# Nod posts

Earlier today I was reading [How to Read Papers Efficiently: Fast-then-Slow Three pass method](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sAyJsvkWxFTkovqZF/how-to-read-papers-efficiently-fast-then-slow-three-pass). I liked it and upvoted it.

I really like what it's saying. If you sit down and try to read a paper from start to finish on your first pass, well, that's just not what you should do. You should skim it first.

After skimming you might determine that it isn't actually worth your time to delve into further. Sometimes that's because you're content with what you learned in the skim. Other times it's because you realize that it doesn't actually interest you. And if you do decide to delve into it further, you'll have an easier time doing so given that you skimmed it first. The high level overview that the skim provides gives you context that makes the subsequent reading easier.

I also really like what it says about doing a third pass after the second. The first pass is to skim, the second is to read, and the third is to understand. After skimming and reading, yeah, you have some sense of what's going on, but it takes more than that. If you want a deep understanding you'll have to go back over it again. Probably more than once. I'm surprised that the post didn't mention this.

And of course, I also really like the zero-ith pass of browsing. Gotta have some sort of filter for what is worth your time to skim.

So yeah, I upvoted this. I like what it's saying, think it was said reasonably well, and most of all, I think the topic is important.

But then I went for a walk and I found myself rethinking this. Why did I upvote it? Was it really worth it? I started imagining myself texting a friend about it.

> Hey man, check out this post. It's really cool. It talks about how when reading papers you should first skim, then read, then take the time to understand it.

But when I imagine sending that text, I also imagine a response of something like:

> Er, I guess so. That seems stuff seems like pretty common knowledge though.

And I'd agree with that. When I read the post, I didn't actually learn anything new[^1]. I just found myself _nodding_. Nodding pretty hard, but nevertheless, it was just nodding. And a lot of posts that I like do the same thing. They make me nod, but don't really teach me anything new.

After thinking about this, I decided to take back my upvote. I still do like the post, but I don't think it passes the threshold of being upvote-worthy.

Similarly, I think that I as well as many others instinctively overvalue these sorts of Nod Posts. It's not that Nod Posts provide no value. It's nice to review things that you already know[^2]. It's just that I think we tend to overvalue them.

[^1]: I'd expect this to be true for most people, especially smart people. But even for less smart people I think it's pretty intuitive that you'd skim first, then if something is interesting enough you read it, and then if it's super fascinating and important you go through it again and again in order to acquire a deep understanding. [How People Read Online: New and Old Findings](https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-people-read-online/) points towards this being true. Maybe this instinct breaks when people are reading things like textbooks or research papers though.

[^2]: Reality of course isn't so cut-and-dried. Sometimes there are hybrids. For example, a Nod Post might be about something that you did already know but haven't thought about in a while, and it's useful to bring it back to your attention. I think that's what this post that I'm writing is probably doing for most people. Other times the post is about something that you understood but it presents it in such a way that deepens your understanding.