
Alan Kay on How Many Books You Can Read in a Lifetime - DiabloD3
https://medium.com/@mmeditations/alan-kay-on-how-many-books-you-can-read-in-a-lifetime-e0f08682b13d
======
optymizer
I respect Alan Kay as much as the next guy, but I don't really know what the
take-away is here.

Alan Kay having 4-6 hours a day to read books is certainly out of the ordinary
and I can't emulate that. That's not "work day" \- that seems more like "I
don't have to go to work"-day. I suppose we can acknowledge that Alan Kay is
making use of his time wisely.

Also, what kind of books are we talking about here? I guarantee you Alan Kay
is not reading a technical book like Compilers by Aho in a day. Sure, he might
be physically able to read the letters on all the pages in the book, but he's
not LEARNING that much information in a day. That book is 2 semesters worth of
new information, not to mention that it requires practice to solidify.

Even the author acknowledges this is a case of quantity over quality. How much
actual learning is Alan Kay doing? Now that would be a useful point of
reference. That would tell me if I have to up my learning game or if I'm doing
just fine.

If every week I learn one new technology like RxJava, React Native, P, etc, am
I beating Alan Kay at learning, even though I might be reading fewer pages?

~~~
alankay1
Always worth checking with the source ...

(a) I'm quite sure I didn't tell him that I started a new book every day (note
that this contradicts with a later sentence where he attributes me saying that
I now read about 4 books a week). You really should realize that many people
when they write, reconstruct their memories to fit what they are trying to be
didactic about.

(b) and nowhere in the article does he say that I spend 4-6 hours a day
reading (this is something -you- ("optymizer") constructed (quite innocently
I'm sure). I probably read about 2 hours a day, maybe a little more. This is
enough to finish most books. And, yes, some books require quite a bit more
effort and time -- both from length and wrt depth.

I did start putting some effort into remembering "pretty nearly" what I read,
starting in 3rd grade. However, my abilities never got to the legendary levels
of some readers e.g. Bertrand Russell.

(c) I didn't say I've read 20,000 books. I said I'm pretty sure I haven't read
more than this. And I do know a number of people who have read more than this.
In fact, I don't know how many books I've read.

(d) Why bother thinking about competing? What point is there? Why not just
enjoy knowledge and the fun of interrelating it?

~~~
optymizer
Wow, I did not expect a reply from Alan Kay himself! Thank you for taking the
time to write a thoughtful reply.

I think of friendly competition as means to improve myself. It's not required,
but it can be fun.

Unrelated to the above, I'd like to take this opportunity to ask you the
following question: what would you like to see all software engineers start
doing?

------
nitemice
Lately I've come to the realisation that growing up means you simply can't
maintain all your hobbies.

It's just not possible to play video games, and read novels, and read comic
books, and garden, and cook, and blog, and play an instrument, and code, and
paint, and sketch, and do photography, and do pottery, and watch TV, and
ballroom-dance, and ski, and practice archery, and go to the gym, etc.

For the majority of people, apart from whatever you do for work, I think you
can only really maintain 1-3 hobbies. People like those described in the
article have chosen books/reading as their big time-sink. And that's okay, but
I bet they're not spending a lot of time painting, or watching TV, or
downhill-skiing (unless it's their job). Because there are only so many hours
in a day, and eventually you have to specialise.

~~~
nathan_f77
Yeah, not if you have to balance all of that with a full-time job and a
family. But if you can somehow manage to retire early [1], and you either
don't have kids or you don't home-school them, then I think you could find
time for all of those things you mentioned in your second paragraph. Of
course, not all in the same day.

And you don't really _need_ to specialize, unless you have the drive to become
a world-class musician or painter. I have a lot of hobbies where I just have
fun and don't really want to get famous or turn them into a career.

[1]
[http://reddit.com/r/financialindependence](http://reddit.com/r/financialindependence)

------
maj0rhn
There is an acquisition bias inherent in this article.

Reading 40 hours a week should not be viewed as an unadulterated good that is
beneficial in all cases. I've known people who have escaped into reading with
that kind of time commitment, at the cost of being able to function well in
the real world. I don't judge their choice, but only note the correlation. A
bell curve has two tails.

Personally, I've found that two hours a day is the max I can do without
starting to get itchy that I'm wasting time by not _doing_ anything. It's fine
to get smarter, but, for me, at least, I feel like I have to do something with
the smarts.

~~~
bingojess
The writer touches on this:

"Am I saying that everyone should read 4–8 hours a day? Of course not. Why,
then, did I write this article? Well, in part because it offers a reference."

and later

"The average American may read 2–4 books a year. But who cares? If you value
reading, the average is the wrong reference."

------
perilunar
I remember once calculating that I could read 1-2 metres of books per year, or
roughly 100m over my lifetime.

Then the internet happened.

------
throwaway-1209
No, athletes don't train "30 hours a week". With proper intensity, anything
over 2-3 hours a day is detrimental. This time includes stretching and warmup.

~~~
gmgarrison
"Train" doesn't just mean "work out" as the non-professional athlete
understands it. For a professional athlete, "training" encompasses reviewing
performance recordings, reflecting on prior performance, technique refinement,
endurance training and strength training. All of that certainly adds up to
more than 30 hours a week. It's their profession, after all.

