I'd like to continue about that handicap/gift thing.
I've kept complaining about my terrible memory and I thought that I might be capable of much more if I had better memory, but eventually I realized that it might not be that case. I have developed my own unique way of thinking which compensates for this handicap. Or rather I'd say that this handicap might as well be result of my unique way of thinking.
I didn't always have a poor memory. What I think is that it's more like I've developed my brains and mentality to turn out this way through pursuing insight and efficiency. What I mean is that there is just way too much information in this world, so there is no way for me to stuck it all in my brains, so I rather pursue improving my understanding of things, which would allow me to process information and make conclusions more efficiently. I always try to understand what really is important, which is why I tend to strip things off from their accesories to see their true purpose. This way I can understand how things works and process information well without taking big amount of information to make conclusions, I can start making assumptions and imagining scenarios from a bare minimum.
Take it as you like, but my mentality is that there is limit to how much you can put in your brains and how well you can focus, which is why in my opinion it's more efficient to seek ways how to archieve more from less than just taking more and more.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Purple:
First, limiting it to books is a large restriction. You can read articles and papers and many other things in order to become more informed. Second, text in no way is a more credible and less suspicious form of media simply by virtue of it being text. Always, always be cognizant of things that don't quite make sense. Information is not constructed logically simply because it is in the form of text, and a lot of times you can actually find it confusing to read academic papers because they lack readability unless you are familiar with the field.
Next, an examination of different forms of text based on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, as well as fiction as it exists in the form of allegory.
1. Primary - Information that is published data straight from the horse's mouth. This stuff tends to be discussed, retried, etc. It's what we call peer-reviewed study, and it is that reviewing of it that gives science its strength due to continual reaffirmation of the data. Stuff tends to be difficult to read unless you are intimately involved in the field. If not science, then primary source tends to involve the least amount of hearsay.
2. Secondary - Information discussed as well as its implications. Things like review articles. These things may be less in depth but discuss in broader terms what information means.
3. Tertiary - books and shit. Like those heavy science textbooks you brought around in class in high school and stuff, even college textbooks. They're information laid out in a way meant to confer ideas to students as best as possible. Believe it or not, schools that work hard to service their students do make an effort to select books that best serve to teach the material. This being tertiary, though, the information will not be as blunt as the upper levels of sources, but watering certain aspects down can help students absorb information.
4. Allegory - Fiction of course can be used to confer certain ideas. Metaphors, similes, symbolism, etc. Things like Animal Farm are allegorical displays of what can go wrong in communistic societies. "Notes from Underground" is considered the first Existentialist novel. The ideas are thought provoking, but as with all ideas, you can agree or disagree to varying levels.
Generally, the closer to primary you are, the more pure the evidence, but even on the primary level, you must absolutely question it. But texts in general are essential because they are the easiest way for us to preserve, record, and transmit ideas and information, but that does not mean that text in and of itself is infallible.
But still, think about things like Global Warming. You simply cannot argue one way or another based on short term observation or without certain concepts like why people are making an argument for global warming and looking at the data that supports or disproves it.
Well yeas, that makes sense, but for me as individual there is no difference if information comes from horse's mouth or for proffesor, because I don't want to become biased by such stereotypes when processing information. That horse might as well be geinus. I try to work on my own way to distinguish correct from wrong, or rather I'd rather say that I tend to refrain from considering anything as "perfect" or "complete" , instead I assume that there must be alternative ways to reach same solutions and goals. Having a solution and methodology which works doesn't neccesarily mean that it have no flaws. In this world no matter how good you can become, in the end you will still end up taking shit in a toilet and there will come a time when you die…
I'm sorry for not responding to all lines in text, but it's because it's more like a generalized summary of thoughts. I can't deny your way of thinking unless you're wrong, everyone have their own.