4 ms·

Doing pottery and kayaking is a better choice for me than reading someone do pottery and kayaking. Edit: and not everything can be learnt from books

codersteve 6y ago
That's really taking it out of context.
Ma8ee 6y ago
But I can’t lead armies in battles or travel under the sea or challenge a rival to a swords duel. In such cases I’m accepting the reading as substitute.
- nwienert 6y ago
  Sports are often pretty close to battle, and you can learn fencing. Most great writers about swordsmanship could never have written about it without having used them for years... I have a whole long piece I want to write about this some day but physical experience is about 100x richer than reading. If you read about the best restaurant in some place, and tell me it, your ability to convince me it’s good is very weak. Whereas someone who ate at a hundred places in that cuisine could write a book about it. They could convince me only because they have first hand knowledge. It’s funny in that way: the best writing comes from people who experienced the most, and yet people get attached to reading as the best way to learn!
  - mcguire 6y ago
    Currently reading Greek and Roman Naval Warfare A Study of Strategy, Tactics, and Ship Design from Salamis (480 B.C.) to Actium (31 B.C.) by William Rodgers (the 1964 edition). While in general I agree with you that experience is the best way to gain understanding, there are rather a lot of topics that are hard to get experience with.
    - nwienert 6y ago
      There’s a lot of history certainly. Though I’d rather read historians with as much physical connection as possible - familial ties, visiting ruins, practicing the traditions, speaking the language etc.
  - Ma8ee 6y ago
    No, sports are not pretty close to battles. People killing and getting killed makes a difference. My emotional state would be very different if I would meet a rival at dawn for a fight on life and death than if I'm fencing for points in a club. And most importantly, by reading I get the thoughts, feelings and motivations from other people, which teaches me different ways to see the world and empathy. And if we for a moment ignore the fact that reading about food is one of the most boring things I can imagine, reading about someone else's experience of food let you see aspects you aren't aware of which your own experiences richer. People don't read as a substitute for living their own life. People read because it enriches the life they live. Not only in the moment of reading, but also in everything else they do.
    - nwienert 6y ago
      I have nothing against reading and enjoy it thoroughly, the discussion here isn't that, it's about learning and being considered competent, and I'm simply pointing out a specific qualia of learning first-hand vs read and how it manifests in your reliability to others. UFC and boxing are certainly life and death and I'm sure you'd have quite a similar feeling to going to battle. Though again this really misses the point: going to battle is a great example, in fact, not replicable through reading in a million important ways. No one who has only read about war will ever be in the room deciding important things about war, nor will their stories about war (reciting from a book) ever be quite as interesting or well-said. Of course it's a spectrum, and someone who has read and experienced it first-hand can be better, but the point stands. I'd argue empathy manifests in real life experience more than reading, but it's hard to convey in writing.
      - Ma8ee 6y ago
        Few people read more than generals. Few leads more than a handful of battles in their lifetime, and they better not repeat anyone else’s mistakes. And most people, not only 4 of the 5 last US presidents, who decides important things about wars, have in the best case read about wars, rarely fought in any themselves.
- paganel 6y ago
  Also, I'd rather read about other people's cherry orchards, it's way easier compared to me getting one: I'd have to move to the countryside, plant the cherry trees themselves and then wait for 10-15 years for the trees to become big enough.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
cratermoon 6y ago
> not everything can be learnt from books I'd argue that you can't actually learn anything from reading. Mortimer Adler argues in "How to Read a Book" that you can only actually learn by action, which means doing something with what you read.
- ARandomerDude 6y ago
  Can I learn from what you wrote, or do I need to do something to learn I can't learn anything from reading?
  - cratermoon 6y ago
    touche. The only way to test it is to not put it into action, then see if you learned it, but then ... that process of testing it is an action, so... ??? I applaud your meta-inquiry.

codersteve 6y ago

That's really taking it out of context.

Ma8ee 6y ago

But I can’t lead armies in battles or travel under the sea or challenge a rival to a swords duel. In such cases I’m accepting the reading as substitute.

nwienert 6y ago
Sports are often pretty close to battle, and you can learn fencing. Most great writers about swordsmanship could never have written about it without having used them for years... I have a whole long piece I want to write about this some day but physical experience is about 100x richer than reading. If you read about the best restaurant in some place, and tell me it, your ability to convince me it’s good is very weak. Whereas someone who ate at a hundred places in that cuisine could write a book about it. They could convince me only because they have first hand knowledge. It’s funny in that way: the best writing comes from people who experienced the most, and yet people get attached to reading as the best way to learn!
- mcguire 6y ago
  Currently reading Greek and Roman Naval Warfare A Study of Strategy, Tactics, and Ship Design from Salamis (480 B.C.) to Actium (31 B.C.) by William Rodgers (the 1964 edition). While in general I agree with you that experience is the best way to gain understanding, there are rather a lot of topics that are hard to get experience with.
  - nwienert 6y ago
    There’s a lot of history certainly. Though I’d rather read historians with as much physical connection as possible - familial ties, visiting ruins, practicing the traditions, speaking the language etc.
- Ma8ee 6y ago
  No, sports are not pretty close to battles. People killing and getting killed makes a difference. My emotional state would be very different if I would meet a rival at dawn for a fight on life and death than if I'm fencing for points in a club. And most importantly, by reading I get the thoughts, feelings and motivations from other people, which teaches me different ways to see the world and empathy. And if we for a moment ignore the fact that reading about food is one of the most boring things I can imagine, reading about someone else's experience of food let you see aspects you aren't aware of which your own experiences richer. People don't read as a substitute for living their own life. People read because it enriches the life they live. Not only in the moment of reading, but also in everything else they do.
  - nwienert 6y ago
    I have nothing against reading and enjoy it thoroughly, the discussion here isn't that, it's about learning and being considered competent, and I'm simply pointing out a specific qualia of learning first-hand vs read and how it manifests in your reliability to others. UFC and boxing are certainly life and death and I'm sure you'd have quite a similar feeling to going to battle. Though again this really misses the point: going to battle is a great example, in fact, not replicable through reading in a million important ways. No one who has only read about war will ever be in the room deciding important things about war, nor will their stories about war (reciting from a book) ever be quite as interesting or well-said. Of course it's a spectrum, and someone who has read and experienced it first-hand can be better, but the point stands. I'd argue empathy manifests in real life experience more than reading, but it's hard to convey in writing.
    - Ma8ee 6y ago
      Few people read more than generals. Few leads more than a handful of battles in their lifetime, and they better not repeat anyone else’s mistakes. And most people, not only 4 of the 5 last US presidents, who decides important things about wars, have in the best case read about wars, rarely fought in any themselves.
paganel 6y ago
Also, I'd rather read about other people's cherry orchards, it's way easier compared to me getting one: I'd have to move to the countryside, plant the cherry trees themselves and then wait for 10-15 years for the trees to become big enough.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

cratermoon 6y ago

> not everything can be learnt from books I'd argue that you can't actually learn anything from reading. Mortimer Adler argues in "How to Read a Book" that you can only actually learn by action, which means doing something with what you read.

ARandomerDude 6y ago
Can I learn from what you wrote, or do I need to do something to learn I can't learn anything from reading?
- cratermoon 6y ago
  touche. The only way to test it is to not put it into action, then see if you learned it, but then ... that process of testing it is an action, so... ??? I applaud your meta-inquiry.