4 ms·
> This opinion is hard to swallow. This is not . at . all true. I used to think so too. Then I saw how my child learns stuff with far greater command of underl
by sfifs 8y ago
> This opinion is hard to swallow. This is not . at . all true.
I used to think so too. Then I saw how my child learns stuff with far greater command of underlying concepts and connections through video and realized it's probably just a function of how I learned to learn or am used to growing up without essentially videos on any topic available on demand.
I have observed that the learning my child acquires through video is actually not "book learning" (the term exists for a reason) but much more nuanced, vicarious and realistic in a way text simply isn't. If fact, my child's goto for understanding something "let us search for a video on YouTube that will teach us how to do X". From an information theory standpoint this also makes sense.
So let's allow for the possibility that our opinions are simply shaped by our experiences of growing up without readily accessible video and reality for our children may be different.
- davemp 8y agoPurely speculation, but I think a well made video/lecture is the best way to learn concepts and reading a concise document is the best way to get information. Videos have richer tools with visual aids and tone, but text is searchable and fast if you know what to look for.
- dylan604 8y agoFor me, I was taught how to learn from reading the course material, and then follow that up with a lecture. Eventually, I could even do away with the lecture. However, in the early 90s, there was a series I saw on PBS that was a visual course on physics. (I’m thinking a WGBH production, maybe WQED). After reading the material followed by the lecture, these videos really made things clear with their visual reinforcement that the classroom could never do. Like everything in life, YMMV, and everyone learns differently.
- akiselev 8y agoNot all the time. At least when it comes to subjects involving physical things as opposed to software or theoretical subjects, video greatly expands the amount of raw information captured at the expense of total density. It takes quite a bit of control out of the author's hands, so to speak, by capturing far more than the words they explicitly choose to write. When it comes to fixing or building things, for example, this means that video has the potential to capture a lot more incidental information that the author might never think to include like the speed and strength of movements as well as tactile responses that are nearly impossible to describe in a consistent manner. I think text is better when you already know what you're looking for and video is better when you are still trying to develop an intuition for the subject.
- derefr 8y agoI would argue that for a deep understanding of a system, the best medium is in fact a simulation game that incentivizes you to optimize your way through that system.
- michaelmrose 8y agoAlmost nothing especially random video content on ads makes complex use of audio visual aids that would enhance comprehension. Its simply the same stuff you would put in an article communicated at a fraction of the speed with less editing for brevity and prose because it's much harder to reorder video or reshoot instead of swapping a few words. It is probably worthwhile primarily because it makes a stronger emotional connection which is to say its a more effective vehicle to deceive and manipulate you. If you think videos are better for learning value obtained per minute I would be interested in reading the proof and can certainly keep an open mind but I'm not inclined to value an anecdote.