I read everything I can find about it, especially if its people arguing thoughtfully, or sharing their advice/experience, or if its about the history of the topic. I get kind of obsessive about researching things so I usually come at a topic from a lot of directions.
I watch videos and read articles and use LLMs to give me the key points to grasp the basics. Then build upon that knowledge with more focused learning.
I do this plus follow competent people in those fields on Mastodon/reddit/etc for current news relevant to practitioners in the field
I’d usually start with easily digestible content like YouTube videos or ChatGPT. At this point, I’m not too concerned about the correctness of the information. It mainly gives me vocabulary that I can then look up for further reading along with the perspective of one or two individuals. That might be all I care about, and if so, I’d stop there and go on with my day. If I want to dive deeper, I’ll look up textbooks and papers on the topic, or any other relevant primary sources. Basically do a light literature review.
deleted by creator
Wikipedia and books, depending on the subject matter and my degree of interest. For example, I’ve been reading historical research books because I love history. If it was something about the moon, it’d be Wikipedia and good enough.
Isaac Asimov wrote books on a wide range of topics.
Start with him
Don’t watch or listen…READ!
Idk man. YouTube tutorials are pretty helpful. Especially when I was studying electricity. Those Indian dudes are geniuses
Why do we have teachers then? Listening and watching is absolutely a valid strategy of learning. You just need to make sure that the speakers are trustworthy on the subject.
Probably meant don’t rely on youtube, (as people produce fake info) while text books are rypically vetted, except in USA where Texas writes the curriculum supporting oil and gas and denying clinate change–and the other states purchase the Texas curriculum
And do
The Internet.
You have to set a goal of what you want to understand and why you want to understand it, then read accordingly. If your goal is to know the usual number of eggs laid by a bird because you are trying to identify one from its nest in your yard, sure just read some Wikipedia and maybe read its sources. If you need to understand a broad topic in the social sciences in order to do your job or organize politically, well sucks yo be you, you need to spend months to years getting a handle on the various schools of thought and approaching them humbly and critically, reading many books.
The same way as topics in my field of expertise, of course.
YouTube.
Follow up question: how do you find actual good and trustable channels on a specific topic?
Youtube comments can be strangely helpful here, sometimes. If there’s a lot of “akshually” comments on every video, it may be a sign the youtuber is full of it. Not always true, but anything helps. Can also look up the youtuber’s credentials as well.
You know that channels can curate which comments they have visible on their videos? Mostly this is used to silence hateful comments, but it’s just as easily abused to remove all differing points of view.
If all the comments agree, you’re probably in a curated bubble.
I forgot about that. Good catch.
I’m going to think about that and get back to you. I think it’s mostly intuitive, based on many years of experience, but I’m not sure at this point.
I also have to mention that I was half joking. I don’t use YT all that much for my profession. I would, but it’s just not entirely relevant.
Not the other guy but I learn a lot of high quality information of YouTube. The golden rule for me is longer-form video is generally higher quality. People that know what they’re talking about typically aren’t going to explain complex things in 30 seconds, or at least not to the depth you should understand it.
Aside from that, I look for people with actual qualifications first. Example, I love psychology so I will look for psychologists, licensed professional counselors, and so on. I’ll even listen to life coaches, but more selectively.
The lower on the “chain” they are, the more I will do “spot checks” on information and see if they know what they’re talking about (ESPECIALLY if they’re making big or new claims about something). For that I’ll look into peer-reviewed studies and such for that.
Once you get a small knowledge base it’s a little easier to continue. Talk something you have a clue about, and watch a video with that topic from another content creator.
Do all of this for a while and you’ll find what you need to.
Well you see I’m a major GEN er alllllllllllll
But seriously Wikipedia, YouTube guides, enthusiast forums. Usually try to read from multiple sources
With lyrics.
Youtube u gotta get the widest set of opinions possible. Unfortunatly peertube just lacks content.
I repeat what I said to the other commenter: how do you find actual good and trustable channels on a specific topic?
I highly disagree with looking for the widest set of opinions. Some opinions are stupid and/or baseless and just muddy the conversation (that’s part of how you get screaming talking heads on cable news shows).
Personally I look for those with expertise who speak to their expertise. Just because someone has an advanced degree in one field does not mean their opinions in other fields are worth listening to. Also, I do a gut check. If is smells like BS, such as unfounded blanket statements or it seems like they’re pushing/selling something, I look into their qualifications a bit more or find someone else.
Finding a trustworthy source is the hardest part. I generally avoid anyone speaking too loudly of the subject. Someone who’s knowledgeable and confident, most times, can present calmly with context that’s accessible to most people.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is a good example. He’s a good place to start for a broad range of topics. Then if I want more details I can dig deeper on my own. A lot of times, his commentary requires digging deeper because he speaks too broadly.
I always check the source of a report or article; if there is no source, I don’t trust it. The source is usually a good place to ‘bookmark’ for further research.
Trying to learn from ‘youtubers’ seems like asking for trouble.
Lectures posted on youtube etc. are different I suppose.
Go with people who are willing to use their real name, a lot of times it’ll be in the channel description, or sometimes in a channel trailer or intro video. Sometimes in an interview some other outlet/creator has done on the content creator. Then google that real name and check their work history and education credentials. You can usually find a LinkedIn. If they’re a proper academic, their university will usually have a brief page on them on the official university website. If they’re an alumni, they can sometimes be found in an alumni list, various class lists, or publicly accessible projects they worked on, though not always. Work history often cannot be as easily verified, but sometimes can be if you dig a little. Depends on field.
It’s not too different from what you’d do if you wanted to hire someone to work for you in a small business or something.
Once you have a significant knowledge base yourself, you can start to use the sniff test, though that’s always far from perfect. Less time consuming though.
for what kind of topics?
Wikipedia link hopping. Other sources may not be reliable at all.
sci-hub and annas-archive
I want to be less reliant on Wikipedia and Google Scholar, but in truth I still use them a lot
So you directly read papers on those topics? I tried doing that but I feel it requires a huge amount of background
I am not the person you are replying to.
I read a lot of papers and it is hard if you don’t have background knowledge of the subject. If it’s something I am really interested in, then I will dive deep, if it’s not I will probably let it go when I get to the point where I no longer grasp what’s being said.
Why do you want to be less reliant on Wikipedia?
Curious about this one too
-
Centralize anything and it will be ruined bubthe regime
-
Wiki is already under a lot of pressure as is due to be as central as it is. There were rumors of them being under US Security service supervision so how good can it really be and where is it going to go now
-
Wikipedia editors are petty and incredibly biased. Start reading the talk pages, especially on controversial articles, and your opinion on Wikipedia’s objectivity will rapidly plummet.
Also, it’s a bit like reddit: you find yourself learning so much about new topics, until you start reading about things you have actual expertise on, and you realize the people writing this shit are uninformed idiots, and, when you try to fix the information, the petty nerds who control it revert your changes and ban you.
Read. Write. Execute. RWX. I’m going to piss some people off. Here goes: you are wasting your time if you watch videos. At all. A video moves at the pace it plays. It is linear. You can’t jump around easily. Reading? You can jump wherever you need immediately. You can have multiple sources at once. If you use a book, yes a physical book, you learn where things are and jump right to them. Read
Write down a paraphrased version of what you read. Do not copy. Include references so you can return to source if needed. Note taking is a skill. Your notes should be organized in a way you can skim what you wrote as easily as the sources themselves.
Execute. You don’t learn anything unless you do it. I’ve had too many students who watch Khan Academy, and think they understand it when they haven’t done it. They don’t score well on exams. Not my fault. I told them they have to do it to understand it.
RWX. I await the flame war I just started with the video people.
It might depend from person to person? I agree with you, tho. That’s also my preferred method.
However, if the stuff you’re reading is fairly dense and not that well organized, you’re gonna have a harder time than watching a well written educational video or lecture and taking notes along the way.
