3 ms·

Unless you're a slow reader ;)

• gumby 9y ago
  Well true, I wasn't claiming universality (was criticizing the original author) and was instead saying things are different for me. Sure, some people of course have physiological restrictions on their reading ability, even if they have 20/20 vision (e.g. dyslexia for reading systems that exhibit that). But it appears to be pretty well attested at this point that reading exploits properties of the early visual system as well as deep-rooted higher level functions like looking for regular convex forms (perhaps for seeking animal tracks). It also may be the case that interpretation of 3D scenes (including for people without stereoscopic vision in their early visual system -- about 15% of the population) is innate while interpretation of 2D images is learned, even (or perhaps especially) moving images. Which would seem to imply that the more you read the faster and more automatic it becomes. It's not at all clear that a slow reader is any faster at absorbing and integrating/using information picked up in video. Of course personal tastes come in here too. I'm not claiming one is inherently superior, just claiming there may be deeper integration between the brain and reading than your average third grade teacher is going to consider.
  • nixpulvis 9y ago
    My thoughts can be summarized as follows: You'd watch a video on how to build a fire before you read a book on the subject. And you'd be smart to read a book at your own pace. Like any art, the medium matters.
    • khedoros1 9y ago
      I'd read written instructions first, possibly including clarifying diagrams. I'd continue to a video if the written instructions were insufficiently clear. Video is almost never my medium of first resort; it's intuitive, but inflexible.