Arif Kusbandono

• Scripts in shell • Writes jazz • Snaps street •

[Arif Kusbandono @rifti]

The time is right, his time is now | @_JoeyAlexander | https://t.co/1xNYuMb6dc

[Arif Kusbandono @rifti]

Extreme labor jaman now kalau ga elit, prekariat. Norm buat yang tinggal di tengah ketimpangan.

Leisure class Veblen geser. Keynes meleset soal teknologi, kerja malah makin intens: Daniel Markovitz bahas soal ekstrim elit-subordinat ini.

Tabel elit dari berbagai sumber:

[Ganpess - Ganesa Space | itbfess.wtf @ganesaspace]

lagi2 alumni itb! bikin gaduh twitter :)

luca cada lora, teknik kimia'15 🥲

[Arif Kusbandono @rifti]

@weekendbcbuku sempet ngitung, yang pinjem kalau ngerogoh kocek sendiri (beli) perkiraan 11 jutaan dalam 2 tahun

[Arif Kusbandono @rifti]

@cuntradiksi false virtue, solidarity.. like pages in Sandel's book on merit

[Arif Kusbandono @rifti]

Why the conclusion going circle to level 2? btw

https://t.co/xqPEKgBwB4

[Millie Marconi @MillieMarconnni]

A Chicago philosopher wrote one book in 1940 proving that 95% of the books you have read in your life, you didn't actually read, and Charlie Munger has been telling people to read it for 50 years.

His name was Mortimer Adler.

He spent 40 years at the University of Chicago, ran the editorial board of the Encyclopædia Britannica, and built his entire career on one uncomfortable observation about the people around him.

Most adults who called themselves well-read had not actually read a book in the real sense even once. They had run their eyes over the pages, registered the words, formed a vague impression, and put it back on the shelf.

The book had passed through them without ever entering them.

In 1940 he wrote How to Read a Book. It has stayed in print for 86 years.

Charlie Munger recommends it. Naval Ravikant recommends it. Fareed Zakaria recommends it.

Every serious thinker who builds a career on absorbing information eventually finds their way to this book, and the reason is that Adler had isolated something nobody else was naming clearly.

There are four levels of reading. Almost everyone is stuck on the second one. The fourth level is so different from what most people call reading that you have probably never done it in your entire life.

Level one is elementary.

You learn it as a child. You decode the letters into words and the words into sentences. You finish the sentence and understand roughly what it said. This is reading the way a 7-year-old reads, and almost every adult on earth has stopped developing past this point in some quiet way.

Level two is inspectional.

This is skimming. You move through a book quickly to figure out what it is broadly about. You read the back cover, scan the table of contents, glance at a few paragraphs, and form an opinion. Most adults who claim to have read 50 books a year are actually doing this. They are inspecting books, not reading them. They walk away with a vague sense of the argument and almost none of the evidence that supports it.

Level three is analytical.

This is the level Adler said most people have never properly experienced. You take one book and you wrestle with it for as long as it takes. You identify the question the author is trying to answer. You map their argument from front to back. You write your disagreements in the margins. You force yourself to articulate, in your own words, what the author is claiming and why. The point is not to finish the book. The point is to argue with it as if the author were sitting across the table from you. Most people never do this once in their life, because it is exhausting and slow and feels nothing like the reading they were taught as children.

Level four is the one almost nobody knows exists. Adler called it syntopical reading. The word means "across topics," and the technique is something closer to running a small private research lab in your own head.

You pick a single question that actually matters to you. How does power corrupt people. Why do civilizations collapse. What makes a marriage last. How does a person change their own mind. Then you assemble five or ten or twenty books from different authors, different centuries, different traditions, all of them taking a swing at the same question.

You do not read any of them cover to cover. You move between them. You find the chapter in book three that addresses the same question as the chapter in book seven. You force those two authors to argue with each other inside your own head.

The book stops being the unit of reading. The question becomes the unit. And the authors become voices in a conversation you are now hosting.

This is the level where reading stops being consumption and starts being construction.

You are no longer absorbing what someone else thinks. You are building a position of your own out of the friction between people who disagreed.

Adler argued that this is the only level of reading where you stop being a passive receiver of other people's ideas and start being someone who can produce ideas of their own.

The reason Charlie Munger has been recommending this book for 50 years is that this is exactly how Munger has always thought. He calls it building a latticework of mental models. The technique he is describing is just syntopical reading applied for a lifetime.

You take the strongest insight from psychology, the strongest insight from biology, the strongest insight from economics, and you stack them against the same problem until something new falls out the bottom.

The reason most people never reach level four is not that it is intellectually difficult. It is that it is logistically uncomfortable. It requires you to keep multiple books open at once.

It requires you to take notes that nobody is going to grade. It requires you to abandon the goal of finishing books and replace it with the goal of answering questions.

This is also why AI just changed everything Adler was teaching.

NotebookLM, Claude, and tools like them let you do syntopical reading at a speed that would have looked like magic to a Chicago philosopher in 1940.

You upload 10 books on the same question. You ask the AI to surface every place those authors agree and every place they contradict each other.

The technique Adler said almost nobody on earth had reached can now be run on a Sunday afternoon by anyone with a laptop and one good question.

The technique was always the unlock. The bottleneck used to be time. The bottleneck is now curiosity.

Most people will keep reading the way they always have. A book at a time. Eyes over the pages. No question driving it. No other authors in the room. Adler called that level two for a reason.

You are not behind on your reading list.

You are behind on the level you are reading at.

[Arif Kusbandono @rifti]

..sebenarnya tergerak [akhirnya mulai] baca justru dari provokasi Saut Situmorang yang kelihatannya alergi Pujangga Baru https://t.co/UOzUGPYngD

[Arif Kusbandono @rifti]

Kalau nunjukin surat-surat ke Abendanon bisa dapat diskon di mana aja?

[Arif Kusbandono @rifti]

My apolitical gesture-lap swim involves finding the right length

ʏᴀꜱᴍɪɴ ᴄᴇɴᴛʀᴇ ꜱᴘᴏʀᴛ ᴄʟᴜʙ
ᴊᴀʟᴀɴ ʙᴇꜱᴀʀ ᴀᴄᴛɪᴠᴇꜱɢ
ʙᴇɴɢᴀᴡᴀɴ ꜱᴘᴏʀᴛ ᴄᴇɴᴛᴇʀ

[Arif Kusbandono @rifti]

@jondhez eh personal?
1966 - Mao: Yangtze
2002 - Saddam: Tigris

[Arif Kusbandono @rifti]

@jondhez eh personal?
1966 - Mao: Yangtze
2002 - Saddam: Tigris

[Arif Kusbandono @rifti]

@fillainart Kalau nengok tetangga yang bisa ditonton fast forward 1 generasi sekali pencet, Ho Kwon Ping―sambil setuju sama Sandel―sadar pilih meritokrasi seperti ketika pro kapitalisme (alternatifnya jauh lebih buruk)
https://t.co/cvr1VDOUGP

[Arif Kusbandono @rifti]

Then separately I ask how's the resemblance to Proustian thinking. It gave me visual of how they held together. Concrete tag as entry to abstract thoughts.

It suggests the gap: the temporal, a.k.a at-when these thoughts occured

[Arif Kusbandono @rifti]

After 50+ books & 400+ notes, I thought I could use some help [🅰🅸].

It's incredibly reliable to suggest tags based on the gravity of my past picks, while at the same time failing to comprehend why would I picked them.

No [fast] geometry could capture our [slow] efficient 🧠

[Arif Kusbandono @rifti]

@rahard pernah di vendor tentara, paham banget. Overall ini dimensi power distance kalau di bahasan Hofstede, bukan salah benar tapi adanya salting (budaya)

[Arif Kusbandono @rifti]

@yedamlife @Maeliani07 di kantor mereka pisah ga ikutan kita satu order delivery. berbagi cemilan dibaca dulu ada bahan apa, ujungnya mereka ga ikutan.
jadi merhatiin juga pake sepatu bahan apa
soal anak ga paham sih

[Arif Kusbandono @rifti]

the woman next to me on emergency door row hesitated to handover her hand bag for safekeeping

not until she untied the 𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖒 and holding it in exchange

[Arif Kusbandono @rifti]

@jararsiahaan Seneca anti fragile vs kere terpaksa frugal mestinya beda ya

[Arif Kusbandono @rifti]

@_gladhys @meutiafaradilla Baca sampai tiga buku, sih. Sejauh ini tertarik karena aroma okultisme dan persilangan dengan mistik timur. Bukan karena Brazil, bukan karena magic realism macam Gabo..

Malah baru tahu soal ga dianggap ini.. kirain celebrated

[Arif Kusbandono @rifti]

@rahard saya Yuval di bab 8: Fallible

[Arif Kusbandono @rifti]

Instead of generated image in the download link, ChatGPT hiccup exposes the python code supposed to generate it.. the bigger picture: did it decide for itself to do just that?

[Arif Kusbandono @rifti]

@SultanMafty @irfan3 setuju ini. dulu sih gitu soalnya, tiap minggu di-refresh di hari tertentu.

[Arif Kusbandono @rifti]

@JeniusConnect lagi restart MS notif, antriannya lepas, banjir notif bikin kaget.. Rp sekian, Rp sekian... sekaligus dalam satu waktu