If You Want To Learn Faster, Please Watch This Video...

Trying to learn faster can backfire because it often preserves the same flawed study method while amplifying errors—leading to less real understanding, more stress, and weaker exam performance. Justin Sun’s core claim is that the path to better grades isn’t higher speed; it’s higher efficiency, meaning stronger retention and deeper processing of difficult material over time.

Sun’s argument starts with his own experiment in speed reading. In high school, he trained with a Windows app focused on techniques like sub-vocalization reduction and grouping, pushing his reading rate from roughly 300 words per minute to over 1,000 with about 90% retention and comprehension. But once he entered a competitive first year of university—where he studied intensely—he found that tripling reading speed barely moved his actual learning speed, estimated at only about a 5% improvement. The reason: the “retention” he measured came from short, isolated fact-recall checks done seconds after reading a passage. Real learning, he says, requires using information across hours and retaining it for days or weeks, not just proving it for half a minute.

That mismatch points to the broader mechanism behind “learning faster” going wrong. When someone cranks up the pace using the same approach, they typically skip the slow, high-value work: processing difficult parts, making connections, and deciding what matters. Sun argues that this entrenches unhelpful habits, increases mistakes, and forces extra time later to repair misunderstandings. He also criticizes modern “time-saving” shortcuts—like AI tools that generate lecture notes automatically—because having notes doesn’t equal learning. The time saved can be the time that should have been spent thinking, integrating ideas, and struggling productively.

To replace speed with efficiency, Sun offers a two-step framework. Step one is to measure learning properly rather than guessing. After studying a topic for 2–3 hours, learners create a 15-question self-test: five low-level questions on definitions and isolated processes, five mid-level questions that apply concepts to simple problems or combine ideas, and five high-level questions that require short answers or mini-essays connecting at least three concepts and explaining significance. One week later, they retake the test from memory without reviewing notes beforehand. Checking against notes later helps gauge whether answers “make sense,” even if exact grading isn’t possible for higher-level items. Sun suggests benchmarks: over 90% is excellent, 80%+ is strong, 70%+ is acceptable, and below 70% signals that parts of the method aren’t serving the learner.

Step two is to change where slowing down is worth it. Sun says rushing often leads people to avoid difficult processing while spending more time consuming or documenting content. He uses a “detective” analogy: real understanding comes from patiently piecing together clues, and that takes time. Efficiency improves when learners become slower at covering material but faster at building knowledge.

His “Golden Rule” ties it together: if someone feels they need to study faster to keep up, it usually means they need to slow down strategically—because their current methods are leaking effort and producing too little value per hour. The fix isn’t more speed; it’s iterative method changes until the urge to rush disappears. Sun ends by pointing viewers toward Ien Study’s step-by-step program at Icanstudy.com, which distills the same approach into a structured system.