4 ms·

In the time you spend on social media each year, you could read 200 books

67 points by submeta 9y ago

rainbowmverse 9y ago
I can't find 200 books I want to read each year. However, I find most books I read through social media.
at_smith 9y ago
Social media is also more consumable. It's easy to read a few posts while you're waiting for a few minutes in line or something. With a book, it takes time to get up and going with the story as well as hitting an appropriate stopping point.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  You don't believe some training is at play here? If you get used to reading isolated snippets of text over and over and over, you might think a tweetstorm is a better medium than a book, but it probably has a far worse useful content ratio, and I can almost guarantee you that you'll have a harder time remember 90% of that social media than you would in that "less consumable" book that nonetheless is structured in a way to facilitate learning. People have been taking books with them, reading parts, placing a bookmark, and returning five minutes later for centuries. Is social media really more consumable or does it taste good and we've gotten used to it?
  - JeanMarcS 9y ago
    Surprisingly I found out recently that reading on my phone was not that bad. I was sure I will not like it, and never gave it a try. But visiting NYC this December, I found myself in situation GP described. Spending time in the subway, or waiting on a line for eating or buying stuff. I transfered the book I was reading (and really liked so I wanted to read more) from my tablet to my phone, and reading when it was possible. On the phone, the pages are small, so you can read them quick. Of course it was a novel and not some tech or science or whatever needs great focus, but I discovered a new way of reading. So why not give it a try and see where it leads :) ?
  - at_smith 9y ago
    I believe you're spot on. Training and being used to it is what I'd describe as an unfortunate reality. It reminds me of a few startups that I've seen who've created novels in the format of text message conversations to provide the content of a book in the format we've been trained for. I've definitely felt like my attention span isn't what it used to be when it comes to reading. A large source of power for social media is that it is a 'pushing' force - it constantly is throwing notifications and other stimuli at you. A book, on the other hand, does not share that same strength in power. But it has gotten better in pushing (i.e. Goodreads, Kindle, etc.).
provost 9y ago
TL;DR : To read 200 books, author estimates you need 417 hours a year reading. Assumes 50,000 page non-fiction books and 400 word per minute. Supposedly, average American spends 2250 on social media + TV. The author also mentions multi-medium, which is what I do too (reading on phone, Kindle, and audiobook). And amazon whispersync pairs your kindle book to Audible narration, and lets you easily switch between reading and listening.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
geofft 9y ago
Has the author gained any benefits from this practice? I feel like what limits me is energy more than time, and I tend to page through Twitter when falling asleep or on a short subway ride or something. If I'm reading something I care about actually understanding, I'll make sure I'm awake and paying attention to it and have enough time to properly understand it. I've fallen asleep reading before, and it usually causes me to reread the section the next night to make sure I understand it. Not so with Twitter. Also, this is pretty dismissive: Here’s how much time a single American spends on social media and TV in a year: 608 hours on social media, 1642 hours on TV. Wow. That’s 2250 hours a year spent on TRASH. Not all social media or TV is trash, and more importantly, not all books aren't. If my goal were to just read for the sake of reading, I'd find some young adult lit that I'm not very invested in, which would make for easy reading, but would it be better than social media or TV?
- yladiz 9y ago
  The author probably could have argued their point better, but the point is that if you spend 600 hours on social media on average per year, you could take away 2/3 of the time and read 200 books (or something else). Your argument that reading for the sake of reading is valid, but I would argue that most social media is trash (in varying degrees -- do you need to know what your friend or some celebrity was thinking at the time on Twitter, or see the 50th friend wish everyone a great 2018 on Facebook?) and the books that a conscious reader would choose would be less like trash. Also, it isn't that you should read for the sake of reading, it's that you could spend your time doing something probably more mentally healthy or a better use of your time than social media by reading.
- ellius 9y ago
  Definitely a valid objection. Social media is much easier to consume in small bites. It’s pretty much designed with that in mind. Still, you can learn to read that way, and while it may not be as valuable as reading in long sessions, you can get a lot out of it. Stephen King in “On Writing” suggests that carrying a book everywhere is one of the crucial tasks if you want to be a voracious reader into adulthood, because it becomes harder to set aside blocks of free time. I’ve personally gotten back up to reading a couple dozen books per year by getting rid of social media (and most of my news sites) and instead reading my Kindle app in drips and drabs. One useful trick if you try to do this is to keep a wide variety of books on hand—some short, some long, some fiction, some nonfiction, etc. It makes it easier to find books that keep you interested and give you energy.
yakitori 9y ago
And? So switch one form of escapism for another? We could all benefit from less social media, less articles ( like this one from qz ), less news and less books. But what's the point of this clickbait? You could "escape" and read 200 books and that wouldn't be any different than wasting time watching tv or going on social media or reading silly articles like OP's. Reading books in and of itself isn't a "noble" pursuit. Especially when most of it is clickbait formulaic nonsense. Instead of reading 200 books, why not select a 2 or 3 important books and learn those well? Reading the bible or knuth's the art of computer programming is actually a worthwhile goal. Reading 200 formulaic saccharine books that rot your brain isn't. QUALITY over QUANTITY.
- gt_ 9y ago
  My book reading habits skyrocketed in my early 20s when I became obsessed with media studies. I only read classical fiction, if that, and your comment threw me well off until I remembered the kinds of books I see on the shelves in airports and the grocery store.
- DennisP 9y ago
  True, but the whole thing is based on Warren Buffet's advice: "Read 500 pages like this every day." I wish I knew what books he was pointing to, but I think it's safe to assume they weren't escapist.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
anigbrowl 9y ago
Meh, clickbait. I read a lot and am happy to get through 50 books a year. Books you can read in a few hours are often trash as well.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
CM30 9y ago
On the other hand, that social media time also gives me things to write about online and ways to promote the stuff I'm working on. I like reading books as much as anyone else does, but if my main job is web development and my secondary hobbies involve news reporting, then using that time for social media is a hell of a lot more useful. I'm certainly learning a lot more about the latest advances in tech from Hacker News than a physical book...
adamnemecek 9y ago
500 pages means one thing for something from the nyt reading list and something else for a grad math book.
rand_r 9y ago
Social media is like pornography. It helps satisfy one of the strongest drives in Humans, which is being social. The need for social connection is wired very strongly within us and reading a book does not satisfy that need. Therefore reading will not replace social media. We have to recognize that we are not robots that have to maximize productivity. We are sitting on millions of years of evolution guiding us to make and maintain connections with other people, and it’s perfectly natural to let that happen. Of course, it would probably be better to meet people face to face, but that isn’t always an option for people due to various circumstances.
i_feel_great 9y ago
Does anyone here consider HN and Reddit prog to be "social media"? I have learned a ton of useful stuff reading the comments on both. And not just programming related stuff too.
- digitalsushi 9y ago
  social media to me is breadth first reading, over depth first reading. if i can keep going to the root node and hopping to the next consumable thing with no relationship to the thing i just read, it's breadth first social media.

67 points by submeta 9y ago

I can't find 200 books I want to read each year. However, I find most books I read through social media.

Social media is also more consumable. It's easy to read a few posts while you're waiting for a few minutes in line or something. With a book, it takes time to get up and going with the story as well as hitting an appropriate stopping point.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
You don't believe some training is at play here? If you get used to reading isolated snippets of text over and over and over, you might think a tweetstorm is a better medium than a book, but it probably has a far worse useful content ratio, and I can almost guarantee you that you'll have a harder time remember 90% of that social media than you would in that "less consumable" book that nonetheless is structured in a way to facilitate learning. People have been taking books with them, reading parts, placing a bookmark, and returning five minutes later for centuries. Is social media really more consumable or does it taste good and we've gotten used to it?
- JeanMarcS 9y ago
  Surprisingly I found out recently that reading on my phone was not that bad. I was sure I will not like it, and never gave it a try. But visiting NYC this December, I found myself in situation GP described. Spending time in the subway, or waiting on a line for eating or buying stuff. I transfered the book I was reading (and really liked so I wanted to read more) from my tablet to my phone, and reading when it was possible. On the phone, the pages are small, so you can read them quick. Of course it was a novel and not some tech or science or whatever needs great focus, but I discovered a new way of reading. So why not give it a try and see where it leads :) ?
- at_smith 9y ago
  I believe you're spot on. Training and being used to it is what I'd describe as an unfortunate reality. It reminds me of a few startups that I've seen who've created novels in the format of text message conversations to provide the content of a book in the format we've been trained for. I've definitely felt like my attention span isn't what it used to be when it comes to reading. A large source of power for social media is that it is a 'pushing' force - it constantly is throwing notifications and other stimuli at you. A book, on the other hand, does not share that same strength in power. But it has gotten better in pushing (i.e. Goodreads, Kindle, etc.).

provost 9y ago

TL;DR : To read 200 books, author estimates you need 417 hours a year reading. Assumes 50,000 page non-fiction books and 400 word per minute. Supposedly, average American spends 2250 on social media + TV. The author also mentions multi-medium, which is what I do too (reading on phone, Kindle, and audiobook). And amazon whispersync pairs your kindle book to Audible narration, and lets you easily switch between reading and listening.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

geofft 9y ago

Has the author gained any benefits from this practice? I feel like what limits me is energy more than time, and I tend to page through Twitter when falling asleep or on a short subway ride or something. If I'm reading something I care about actually understanding, I'll make sure I'm awake and paying attention to it and have enough time to properly understand it. I've fallen asleep reading before, and it usually causes me to reread the section the next night to make sure I understand it. Not so with Twitter. Also, this is pretty dismissive: Here’s how much time a single American spends on social media and TV in a year: 608 hours on social media, 1642 hours on TV. Wow. That’s 2250 hours a year spent on TRASH. Not all social media or TV is trash, and more importantly, not all books aren't. If my goal were to just read for the sake of reading, I'd find some young adult lit that I'm not very invested in, which would make for easy reading, but would it be better than social media or TV?

yladiz 9y ago
The author probably could have argued their point better, but the point is that if you spend 600 hours on social media on average per year, you could take away 2/3 of the time and read 200 books (or something else). Your argument that reading for the sake of reading is valid, but I would argue that most social media is trash (in varying degrees -- do you need to know what your friend or some celebrity was thinking at the time on Twitter, or see the 50th friend wish everyone a great 2018 on Facebook?) and the books that a conscious reader would choose would be less like trash. Also, it isn't that you should read for the sake of reading, it's that you could spend your time doing something probably more mentally healthy or a better use of your time than social media by reading.
ellius 9y ago
Definitely a valid objection. Social media is much easier to consume in small bites. It’s pretty much designed with that in mind. Still, you can learn to read that way, and while it may not be as valuable as reading in long sessions, you can get a lot out of it. Stephen King in “On Writing” suggests that carrying a book everywhere is one of the crucial tasks if you want to be a voracious reader into adulthood, because it becomes harder to set aside blocks of free time. I’ve personally gotten back up to reading a couple dozen books per year by getting rid of social media (and most of my news sites) and instead reading my Kindle app in drips and drabs. One useful trick if you try to do this is to keep a wide variety of books on hand—some short, some long, some fiction, some nonfiction, etc. It makes it easier to find books that keep you interested and give you energy.

yakitori 9y ago

And? So switch one form of escapism for another? We could all benefit from less social media, less articles ( like this one from qz ), less news and less books. But what's the point of this clickbait? You could "escape" and read 200 books and that wouldn't be any different than wasting time watching tv or going on social media or reading silly articles like OP's. Reading books in and of itself isn't a "noble" pursuit. Especially when most of it is clickbait formulaic nonsense. Instead of reading 200 books, why not select a 2 or 3 important books and learn those well? Reading the bible or knuth's the art of computer programming is actually a worthwhile goal. Reading 200 formulaic saccharine books that rot your brain isn't. QUALITY over QUANTITY.

gt_ 9y ago
My book reading habits skyrocketed in my early 20s when I became obsessed with media studies. I only read classical fiction, if that, and your comment threw me well off until I remembered the kinds of books I see on the shelves in airports and the grocery store.
DennisP 9y ago
True, but the whole thing is based on Warren Buffet's advice: "Read 500 pages like this every day." I wish I knew what books he was pointing to, but I think it's safe to assume they weren't escapist.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

anigbrowl 9y ago

Meh, clickbait. I read a lot and am happy to get through 50 books a year. Books you can read in a few hours are often trash as well.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

CM30 9y ago

On the other hand, that social media time also gives me things to write about online and ways to promote the stuff I'm working on. I like reading books as much as anyone else does, but if my main job is web development and my secondary hobbies involve news reporting, then using that time for social media is a hell of a lot more useful. I'm certainly learning a lot more about the latest advances in tech from Hacker News than a physical book...

adamnemecek 9y ago

500 pages means one thing for something from the nyt reading list and something else for a grad math book.

rand_r 9y ago

Social media is like pornography. It helps satisfy one of the strongest drives in Humans, which is being social. The need for social connection is wired very strongly within us and reading a book does not satisfy that need. Therefore reading will not replace social media. We have to recognize that we are not robots that have to maximize productivity. We are sitting on millions of years of evolution guiding us to make and maintain connections with other people, and it’s perfectly natural to let that happen. Of course, it would probably be better to meet people face to face, but that isn’t always an option for people due to various circumstances.

i_feel_great 9y ago

Does anyone here consider HN and Reddit prog to be "social media"? I have learned a ton of useful stuff reading the comments on both. And not just programming related stuff too.

digitalsushi 9y ago
social media to me is breadth first reading, over depth first reading. if i can keep going to the root node and hopping to the next consumable thing with no relationship to the thing i just read, it's breadth first social media.