Really interesting stuff, I was surprised and disturbed that practicing a skill when tired can lead to deterioration. I used to think all practice was good practice, that drawing for hours would eventually lead to skill growth, but it explains why it can just result in bad habits.
The trick is a lot of this is so personal. I imagine it's different from art, but having played an instrument, I think we all recognise that feeling of 'I'm tired and I'm beginning to hate this.'
I think it's always good to end a session on a positive note - stop while you still feel good about it.
That's true, and I suppose the study might be limited in that they looked at sports and music specifically, that often have clearer defined goals than art.
A bad drawing can contain the seeds of a good idea, and I have a feeling that drawing something badly can teach us what is off and we make gradual improvements to get closer to it - a bit like not having sheet music for a song and trying to work out the notes by ear. (Young birds learn their species particular calls that way, they aren't born with the “right” tune.)
But there is something in stopping when it becomes a case of going through the motions and no longer concentrating on solving the problem at hand.
Digestion, you've nailed it in one word alone. The other day I sat down in a workshop about InDesign that was completely undigestable. Maybe it me was me, maybe it was the teaching style. Who knows. The point is I left halfway through because there is absolutely zero value in education when the knowledge is not sinking in.
I wonder how this would apply to scanning a large amount of information sources for meaning, context, and relationship. I read and gather information from a lot of sources and at the time I don't necessarily know if it's important to me or not. The problem for me occurs when I think, "Aha, something I read recently said something really important about this thing I'm reading right now, but I can't for the life of me remember where I saw it"
I always categorise information by ‘retrieval’ rather than by category.
I try to think about which situations i’m in and when I feel i’ll need that information. So for example if I find a paper I wouldn’t put it in a “Academic Paper”.
I’d think is this more useful for my professional life or for my ‘Substack life’ and then categorise it according to that meaning I have two folders “Professional” and “Substack”.
This may be way off base; I haven't used it yet for my writing, and may not--but I can't help noticeing a connection between this thread and the book I got from Scott P. Scheper: "ANTINET ZETTELKASTEN, A knowledge system that will turn you into a prolific reader, researcher and writer," 2022, Greenlamp LLC. From what I have read in it, the analog system he describes (which uses filing hand-written note cards, to build a knowledge tree) seems superior to digital systems (even ai?), because it automatically categorizes and connects information, and has built-in bibliographical data so that one can immediately access original sources. I see so many correlations between his work and Dr. Ng's as it relates to information retrieval and use. I don't know if either of you will comment or look into this rabbit-hole, but down the road I'd be happy to compare notes again, if that should work out...Cheers!
I’m glad you found it useful! A lot of this is also having gone through medical school, a PhD, and continuing professional exams and finding what works vs what doesn’t.
Love how you broke this down! As a fourth year medical student I’ve been finding it quite difficult to consolidate the breadth of knowledge but this is brilliant! Should have linked this to my medical knowledge earlier 😂!
A concept they can carry away and repost as if contact with language were the same as contact with thought.
But that is not reading.
Reading begins when you stop taking the sentence as the unit of meaning.
Because the real content of a text is rarely sitting on the surface of its propositions. It lives in the movement underneath them: what problem the text thinks it is solving, what kind of human being it presupposes, what it is trying to preserve, what it cannot afford to question, what tension gives the whole thing its shape.
Without that, people do not encounter a text.
They extract from it.
And extraction is not understanding.
It is intellectual consumption.
That is why so much contemporary reading feels informed and empty at the same time. People can repeat the point while missing the force that produced it. They can summarize the conclusion while never touching the deeper dynamic that made the conclusion necessary. They know what was said, but not from where it was spoken.
So yes, the problem is not only memory.
It is surface contact.
People read statements without reading assumptions.
They read conclusions without reading architecture.
They read language without reading the pressure behind it.
And then they wonder why so little changes.
Because nothing was really met.
A text is not just information.
It is a structured event of mind.
And if you do not read the living context, the hidden frame, and the movement of necessity inside it, then you are not reading in any deep sense at all.
You are only passing your eyes across the residue.
Loved this article! I’m studying for a certification exam (microbiology) and I’m trying to get as much of the information to get associated.
For example, the mnemonic “dirty fingers bring Shigella” helps me remember the species names of pathogenic Shigella species and how people can get them.
This really hit home. After two decades in banking and finance, I've sat through thousands of hours of training sessions, conferences, and strategy briefings. And the honest truth? I retained maybe 10% of it — until I started doing exactly what you describe here: processing before moving on.
The distinction between consumption and digestion is everything. In my experience, the leaders who grow fastest aren't the ones reading the most books or attending the most seminars. They're the ones who pause after a single insight and ask, "How does this change what I'm doing tomorrow?"
How can I apply this to reading fiction/ classics? I normally highlight phrases/ passages I like or unknown words, then write them out into my notebook after my reading session, along with my own thoughts on the text. Should I do this during reading to retain it better? Loved the article btw; thank you!
Do you see no value in scheduling for repetition the processing of concepts? Wouldn’t one end up forgetting it if they only “process” the concept once?
Also, I just naturally did one of the things you suggested. I'd read the article, then told my husband about it. There were a couple of quotes I wanted to share: 1) the concept that consuming learning is like writing things in wet sand and not noticing it's being washed away; and 2) If you want to learn a skill or do something new (like assemble a crib), try it before you read about it. Brilliant!
Super interesting post! I'm curious, do you know how this changes with ADHD? I've found that my working memory is trash but the moment I lock it into my long term memory I'll remember the most obscure of details for 10+ years.
Saving this for later. After skimming through I know I’d love it
I’m glad you liked it!
Take some time to process it so you don’t forget you saved it!
Really interesting stuff, I was surprised and disturbed that practicing a skill when tired can lead to deterioration. I used to think all practice was good practice, that drawing for hours would eventually lead to skill growth, but it explains why it can just result in bad habits.
The trick is a lot of this is so personal. I imagine it's different from art, but having played an instrument, I think we all recognise that feeling of 'I'm tired and I'm beginning to hate this.'
I think it's always good to end a session on a positive note - stop while you still feel good about it.
That's true, and I suppose the study might be limited in that they looked at sports and music specifically, that often have clearer defined goals than art.
A bad drawing can contain the seeds of a good idea, and I have a feeling that drawing something badly can teach us what is off and we make gradual improvements to get closer to it - a bit like not having sheet music for a song and trying to work out the notes by ear. (Young birds learn their species particular calls that way, they aren't born with the “right” tune.)
But there is something in stopping when it becomes a case of going through the motions and no longer concentrating on solving the problem at hand.
Digestion, you've nailed it in one word alone. The other day I sat down in a workshop about InDesign that was completely undigestable. Maybe it me was me, maybe it was the teaching style. Who knows. The point is I left halfway through because there is absolutely zero value in education when the knowledge is not sinking in.
Nice feed back
I wonder how this would apply to scanning a large amount of information sources for meaning, context, and relationship. I read and gather information from a lot of sources and at the time I don't necessarily know if it's important to me or not. The problem for me occurs when I think, "Aha, something I read recently said something really important about this thing I'm reading right now, but I can't for the life of me remember where I saw it"
I always categorise information by ‘retrieval’ rather than by category.
I try to think about which situations i’m in and when I feel i’ll need that information. So for example if I find a paper I wouldn’t put it in a “Academic Paper”.
I’d think is this more useful for my professional life or for my ‘Substack life’ and then categorise it according to that meaning I have two folders “Professional” and “Substack”.
that's where ai could do wonders, no?
This may be way off base; I haven't used it yet for my writing, and may not--but I can't help noticeing a connection between this thread and the book I got from Scott P. Scheper: "ANTINET ZETTELKASTEN, A knowledge system that will turn you into a prolific reader, researcher and writer," 2022, Greenlamp LLC. From what I have read in it, the analog system he describes (which uses filing hand-written note cards, to build a knowledge tree) seems superior to digital systems (even ai?), because it automatically categorizes and connects information, and has built-in bibliographical data so that one can immediately access original sources. I see so many correlations between his work and Dr. Ng's as it relates to information retrieval and use. I don't know if either of you will comment or look into this rabbit-hole, but down the road I'd be happy to compare notes again, if that should work out...Cheers!
This is really informative and fascinating, I am going to implement some of these strategies for my learning.
I’m glad you found it useful! A lot of this is also having gone through medical school, a PhD, and continuing professional exams and finding what works vs what doesn’t.
Excellent and a super beneficial article! Thank you for sharing!
Thank Maryam - I’m glad you liked it!
Thank you, it's really helpful
I’m glad!
Love how you broke this down! As a fourth year medical student I’ve been finding it quite difficult to consolidate the breadth of knowledge but this is brilliant! Should have linked this to my medical knowledge earlier 😂!
Same here 🥺🌌✈️
Luv your work Doc. I've long known we need "hooks" to hang information on... And I understood why intuitively I suppose. Now it's even more clear.
Most people do not read.
They skim for usable fragments.
A claim.
A tip.
A conclusion.
A sentence they can agree with.
A sentence they can attack.
A concept they can carry away and repost as if contact with language were the same as contact with thought.
But that is not reading.
Reading begins when you stop taking the sentence as the unit of meaning.
Because the real content of a text is rarely sitting on the surface of its propositions. It lives in the movement underneath them: what problem the text thinks it is solving, what kind of human being it presupposes, what it is trying to preserve, what it cannot afford to question, what tension gives the whole thing its shape.
Without that, people do not encounter a text.
They extract from it.
And extraction is not understanding.
It is intellectual consumption.
That is why so much contemporary reading feels informed and empty at the same time. People can repeat the point while missing the force that produced it. They can summarize the conclusion while never touching the deeper dynamic that made the conclusion necessary. They know what was said, but not from where it was spoken.
So yes, the problem is not only memory.
It is surface contact.
People read statements without reading assumptions.
They read conclusions without reading architecture.
They read language without reading the pressure behind it.
And then they wonder why so little changes.
Because nothing was really met.
A text is not just information.
It is a structured event of mind.
And if you do not read the living context, the hidden frame, and the movement of necessity inside it, then you are not reading in any deep sense at all.
You are only passing your eyes across the residue.
Loved this article! I’m studying for a certification exam (microbiology) and I’m trying to get as much of the information to get associated.
For example, the mnemonic “dirty fingers bring Shigella” helps me remember the species names of pathogenic Shigella species and how people can get them.
This really hit home. After two decades in banking and finance, I've sat through thousands of hours of training sessions, conferences, and strategy briefings. And the honest truth? I retained maybe 10% of it — until I started doing exactly what you describe here: processing before moving on.
The distinction between consumption and digestion is everything. In my experience, the leaders who grow fastest aren't the ones reading the most books or attending the most seminars. They're the ones who pause after a single insight and ask, "How does this change what I'm doing tomorrow?"
Brilliant framework, Dr. Ng. Sharing this widely.
How can I apply this to reading fiction/ classics? I normally highlight phrases/ passages I like or unknown words, then write them out into my notebook after my reading session, along with my own thoughts on the text. Should I do this during reading to retain it better? Loved the article btw; thank you!
Do you see no value in scheduling for repetition the processing of concepts? Wouldn’t one end up forgetting it if they only “process” the concept once?
Also, I just naturally did one of the things you suggested. I'd read the article, then told my husband about it. There were a couple of quotes I wanted to share: 1) the concept that consuming learning is like writing things in wet sand and not noticing it's being washed away; and 2) If you want to learn a skill or do something new (like assemble a crib), try it before you read about it. Brilliant!
Super interesting post! I'm curious, do you know how this changes with ADHD? I've found that my working memory is trash but the moment I lock it into my long term memory I'll remember the most obscure of details for 10+ years.