US science magazines.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Oh horseshit, it's a magazine not a textbook.
If you're interested in reading an article, it's most likely because you're interested in the subject and already know something about it. So you read the article to see if it contains anything new, or just a rehash of old news.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If you're interested in reading an article, it's most likely because you're interested in the subject and already know something about it.

And therefore read it multiple times to learn something new. The naive (ie wacko extremists) only read once. Because articles that waste time are only telling one how to think. Telling them what they already 'knew'. Or to make one feel good while learning nothing useful. Articles that 'preach to the choir' don't need rereading because it was already known.

Does not matter how much you know about any topic. Articles that actually teach something can rarely be understood in the first reading - no matter how expert you are on the subject.

Either one wants to feel good by being told the same boring things. Or one thrives on learning new things every day. That means rereading.

Everything for George Jr was ha-a-a-a-rd because he hated learning. While the office kept demanding he learn. George Jr is known for reading his memos only once ... if he read them at all. His ignorance is obvious to everyone here. Knowledge requires rereading. That is ha-a-a-a-rd.

And yes, I sometimes reread an "Idea for Design" because I did not grasp it the first time. Sometimes, that article was wasting my time. Because in looking for the 'new trick', instead, I discover nothing useful. I read "Idea for Design" because that 'waste may time' rarely happens. The editors are usually good about filtering out uninformative submissions. I can never say that about anything reported by Fox News.