This is a big reason why I tend to make notes directly after reading a chapter of even sub-section. I used to (as I had seen it recommended) simply note that there was something interesting, but that strategy ended up with an accumulation of pointers to things I should have understood by now but didn't. As Andy points out, books build on concepts introduced just a few pages ago.

This is an approach that, as the outline notes must all be written, is constructive in the sense of Grothendieck's problem solving is. Rather than solve the problem (pump out the work) this strategy advances the understanding in a way that new writings of the same topic can be undirected.

Errata

I agree as well.

This is important since you need to understand what you read before moving on.

I recommend Promnesia for when you forget!

I enthusiastically recommend anybody who is serious about reading for insights (and writing themselves) to learn about "Knowledge Bases" or "Zettelkasten" or "Personal Knowledge Management."

My notes are not bridges to the understanding present in the book, like I gather is their role here. Instead, they are the building blocks of a greater corpus of wisdom sourced from all the books, articles, papers, and experiences I "read." This system becomes a "Second Brain" that I use to enhance my own thinking, whether that be creatively, factually, or even in preparation to read new material.

In this case, should we search for more information online? I also have concerns about halo and framing effects learning about the author would have on the work.

I imagine a superficial reading should be blind, but before engaging with the material at a deeper level, research on the author and motivations should be conducted by the reader.

I think I should have a pattern for this, as it is easy to simply say "I'm reading it to learn," which does not give any helpful insight into the reading. Maybe, for each of the 3 readings mentioned above, I can declare a purpose for reading.

I could approach a book with a vague over-arching notion while approaching the superficial read with a specific methodology, where my purpose in reading is to find the purpose to read it another time.

This looks like good evidence to leave moral decisions to your System 2. Scope insensitivity would hurt my intuitions of what is right and wrong, since systems (e.g. utilitarianism) depend on calculations.

Most of my college level lecture experiences are not so much about learning, but about presenting knowledge to aid existing knowledge learned from assigned reading. I find lecture recordings great, as I can get confused, take a break, do some of my own research, and then get the over-arching picture from an expert. In person, a lecture is about giving an extra organization to a domain, showing how concepts that you already know about connect together.

Understanding and making insights (composition) is an internal process. Only through internal effort can external knowledge be brought in. Merely reading and expecting insight is fatal.

If you cannot answer a card consistently, break it up into it's elements. On Anki, I can suspend the card and somewhere else make a task to resume the card at some later date.