13 ms·
88% of Americans use a second screen while watching TV
- Proven 7y ago88% of Americans watch TV while absentmindedly surfing the Web and clicking on Web ads
- jonplackett 7y agoBecause most TV isn't that good?
- robbya 7y agoMost TV I watch is shows I've already seen. It's background.
- Barrin92 7y agoin recent years I have seen more and more people using phones during content they actively sought out including their favourite tv shows. I have seen Game of Thrones fans staring at their phone while the newest episode was running, only to ask everyone else in the room what just happened five seconds later. This is definitely not just boredom or background noise TV. It seems that more and more frequently people are unable to maintain singular uninterrupted focus or attention on something without staring at phones or laptops. I actually started to pay attention to this because it started to get on my nerves when people in cinemas were doing it, and it even seems to happen more and more in actual in-person conversations. The next time you go to a coffee shop or a bar pay attention to how often people in discussions with each other go for their phone and interrupt each other. It's pretty sobering. Personally I had an epiphany about this years ago when I started checking mail and Reddit when I was sitting down to read fiction and I was so embarrassed because I was less able to read than my teenage self when I could sit down and read for a whole day, and I just felt like the fat people in Wall-E.
- klyrs 7y ago> in recent years I have seen more and more people using phones during content they actively sought out including their favourite tv shows This. The internet (and thus phones) has matured into a platform for behavioral addiction. Even if we want what's on the main screen, our brains need to interface with the second screen with an alarming degree of regularity.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- werber 7y agoI feel like TV now just means Muzak with visuals in the home, tenth time watching an episode of the Simpsons I have my phone out and a movie I’ve never seen, it’s silent and charging.
- ncmncm 7y agoBecause American TV is deadly dull most of the time, but people like background noise.
- shantly 7y agoMost mass-market TV shows and movies are such that you can tune out a good 25% of the time and still follow them just fine. Some of the worse ones aren't even as demanding as that. Also, people want to do something with their hands while watching things, and not everyone knits or (especially, these day) smokes, or pops popcorn before every movie they watch at home. Bet a huge percentage does something else while watching TV/movies. Sudoku books, whatever.
- ethbro 7y agoMaybe it's when I was born, or the fact that we lived in a somewhat rural area, but I categorically don't get the "background noise" desire. I live in the city now, and city background certainly doesn't bother me. But I don't feel a desire to artificially adding more. Is silence that bad?
- LaikaF 7y agoFor me it's not the noise, it's the conversation. Something about TV or YouTube tricks me into feeling like I'm around humans when I'm not. This probably isn't healthy but it's the easy coping mechanism for the problem of not socializing enough.
- shantly 7y agoIt's a cultural/socialization thing. Lots of people grow up with the TV always on in the background at home, going to sleep to the TV, and so on, so they keep doing that when they're on their own. Some who don't do it when they're alone will turn it on when someone's over, as it's just "what you do". I doubt they even think about it, they just do it. As to why people started doing that to begin with: dunno. Sports being on often, so having the TV on just becomes normal? Not sure. Like many social behaviors, you could map it pretty well to one or more Fussellian class, in the US at least.
- wlesieutre 7y agoIt’s more that I have the TV on while I use my first screen
- derekp7 7y agoIs this only for regular (broadcast / commercial) TV, or does it include other things that you would watch in front of the TV (movies, or streaming episodic content)? Because for broadcast, I can see using a phone during commercial breaks.
- ummonk 7y agoIt's no different from interacting with people while watching tv together. Only now much of that interaction is via electronic devices.
- buboard 7y agofor the same reason why you work better at a cafe than alone at home. the tv keeps others occupied but also maintains background noise
- haecceity 7y agoCan't get enough of them telescreens.
- dajohnson89 7y agoBecause TV is absolute trash. low quality, full of filler, 25% commercials (!!)[0]. [0]https://www.marketplace.org/2018/04/30/television-too-many-commercials/ https://www.marketplace.org/2018/04/30/television-too-many-c...
- samstave 7y agoExactly. Take late night talk show hosts' shows for example. Ill watch the monologue of the shows and thats it. Most times - I will just watch the clip on youtube. I dont give a shit about which actor is promoting their crap, or what musician is going to perform a song. I get the same jokes told in a slightly different angle from Colbert, Kimmel, Meyers, Noah, etc... and I get all their propaganda angles from both sides in short order. Whats worse is that people like Bill Meyer are so freaking smug about their "unique" perspective.... Its all garbage. The news is even worse than the "comedy" -- reality is a freaking joke.
- moduspol 7y agoI assume you're meaning Bill "Maher," right? And I'm sure you're probably aware of it, but you're not getting "both sides" from the hosts you've listed.
- samstave 7y agoI am aware... and Yes I forgot how to spell his name. Just that the late night shows dont usually have a bunch of pro-trump comedy... Regardless, its all garbage.
- dajohnson89 7y agothrow into the mix fallon and oliver
- crooked-v 7y agoJimmy Fallon is usually really annoying to me. It's something about the constant laughing and him being pretty bad at 'getting it' when it comes to the flow with guests, even though on a shallow level he's quite likeable. The weird part is that when he gets into bantering with the other cast members (miming stuff at the desk, exchanging dumb jokes, etc), he's really, really entertaining to me in a way that the rest of the show doesn't manage at all, and yet he barely does it.
- gaukes 7y agoSometimes, the TV is just background noise. But, I also catch myself doing this when I watch more serious TV shows for the first time. I feel like a junkie saying this but maybe TV alone isn’t enough stimulation.
- Waterluvian 7y agoDepends for me. Lossless tv like a hockey game is plenty of stimulation. Lossy tv like a baseball game just isn't.
- catalogia 7y agoWhat do lossy and lossless mean in this context?
- Waterluvian 7y agoLossy = I don't need all the data. I can look away for most of a baseball game and still enjoy it. But if it's some intense drama like Game of Thrones then I need to see it all. You miss a scene and you're confused for episodes to come.
- cshimmin 7y agoIf you only pay attention for 10% of the content, GoT is much lossier than baseball. Sparse vs dense would be more sensible terminology.
- Apocryphon 7y agoNo, it depends on what content you're looking for. There are certain series where if I only care about the plot, I can find a synopsis on a wiki somewhere, or just listen to the show in the background. But if I want to get the full visual experience in the acting, cinematography, and production, I need to watch in order to be emotionally engaged.
- 7y ago
- chrisseaton 7y agoWhat percentage of Americans use a screen while also listening to the radio? Doesn't seem much different to me. Especially for things like rolling news, political coverage, documentaries.
- npo9 7y agoHow much of American radio consumption is done in the car?
- chrisseaton 7y agoI don't know? Is that a rhetorical question? I almost always have the radio on while working - music or talk.
- standardUser 7y agoI watch new/good things like I'm watching a movie. Dark, silent, uninterrupted. I spend maybe 2-4 hours every week watching shows like this. Things like Game of Thrones or Rick and Morty come to mind. Then there's background watching, which usually means re-watching something I've already watched. I'm almost always using a second screen during this time. This is probably more like 15-25 hours every week, maybe even more when I work from home. I get a significant amount of my work/chores/tasks done during this time.
- jborichevskiy 7y agoI don't watch much TV but occasionally I'll have the Reddit thread for the current/previous episode up for background information. But I definitely can't multitask if it's an engaging show.
- ethbro 7y agoWhat does the Reddit thread typically provide?
- jborichevskiy 7y agoMost recent case being Mr Robot it was primarily references and connections that went over my head from seasons back. But it's also fascinating to see people's reactions to the same reveals I'm watching. And of course, the predictions. Similar thoughts on Westworld.
- ethbro 7y agoThe last show I did that with was Lost, albeit not in realtime. So I get what you're saying. If you don't mind me prying (I'm honestly fascinated), does it feel different watching while not having that simultaneous feed? If so, how?
- jborichevskiy 7y agoNot prying at all! I suppose without the feed it's like watching a typical movie in a theater: I'm limited to what I notice/pick up/deduce on my own; and if I miss something I might go the rest of the movie without noticing more things. End result is I might miss fascinating angles I would've otherwise noticed, but still enjoyable.
- userbinator 7y agoI suspect a lot of the time spent looking at the "second screen" is while the first one is showing adverts.
- reaperducer 7y agoThat's kinda old-fashioned thinking. It's true that people who only watch one screen will find something else to do during a commercial, but people who habitually use two screens will use both regardless of what's on the TV. Source: A company I used to work for did a metric buttload of research on this subject.
- oarabbus_ 7y ago> It's true that people who only watch one screen will find something else to do during a commercial, but people who habitually use two screens will use both regardless of what's on the TV. Then they are only using the handheld (or laptop) screen, and they are not watching the TV
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- OnlineCourage 7y agoWhat is the unit fundamental derivative of 1 buttload? Kilogram? Or is it more of an electromagnetic thing?
- JoBrad 7y agoI use my cell to queue up videos on the YouTube app, while watching the current one.
- parthdesai 7y agoAnecdotal, but I usually have something on TV in the background (a random youtube video/music set) and use a laptop to browser reddit/HN all the time. (Obviously this is when I'm chilling by myself and not when I have friends/people over)
- EA 7y agoBecause our friends aren’t on TV. Just wait until AI puts likenesses of ourselves and our social circles into the stories.
- commandlinefan 7y agoI do when my wife picks the show (most of the time).
- wayanon 7y agoI use my phone to find out more about a place, person or topic mentioned in a tv show. Maybe a coffee shop where Larry David’s is in Curb - or it could be something a bit more cerebral.
- mensetmanusman 7y agoFor the same reason 50% of Americans will be obese within 10 years and why similar numbers also use a second screen while someone is trying to talk to them. New England Journal of Medicine: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1909301?query=featured_home https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1909301?query=fe...
- yellow_lead 7y agoI think our brains have gotten so dopamine-wired that our attention span has suffered. I am reading Digital Minimalism which touches on this a bit, but I'd be interested to know if there are any rigorous studies relating to this topic.
- kilroy123 7y agoOh absolutely. IMO - If you're _not_ like this that's a clear advantage at work.
- Aaronstotle 7y agoI can feel my brain being caught in a fog as my attention span has dropped drastically due to the over-stimulation. I'm going to start leaving my phone at home a few days a week and meditate in the mornings to improve on myself.
- LinuxBender 7y agoIf I can manage to find something on netflix (this is rare), I will watch it on my old TV using xbox360. I don't subscribe to cable TV. My primary focus is on several other computer screens.
- dfee 7y ago> I suspect a lot of the time spent looking at the "second screen" is while the first one is showing adverts. Inverted: excessively slow software builds. :)
- avelis 7y agoI definitely agree with the comments here. For me, TVs have the screen size I want but not the software/hardware or content I prefer. Smartphones have great access to software and content but at a screen-size that is limited. Casting works but needs dedicated hardware or else it feels slow and clunky.
- oneeyedpigeon 7y agoNoone seems to have mentioned the potential for a second screen to augment what's being watched on TV. I'm frequently reaching for phone or tablet to look up details about actors, or references I don't get, or just other related info.
- mandelbrotwurst 7y agoThe author of the article did!
- oh_sigh 7y agoThis is what amazon x-ray does, but it would be nice if you could connect a phone app with the streaming app so you could look up xray data on the second screen.
- angott 7y agoI love the Amazon X-Ray feature. I wonder if they patented it, because I’m surprised other players like Netflix or cable providers are not offering something similar. I personally find it adds a lot to my viewing experience without being too intrusive.
- judge2020 7y agoI wonder how they get the "actors in this scene" data. I suspect mechanical turk but maybe they have the movie scripts.
- whoisjuan 7y agoAmazon owns IMDb. They have been gathering data about actors for literally decades. They probably have well-trained machine learning models to identify actors on screen. It's really not that hard since they can run it against a narrowed down dataset with the names of the cast.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- zeta0134 7y agoWhat else am I supposed to do when 30% of the content is ads? The second screen is for me to look at while the ads are muted and I'm waiting for them to go away. Once I caught myself doing this enough times, of course I just canceled the cable subscription, but a lot of my family members still seem to do this. At my parent's house, Law and Order marathons are essentially their choice of background noise. They rarely seem to sit down to watch a show on purpose.
- is0tope 7y agoI've caught myself doing this as well and also questioned why this was happening. My initial guess is that it is just manifestation of phone addiction, but perhaps it is also selective boredom. For instance the majority of the time when I look at my phone is when the show I am watching switches to a scene that is showing some plot line I don't care about. As an example, when I am watching a Sci fi show, and there is some romantic sub plot. I simply don't care, and will look at hacker news while it plays out.
- shantly 7y agoMy mom used to record all her soap operas (on VHS) so she could FF through the ~1/2 of storylines she didn't care about at all. I think this is, or at least used to be, fairly common.
- benibela 7y agoI watch boring parts at 1.5x speed, especially speeches. Then you still get all plot information, but do not become bored Actually, now I have trouble listening to speeches or tutorials at normal speeds.
- falcolas 7y agoI think it’s even simpler than selective boredom - it’s that the things that interest you in TV shows are highly unlikely to be constant throughout. So as the interesting bits ebb and flow, instead of drifting off into an internal daydream, we drift off into interesting things on our second screens.
- ggregoire 7y agoProbably unpopular idea on HN, but my company synchronize digital ads with TV commercials for this exact reason. When we detect a commercial on the TV for a brand, we run instantly ads on Facebook for the same brand.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoDefinitely going to be unpopular. But good to finally have a confirmation that this is actually being done, and done automatically. I guess there's no escape now (at least for those who don't use ad blockers). Myself, I'm going to add this to my ever-growing article about negative impacts of advertising.
- klingonopera 7y ago> When we detect a commercial on the TV How exactly? Is the app always listening?
- tinus_hn 7y agoYou could do this without targeting that narrowly using the ads that are broadcast on popular channels.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- kevinconaway 7y agoBecause I have allowed my phone to absolutely ruin my attention span. If a show isn’t immediately engaging enough, I find myself reflexively reaching for my phone to fritter away time. In the same vein, I have to consciously avoid taking my phone out while sitting at a stop light or going to the bathroom It didn’t used to be this way and I hate it
- shantly 7y agoI can't wait until I can get rid of home Internet. And just have a dumbphone as the only way to contact me. Or mail. I'll just hit up a coffee shop or the library every week or two to pay bills and see family photos or whatever. Savings on Internet and related bills would let me buy more physical media than I'd have time to consume anyway, while still saving money, even if I just threw away everything after reading/watching/listening once.
- foxfired 7y agoWe have redefined boredom [1]. > The more I consume, the more I need to consume, the more bored I feel. I often turn to video games to release the tension. I can spend two solid hours shooting at virtual objects until I start to feel less entertained. I then find myself pulling up my phone closer to consume more scrollable content while still playing the game. Only when all my sense are stimulated at the same time, I feel relieved. > This becomes the new norm. Anything less will result in that acute sense of boredom. Have a conversation with a friend, you'll feel bored. They can't possibly compete with a video game, a political rant and a funny video at the same time. Right in the middle of a conversation you hear that familiar beep from your phone and you have to pick it up. It's not that you ignore your friends, or the dinner conversation, it's that you need to have them all occur at the same time to feel normal. [1]: https://idiallo.com/blog/im-bored-what-do-i-do https://idiallo.com/blog/im-bored-what-do-i-do
- BoorishBears 7y ago> Have a conversation with a friend, you'll feel bored. They can't possibly compete with a video game, a political rant and a funny video at the same time. Then you don't have friends. And with an attitude like this I can't imagine why that'd be...
- sergiotapia 7y agoI used to play a lot of Team Fortress 2 on half my wide screen with Seinfeld playing on Plex on the other half. It was very zen and relaxing, to the point where I did it with other shows and games. For example, Dynasty Warriors 4 on a PS2 emulator, with NewsRadio reruns playing on the other half. For some people it's just relaxing, not really about boredom.
- CoolGuySteve 7y agoYeah, there's nothing more relaxing for me than putting on a comedy podcast and working through a 2D metroidvania game on DS or my hacked Switch. For some reason the two parts of my brain that process audio and that style of game are completely independent. It's no different than knitting or solving a crossword while listening to the radio 100 years ago. The only problem is that I only have one more DS and GBA Castlevania game before I've beaten all of them. I've already worked through every Metroid and 2D Zelda game as well as Hollow Knight. The pickings are getting slim.
- McDev 7y agoThis is why I love the cinema. I'm forced to watch the actual movie. Even if it's not great, it's 2 hours where I will be focused on something and not mindlessly scrolling. Sometimes I even enjoy the movie!
- scarface74 7y agoI agree. My wife and I have the AMC A+ movie subscription service as a “commitment device”. It forces us to get out of the house, away from our screens. We go to a movie at least once a week if there is anything remotely interesting playing.
- rakejake 7y agoAgreed. Recently I watched The Irishman (3.5 hours) at the theatre. Since the reviews mentioned the sombre mood of the film (unlike Scorcese's other gangter films), I was fully expecting to fidget around after some time. I had no trouble with my attention span throughout the film so full credits to Scorcese and Thelma Schoonmaker for superb pacing. The audience was quite sparse and mostly film fans so I was able to watch it in a quiet atmosphere with occasional applause. In other words, the perfect movie watching experience. If not at the theatre, I would have caught this at home. I would have taken more than 5 hours to complete the film. Numerous pauses throughout the film for bathroom breaks, googling names and trivia, simply getting distracted etc. Now sometimes, you watch a movie that has a mind blowing twist, or something happens in the film that makes you go WTF and pause. Even then, you have to admit that watching the same film in the theatre (where you cannot just pause and take it in), with an audience who are going through the same thing, will probably be a better experience.
- deevolution 7y agoWho wants to watch commercials? With your phone or tablet you can have an uninterrupted dopamine flow.
- r00fus 7y agoI've gone so far I don't even watch the TV anymore. Just the 2nd screen (only screen?).
- donatj 7y agoI feel like this is the death of tightly written television. Getting my wife to pay attention to things well enough to pick up clever nuances has proven nearly impossible. Kids these days.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoIt's the opposite for me. I can't watch anything but tightly written media. The second I pickup an inconsistent plot point made to fill time or product placement, I zone out.
- hgoel 7y agoI agree with the other response, well written entertainment would retain the viewer's attention consistently. I can binge 24 episodes of a well written show without looking at my phone at all, but something that doesn't require much attention will have me immediately reaching for the phone to catch up on other things.
- einpoklum 7y agoWhat is it you were saying? Sorry, I wasn't listening, I was glancing at my smartphone.
- nitwit005 7y agoAside from being about a quarter commercials, TV shows often feature quite a bit of filler/padding content. It'd be odd if people didn't pick up on some of it and play with their phone when they have the option. I always think to this Mitchell and Webb gift shop sketch that parodies the worst of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MFtl2XXnUc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MFtl2XXnUc
- sandworm101 7y ago>>According to data from Nielsen, the TV metrics company, 88 percent of Americans "use a second digital device while watching TV." Seventy-one percent of Americans "look up content related to content they are watching," while 41 percent of Americans are busy messaging "friends/family about content they are watching." Has anyone here actually watched Nielsen TV recently? This is the oldschool stuff. Comcast. Not netflix/hulu/Disney. The commercials are INSANE. I stopped watching sitcoms a few years ago when they switched to 21 minute shows. A third of primetime content is now ads. For reruns, thanks to compression tech/editing, ads are on the screen almost half the time. And those ads are ALL for old people. Diabetic testing supplies. Laxatives. Investment consulting. Erectile dysfunction. Medicare part B. Incontinence products. That's what the second screen is for: To distract one's self until the animated colon commercial goes away.
- CoolGuySteve 7y agoThe content itself took a nosedive after the writer's strike too. It feels like 2/3 of broadcast television these days is some kind of low effort singing/dancing contest. Considering it's basically a live music video, there's no reason why you wouldn't browse the internet at the same time.
- wishinghand 7y ago> The content itself took a nosedive after the writer's strike too I find this a weird take because we're in a renaissance of quality story telling TV right now. Keeping in mind Sturgeon's Law, only 66% of tv being crap is a win.
- barbecue_sauce 7y ago> renaissance of quality story telling TV right now Not on broadcast television, which is what OP was referring to. It’s all monster of the week procedurals, low effort sitcoms, and reality garbage.
- 7y ago
- marcosdumay 7y agoSo, the habit of sleeping or reading a book got replaced?
- zw123456 7y agoI work from home generally 4 / 5 days per week for a lot of reasons (commute, environment etc.). I am one of those people who cannot code in absolute silence, whatever, maybe from years of coding in a loud environment... who knows. But I am most productive with mindless yammering in the background. Which generally is things like, NPR, TV News, CSPAN etc. Music is no good, it has to be just blabbing in the background. So I generally have the TV on in the background on some dumb channel, I am not listening but just talking in the background that I am not interested in at all, in some weird way helps me concentrate. I dunno if I am weird but I am guessing a lot of people have it on in the background as just sort of comfort while they do other things.
- scarface74 7y agoIt’s a thing in our social circle that during an awards show, we all get on Facebook for live commentary.
- ykevinator 7y agoOnly during commercials
- dannyw 7y agoIs this just TV? How many of you second screen while watching Netflix? I’m talking about watching a show for the first time, not reruns just as background noise.
- throwawaymath 7y agoHow does Nielsen know 88% of Americans are using a second device while watching TV? How is that data gathered, and how is the research conducted?
- throwaway55554 7y agoSmart TVs know what you're watching and when. Smartphones know what you're doing on it and when. It's simply connecting the two at this point.
- throwawaymath 7y agoThat still seems a little too simple. How are they controlling for multiple people in a household from the same IP address? How are they capable of telling the same person watching TV is performing the activity on the smartphone?
- throwaway55554 7y agoVoice detection.
- try567y56 7y agoYou can get RAEL people to examine that ;) Don't worry, we, unlike machines are still capable of doing that
- sabujp 7y agowhat does "watching tv" mean nowadays? I only watch videos through a phone, laptop, or desktop, and when I watch I'm not fidgeting on a 2nd screen unless it's related to what I'm watching on my first screen. I guess I don't watch things that don't require some form of actual thought (e.g. sports). Don't get me wrong I love soccer, but I only watch highlights!
- pier25 7y agoBy TV they mean the device or open/cable TV?
- droidist2 7y agoHow many consider the TV as being the second screen?
- ehnto 7y agoI am amazed at how many of my friends watch movies while playing video games. It's like they need to make sure something is ready to stimulate them the moment the game fails to. A particular friend will have the game, youtube playing, and also be betting on online poker on his phone.
- DaveInTucson 7y agoThe only time I ever watch broadcast TV anymore is for (NFL) football. And in that case, I'm usually also , participating in chats and discussion forums, following box scores, and the like. On the other hand, I've also noticed when watching movies on my computer (which is pretty much how I do it anymore), it can be really easy to get distracted. On the gripping hand, when I watch shows on Amazon Prime, I generally don't have any difficulty watching through an entire episode without getting distracted. Possibly because I usually watch Prime on my tablet, where it's (a little) harder to switch between apps.
- alaskamiller 7y agoMulti screens is the same as multi cores.
- wmichelin 7y agoTL;DR: "Screens bad"
- ggggtez 7y ago>can it possibly be any good for us ?!?! Oh sorry, let's get back to the "correct" behavior of sitting still watching a screen with no interaction. The author seems aware that this opinion is elitist. But the idea that putting on a TV as background noise is somehow wasting the planets resources... I mean, but why not compare it to other things you can be doing? Driving a car... Or traveling to a far off country... Using a phone while a TV is on has got to be one of the least pollutant activities a person can spend their time doing.
- Consultant32452 7y agoMartin Scorcese recently publicly lamented his excellent Netflix project The Irishman because he didn't like the way people were watching it, on the small screen. I guess he'd be doubly upset that 88% of those small screen viewers had another even smaller screen holding their attention. I think this is an interesting transition period for the art and artists.
- pacomerh 7y agoIn my case, (and I assume this is common) is using the TV as a second screen and my laptop as a first when watching normal entertainment stuff like a comedy, talk shows, etc. And just the TV when I'm watching an interesting movie or tv show.
- notadoc 7y agoWell the vast majority of TV is horrible and/or very boring, so I'm not too surprised. There have never been more terrible shows to watch than there are today.
- gandalfian 7y agoUnless subtitles. Then it's hard to even eat to.
- vonseel 7y agoI do sometimes look up details about a show I’m watching, but I’m with the author on this, I can’t fully keep track of what’s going on if I’m not watching. Moreover, I prefer to watch with subtitles because I feel like I absorb information drastically better if I read it. On that point, I pretty much hate watching YouTube videos to learn anything - I’d rather read the docs and my favorite sources tend to be things like a programming language’s official documentation or the manual for whatever software I’m using (Logic Pro X comes to mind - I’d much rather read factual, authoritative text on a feature than watch some random YouTuber talk for 10 minutes and try to get me to subscribe to his or her channel while I could have easily read the docs in half the time). I think a big part of this “text vs video/audio” learning dilemma is that you can’t easily skim a videos contents and intuitively know what to skip and what parts are interesting. Text will always have its place.
- filoleg 7y agoI feel you so much on this one. Visuals certainly help me, but i would take a purely written source over a purely video one any day of the week (talking only about learning material throughout this whole comment btw). For one, with readable sources i can go at my own pace, set pauses, skip over parts that i already know or find to be fluff, etc. The source and the structure of a written source are one and the same, which allows me to consume the material in the way that is personally the most efficient for me. With videos, i have zero control of the flow and zero knowledge of the structure of the material, let alone being able to traverse the structure and control it. This alone makes videos way less efficient for me. The only scenario where i would prefer videos for learning something are when the material is very short in length and very single-minded, like “explaining how that one specific formula works and how it is used for that one specific application and why” or when i need to fill a small gap in my knowledge of something. And even then, there is some potential for the creator of such video to misuse the video and pad it with fluff and poor narration, though this is not unique to video as a medium and can be done in a text-based material as well.
- vonseel 7y agoYep. I wonder if there’s been a bunch of research on the topic and it really boils down to us just being written versus visual learners, or if it has to do with something like age-bias - maybe because YouTube wasn’t really a thing yet when I was a teen I never caught the bug. I’ve noticed it seems like kids these days love watching YouTube videos to learn stuff I would never watch videos on, like programming.