3 ms·

Why would reading be better at conveying this info then video

Jaxan 7y ago
Because you spend more time on it? My reading is definitely slower than youtube videos. And still a bit slower than most lectures.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  Interesting, for me it's the other way around - I'd prefer to read because the videos are so slow; a transcript of a video can be read something like four-five times quicker than the video itself. Lecture videos can be listened with the audio sped up 1.5-2 times (though it really degrades the quality and can be hard to understand at times) but it's still much slower than reading the same thing, at least for me. I mean, the whole notion of proper sight-reading (without mental subvocalization) is because it's not possible to speak as fast as you can read.
  - EForEndeavour 7y ago
    Same here. Not only do I read faster than people speak, but I can skip around much faster through text than through audio-video, and if I'm reading electronic text, I can search it. Physically attending a talk is still valuable for me because I have the option to ask questions during and after. I usually don't, but the mere act of trying to think of good questions or counterarguments keeps me engaged really effectively. Also, I'm far less likely to get distracted than if I was watching a recording.
  - asdff 7y ago
    Even with speed reading software I struggle with comprehending whatever I just read. I need to catch myself and slow way down if I'm trying to read something dense vs. a casual novel, otherwise nothing sticks.
molteanu 7y ago
There's less clutter and interference in the written word. It's just a dialogue between two people. One of them talks from his life experiences, like a grandpa, the other one listens, ask questions, wonders, like a little kid who doesn't know anything about life. What does a video add to this dialogue? Only clutter, in my opinion. If it's a word for word reading of the original, then that definitely adds some value, but then you'd call that audio and not video. So I assume by video you mean moving images, and sound and tone and interpretation and change of pace and interruptions and "I'm waiting to be inspired moments" from you and "Here's a video with dramatic music on top of it. Are you amazed?" from the video producer. Adding splash doesn't mean the producer knows what he's talking about. Often times it's just a way of hiding the lack of understanding. For a comparison, a good website doesn't need anything besides black text on a white background. A website that doesn't have anything to say will have to compensate with flashy tricks and will make you unaware of the fact that it has nothing of value to deliver.
- badpun 7y ago
  You don't need any production values - just a recording of a great lecture. For me, it was easier to grasp basic linear algebra concepts from G. Strang's video lectures than from his textbooks. That is because, in a lecture, you get the text content plus intonation/pauses/stresses/all other nonverbal stuff, plus drawing on blackboard [1], plus physically pointing to various elements of equations etc. In text, all that nonverbal stuff needs to be expressed in a text format (plus illustrations), which is a narrower channel and thus often the content gets technical, awkward and hard to parse. Studying math is perhaps the best example of this - if you have some basic math literacy, someone can convey a new math concept to you in a short conversation, while parsing out the intuition of the same concept from the textbook could possibly take you a couple of hours. [1] In the textbook, you only get the final illustrations, while in lecture you can see him drawing them, and the specific way he does it conveys information in itself.
Grustaf 7y ago
Because it requires more concentration, and you have complete control over the pace.

Because you spend more time on it? My reading is definitely slower than youtube videos. And still a bit slower than most lectures.

PeterisP 7y ago
Interesting, for me it's the other way around - I'd prefer to read because the videos are so slow; a transcript of a video can be read something like four-five times quicker than the video itself. Lecture videos can be listened with the audio sped up 1.5-2 times (though it really degrades the quality and can be hard to understand at times) but it's still much slower than reading the same thing, at least for me. I mean, the whole notion of proper sight-reading (without mental subvocalization) is because it's not possible to speak as fast as you can read.
- EForEndeavour 7y ago
  Same here. Not only do I read faster than people speak, but I can skip around much faster through text than through audio-video, and if I'm reading electronic text, I can search it. Physically attending a talk is still valuable for me because I have the option to ask questions during and after. I usually don't, but the mere act of trying to think of good questions or counterarguments keeps me engaged really effectively. Also, I'm far less likely to get distracted than if I was watching a recording.
- asdff 7y ago
  Even with speed reading software I struggle with comprehending whatever I just read. I need to catch myself and slow way down if I'm trying to read something dense vs. a casual novel, otherwise nothing sticks.

molteanu 7y ago

There's less clutter and interference in the written word. It's just a dialogue between two people. One of them talks from his life experiences, like a grandpa, the other one listens, ask questions, wonders, like a little kid who doesn't know anything about life. What does a video add to this dialogue? Only clutter, in my opinion. If it's a word for word reading of the original, then that definitely adds some value, but then you'd call that audio and not video. So I assume by video you mean moving images, and sound and tone and interpretation and change of pace and interruptions and "I'm waiting to be inspired moments" from you and "Here's a video with dramatic music on top of it. Are you amazed?" from the video producer. Adding splash doesn't mean the producer knows what he's talking about. Often times it's just a way of hiding the lack of understanding. For a comparison, a good website doesn't need anything besides black text on a white background. A website that doesn't have anything to say will have to compensate with flashy tricks and will make you unaware of the fact that it has nothing of value to deliver.

badpun 7y ago
You don't need any production values - just a recording of a great lecture. For me, it was easier to grasp basic linear algebra concepts from G. Strang's video lectures than from his textbooks. That is because, in a lecture, you get the text content plus intonation/pauses/stresses/all other nonverbal stuff, plus drawing on blackboard [1], plus physically pointing to various elements of equations etc. In text, all that nonverbal stuff needs to be expressed in a text format (plus illustrations), which is a narrower channel and thus often the content gets technical, awkward and hard to parse. Studying math is perhaps the best example of this - if you have some basic math literacy, someone can convey a new math concept to you in a short conversation, while parsing out the intuition of the same concept from the textbook could possibly take you a couple of hours. [1] In the textbook, you only get the final illustrations, while in lecture you can see him drawing them, and the specific way he does it conveys information in itself.

Grustaf 7y ago

Because it requires more concentration, and you have complete control over the pace.