3 ms·

Serious, non-snarky question: In what way is a book better than a link on Hacker News or Facebook? The problem I see (and have yet to get a good answer for) wi

Serious, non-snarky question: In what way is a book better than a link on Hacker News or Facebook? The problem I see (and have yet to get a good answer for) with all of these extreme productivity tactics like shutting off all internet access is that carry a value judgment that older > newer, for all values of information absorption. It reminds me of how some of the financial advice for people in debt is to eschew all forms of credit and live on cash only. Which is fine until you need to buy a house... If the problem is being distracted from the real world, and that's truly a negative, rather than filling dead time that couldn't really be used for anything else (waiting in line, etc), being absorbed in a book is functionally no different from being absorbed in a newsreader app. With that in mind, where and why is this value judgment coming from? I see a poster upthread mentioning we've "forgotten how to be bored". I don't know about people here, but I saw boredom as an awful state of mind even before the proliferation of smartphones. Could someone help me understand what the bigger picture here is?

alethiophile 9y ago
One of the major underlying issues people are calling out with the indictments of "smartphone culture", and trying to fix by going offline, is a sort of progressive shrinkage of the attention span. It involves progressively less continual attention paid to progressively more individual topics or items; the (current) apotheosis of this paradigm might be Twitter, where you read a constant feed of conceptually disconnected 140-character messages, and any longer-form thought needs unnatural gyrations of the underlying technology to express. Web surfing, or news reading, encourages this style of interaction, with the surfeit of links away to tangentially-related content that is usually not of a form to encourage deep immersion in a single piece. Books, meanwhile, are of a form to encourage deeper immersion in a single input. Generally speaking, the obvious mode of interaction is to read a single book from start to finish, taking at least hours during which you remain focused on that topic. This kind of long-term focus is required to actually accomplish anything; therefore, a mode of information absorption that trains long-term focus is more effective of personal cultivation than one which encourages mayfly attention-hopping. Nothing about this necessarily disparages the Internet; it's quite possible to focus on long-form pieces that are Internet-published, or to hop from topic to topic using offline media. But because friction costs encourage longer-term focus when offline, going offline is one effective way to incentivize it.
khedoros1 9y ago
> In what way is a book better than a link on Hacker News or Facebook? Most individual links on HN and FB don't have a few hundred pages long of organized material delving into a topic, and most collections of links won't have the same cohesive nature that a good book does. Some do, but it's atypical. If you put any belief into the idea that other senses contribute to learning, then a book covers more senses than an electronic reference does. And it's easier to go sit in a corner with, without worrying about how much you're draining the battery in some device, or being distracted by other things on the internet. Books don't receive push notifications, and that's a wonderful thing! > I see a poster upthread mentioning we've "forgotten how to be bored". > I don't know about people here, but I saw boredom as an awful state of mind even before the proliferation of smartphones. I see it as a statement that we've forgotten how to drift a bit, contemplate, and allow ourselves to be alone with our thoughts; most people grab for a quick bit of entertainment or information when they've got a few otherwise unoccupied seconds. > It reminds me of how some of the financial advice for people in debt is to eschew all forms of credit and live on cash only. Look at it from the perspective of an addict. Sometimes being forced to rent is a smaller negative than crippling piles of credit card debt. And sometimes inaccessibility of your accustomed distractions is a smaller negative than being able to focus on something important for as long as it takes to get it done.

alethiophile 9y ago

One of the major underlying issues people are calling out with the indictments of "smartphone culture", and trying to fix by going offline, is a sort of progressive shrinkage of the attention span. It involves progressively less continual attention paid to progressively more individual topics or items; the (current) apotheosis of this paradigm might be Twitter, where you read a constant feed of conceptually disconnected 140-character messages, and any longer-form thought needs unnatural gyrations of the underlying technology to express. Web surfing, or news reading, encourages this style of interaction, with the surfeit of links away to tangentially-related content that is usually not of a form to encourage deep immersion in a single piece. Books, meanwhile, are of a form to encourage deeper immersion in a single input. Generally speaking, the obvious mode of interaction is to read a single book from start to finish, taking at least hours during which you remain focused on that topic. This kind of long-term focus is required to actually accomplish anything; therefore, a mode of information absorption that trains long-term focus is more effective of personal cultivation than one which encourages mayfly attention-hopping. Nothing about this necessarily disparages the Internet; it's quite possible to focus on long-form pieces that are Internet-published, or to hop from topic to topic using offline media. But because friction costs encourage longer-term focus when offline, going offline is one effective way to incentivize it.

khedoros1 9y ago

> In what way is a book better than a link on Hacker News or Facebook? Most individual links on HN and FB don't have a few hundred pages long of organized material delving into a topic, and most collections of links won't have the same cohesive nature that a good book does. Some do, but it's atypical. If you put any belief into the idea that other senses contribute to learning, then a book covers more senses than an electronic reference does. And it's easier to go sit in a corner with, without worrying about how much you're draining the battery in some device, or being distracted by other things on the internet. Books don't receive push notifications, and that's a wonderful thing! > I see a poster upthread mentioning we've "forgotten how to be bored". > I don't know about people here, but I saw boredom as an awful state of mind even before the proliferation of smartphones. I see it as a statement that we've forgotten how to drift a bit, contemplate, and allow ourselves to be alone with our thoughts; most people grab for a quick bit of entertainment or information when they've got a few otherwise unoccupied seconds. > It reminds me of how some of the financial advice for people in debt is to eschew all forms of credit and live on cash only. Look at it from the perspective of an addict. Sometimes being forced to rent is a smaller negative than crippling piles of credit card debt. And sometimes inaccessibility of your accustomed distractions is a smaller negative than being able to focus on something important for as long as it takes to get it done.