[tw]

The concept must be learned in school. And was demonstrated in a movie called "Paper Chase". To pass Prof Kingfield's class, one had to grasp this concept.

If something is read once and understood, then its information already known. It taught little. Reading something new and useful typically requires at least three rereads. The current April 2013 issue of Scientific American demonstrates that concept.

The topic is neutrinos. Among other things, how a neutrino would explain so much matter and so little anti-matter. A problem from quantum physics that continues to vex researchers who are the source of our children's new jobs (if American is to remain number one).

Everything in that article is laymanized simple. No complex math. Nothing difficult. However many nouns are new. Therefore it is impossible to understand it in a first reading. Those new nouns (ie leptons) are simple but new.

A first read of anything useful only creates 'dots' in your head. Ie the 'dots' are those new nouns. A second read collects more 'dots' and establishes a map of where those 'dots' lay. A third reread starts connecting 'dots' so that one grasps what the author is trying to say.

That 'at least three rereads' is essential for anything useful and informative. The TV show "Numb3rs" foolishly says a genius will see an equation and immediately understand it. Bull full of shit. A genius will take hours first learning what the variable means (the equivalent of nouns). And maybe days to grasp what the equation really says (connect the dots).

Many are told the author is at fault if it requires multiple rereads. Those who say so then become English majors. People who only see what is in one reading. Who also knew Paul had no shoes. So Paul was dead. They knew (without doubt) only what they saw the first time. Never understood what is necessary to learn something new.

Good science magazines contain at least one good article. That's the article that, when first read, only the first and last paragraphs make sense.

Years ago, we discussed a book from Thomas Barnett entitled "Pentagon's New Map". It describes Core and Gap nations. And what must happen to ensure world peace. If read superficially, then one saw it as a confirmation of the lies promoted by "Project for a New American Century". And justification for Mission Accomplished. So wackos in George Jr's administration hired Barnett. One here also praised his book.

Well, that one here never got beyond Chapter 2. What Barnett was saying required careful rereading. Instead, extremists only read what they wanted to see. Only read it once. Never did what is required to grasp superior articles, papers, or materials.

Barnett was quietly dismissed from a George Jr administration that eventually began hearing why they would massacre almost 5000 American servicemen for no good reason. They only read the 'dots' in a first reading. And never grasped basic concepts Barnett had defined essential to win a war. Such as "America DOES do nation building". Wackos only read what they wanted to see. Some never got past Chapter 2 because Barnett was truly defining what we now call Mission Accomplished. The useless massacre of American servicemen.

Not just science magazines that are hard to read. It applies to all reality including Military Strategy. We massacred 5000 servicemen because our leaders and so many American citizens do not learn how to read. Ignored the articles and reports that required revisiting to grasp what was (to them) completely new concepts (even though much of it ws defined 2500 years ago). If it is (as George Jr said) ha-a-a-a-rd, then it is probably about something simple that you have not yet learned.

Students first read a textbook to have 'dots'. Had little idea what they read. Only learned about the 'dots'. Then went to class to connect those 'dots'. Then did homework to better grasp and complete those 'dot' connections. Another example. To understand something that is new (and layman simple) typically requires three rereads. Or read the book, relearn it in class, and finally grasp it with homework.

If an article in that science magazine is too difficult, then it is probably some of the best information. And requires more rereads (and a yellow highlighter).

Electronic tablets create a problem. No yellow highlighter. That April article in Scientific American had some yellow highlights in my first read. And more in a second reading. A highlighter is essential to identify key nouns - the 'dots'. Grasping what they were really saying - connecting those 'dots' - made easier by going back to the noun's definition when a paragraph does not yet make sense.

That article on neutrinos is layman simple. Since the author is describing concepts that must become common knowledge in 30 years (if he is correct), then today it required multiple rereads. Because it describes new knowledge.

Now watch "Paper Chase" only once to grasp this concept. Because underlying principles (the 'dots') were learned in the two readings of this post.