Um… I go through all the economics, hbd, archeological, blogs every day, and if a paper or article looks interesting, or if a book is recommended I add it to my list.
I write when i’m fresh. I scan blogs when i’m no longer fresh, and read the papers right away, and then read the books when I’m tired.
When I read the books I follow Adler’s advice: I scan the table of contents, scan a few pages, look for the central argument, read that, and rarely do I read all the ‘filler’ around it. Most books can be summarized in a paper, and the best books start out as papers.
If I don’t understand something or if I disagree with something I read more until I can tell if the author is making an error or not. (Which is far easier than you’d think.)
If I want to read something and thoroughly understand it I will import it somehow – usually into pdf, and have my machine read it to me while I’m doing something else. I rarely do one thing at a time. And authors typically present information too slowly. (hence why I am a fan of gary stanley becker.)
That said I read certain authors no matter what they write. But I write far more than I read. Why? I read a great deal before I started writing. And the rate of change is something that I can keep up with pretty easily (outside of materials science… and in particular chemistry, which has always offended my autism). I don’t like getting my hands dirty, like finger painting, or gardening, and my memories of chemistry and biology are nothing bug icky stuff that smells bad. lol