When I wonder "How do magnets work?", I Google it. I get an answer in 0.4 seconds. I forget it in 0.5 seconds. Easy access leads to weak retention.

I dusted off my dad's 1998 set of Encyclopedia Britannica. Heavy, dusty, beautiful books. For 24 hours, if I had a question, I couldn't Google it. I had to Look It Up.

BRITANNICA

> QUERY 1: "Why is the sky blue?"

Process:
  1. Walk to shelf.
  2. Find Volume 'S'.
  3. Flip through pages (Smell of old paper: 10/10).
  4. Find "Sky".
  5. Read 3 paragraphs of dense text.
Answer Found: Rayleigh Scattering.
Time Taken: 8 minutes (vs Google: 3 seconds)

The Rabbit Hole: While looking for "Sky", I saw an entry for "Skyscrapers" and learned that the first one was built in Chicago. I then read about "Skin" anatomy. I spent 20 minutes learning things I didn't ask for. It was delightful.

> QUERY 2: "What is the capital of Burkina Faso?"

Process: Found Volume 'B'. Burkina Faso entry was short.
Answer Found: Ouagadougou.
Problem: The population data was from 1996.
Result: Outdated Data.

> THE DEPTH VS WIDTH

Google offers width. You can find a surface-level answer to anything instantly. The Encyclopedia offers depth (and context). The articles are written by world experts, not SEO content farmers. Reading the entry on "Photography" wasn't just "how to take a pic." It was the history of optics, chemistry, and art. It demanded my attention. I couldn't skim/scroll. I had to read.

> THE VERDICT

Using an Encyclopedia is inefficient for "facts" (population, weather, stock prices). But for "concepts" (Democracy, Evolution, Art), it is superior. Why? Because the friction of finding the information makes you value it more. I will remember Rayleigh Scattering forever now because I had to hunt for it.

The Internet gives you Information. Books give you Knowledge.