, but no. It IS intellectually lazy precisely because as you pointed out, snake oil salesmen exist in the space. Because of them, well meaning people who can inform people of the very real trade offs of different storage or search techniques are all bucketed together without nuance, which is by definition lazy.

As such, people who are interested in learning more about how to have an intentional relationship with their library are left with a freshman level understanding of the topic.

The goal is to provide a comprehensive overview of the problems and solutions tried in the past, and give people access to creative ways to build (and share findings from) their libraries.

The reason I love the Personal Library Science space is directly due to its emergence of information features in a personal library against the idiosyncratic processes of resonance and attention in their creators.

The whole discourse around PKM is a problem of the pluralistic framing in modern society that we hide behind individuality while missing the basic points. "Use whatever works for you" is intellectually lazy, and the opposite isn't an authoritarian ontology that people think they are protecting against.

Instead the basics are this: Whatever system you currently have to store/search/synthesize/and share information CAN and SHOULD be introspected to improve itself. Some functions are matters of time and space cost/benefits, other metric functions are qualitative, but can be experimented against and improved greatly with creativity and testing.

The punchy sentence delivery is so annoying and repetitive. The "X is not Y, its Z" form they all take is headache inducing.

I’ve been doing 1:1 therapy style sessions to make adults better readers!

Thanks for the feedback! I don’t agree with your assessment, since the slideshow is about books, not learning in general, but I’ll take those thoughts into consideration.

I agree with your point wrt fragmentation, but my point is to actually assess the underlying mechanisms and address them more directly.

> Reading something you don't want to is going to stifle retention regardless of how you try and quantify it.

I agree and in fact, I point that very thing out in the slide about bad habits of holding onto a book that is not serviceable.

As a meta point many of the things I would talk about are lost in the medium of cutting text for slides, and I apologize that the examples (like the Illustration sections) must be on the responsibility of the reader. It makes more sense when delivered alongside talking!