4 ms·

>>There wasn't a single point when I learned this. Like most little kids, I enjoyed the feeling of achievement when I learned or did something new. As I grew ol

>>There wasn't a single point when I learned this. Like most little kids, I enjoyed the feeling of achievement when I learned or did something new. As I grew older, this morphed into a feeling of disgust when I wasn't achieving anything. The one precisely dateable landmark I have is when I stopped watching TV, at age 13. I wouldn’t dare question Paul Graham’s accomplishments, but I’ve always found it odd that some people are so proud of their abstention from television. There are time-wasting things on tv, but there are also time-wasting books, albums etc. I think not watching television and advertising that one didn’t was once an easy intellectual badge of honor. When there were only a few networks and the programming didn’t vary much, perhaps this made sense. Every so often I still hear someone proudly say that they don’t watch television today. I usually wonder exactly what they mean, now that we are all able to choose the exact film or program we want and play it on demand. Surely it’s not a mark of excellence not to stream, say, the Criterion Channel?

benjohnson 5y ago
For me, I stopped watching TV twenty years ago - but then transfered my neurotic novelty seeking behavior to the internet. But because I quit once, it made it easier to reign in my mindless internet consumption. And then stop any mindless book consumption. Then mindless video-games. So for my - "No TV" is a easy way to express "I'm trying to maintain a ballance between living a vigorous life and consuming meaningful media"
BurningFrog 5y ago
TV is passive consumption of someone else's story. NOthing wrong with that, but you're not exactly achieving anything by doing it.
prionassembly 5y ago
It's an empirical regularity, dude. It's probably due to hidden third causes (the kind of personality + circumstance + challenges that cause people to abstain from TV are the same that cause this and that positive outcome), but it's there, at least according to lots of anecdata in this very same thread.
goodlifeodyssey 5y ago
I've wondered about the "no TV" stance too. I used to push back against it, but I believe there's something to it. Here's my current reasoning: First of all, TV and movies have their strengths. Videos can communicate phenomena that are difficult to portray with the written text. They're also very accessible. However, all but the most low-budget shows and movies need to make money. Therefore, they need to appeal to a reasonably large audience. The economic motive limits the depth of the content. Books can be written by individuals. Great books, and especially classics, are usually written for non-economic reasons. Often the author has a passion or a world view they want to share. Books, as a medium, are older. Old books are filtered by time. They also let us learn about peoples who have different assumptions than we do. You can do this by reading about other cultures that exist today. Books, as a medium, let one pause and think. You can write in the margins. It's possible, but more difficult, to do this when watching a show, listening to an audio book, or listening to a podcast. I like that I can listen to podcasts when I run or clean the dishes, but I grasp much less then when I read. I agree that it's not enough to not watch TV. You need to discriminate regardless of the medium you're consuming, but I believe books are a better way to learn than most other mediums. Therefore, skipping television is probably a good idea if your goal is to develop a deep understanding of the world.
1123581321 5y ago
Typical TV has low information density. It’s not a good way to learn. This is ameliorated in the non-fiction world in the YouTube era as there are so many detailed video essays now. PG grew up before then. As far as fiction, books have told richer stories, though, again, things are somewhat different in the “prestige TV” era.
BoxOfRain 5y ago
I stopped watching broadcast TV out of sheer spite towards the TV licensing system and the slack-jawed oafs that enforce it, but that's a uniquely British reason!
Zababa 5y ago
> There are time-wasting things on tv, but there are also time-wasting books Books require constant attention to progress, TV doesn't, for me that's the big difference. If you start to drift out and don't remember the last few paragraphs, you know you can pause, read them again and continue. With a TV, you usually can't go back. You may be conscious that you were not engaged, but you can't take the steps to fix this.

benjohnson 5y ago

For me, I stopped watching TV twenty years ago - but then transfered my neurotic novelty seeking behavior to the internet. But because I quit once, it made it easier to reign in my mindless internet consumption. And then stop any mindless book consumption. Then mindless video-games. So for my - "No TV" is a easy way to express "I'm trying to maintain a ballance between living a vigorous life and consuming meaningful media"

BurningFrog 5y ago

TV is passive consumption of someone else's story. NOthing wrong with that, but you're not exactly achieving anything by doing it.

prionassembly 5y ago

It's an empirical regularity, dude. It's probably due to hidden third causes (the kind of personality + circumstance + challenges that cause people to abstain from TV are the same that cause this and that positive outcome), but it's there, at least according to lots of anecdata in this very same thread.

goodlifeodyssey 5y ago

I've wondered about the "no TV" stance too. I used to push back against it, but I believe there's something to it. Here's my current reasoning: First of all, TV and movies have their strengths. Videos can communicate phenomena that are difficult to portray with the written text. They're also very accessible. However, all but the most low-budget shows and movies need to make money. Therefore, they need to appeal to a reasonably large audience. The economic motive limits the depth of the content. Books can be written by individuals. Great books, and especially classics, are usually written for non-economic reasons. Often the author has a passion or a world view they want to share. Books, as a medium, are older. Old books are filtered by time. They also let us learn about peoples who have different assumptions than we do. You can do this by reading about other cultures that exist today. Books, as a medium, let one pause and think. You can write in the margins. It's possible, but more difficult, to do this when watching a show, listening to an audio book, or listening to a podcast. I like that I can listen to podcasts when I run or clean the dishes, but I grasp much less then when I read. I agree that it's not enough to not watch TV. You need to discriminate regardless of the medium you're consuming, but I believe books are a better way to learn than most other mediums. Therefore, skipping television is probably a good idea if your goal is to develop a deep understanding of the world.

1123581321 5y ago

Typical TV has low information density. It’s not a good way to learn. This is ameliorated in the non-fiction world in the YouTube era as there are so many detailed video essays now. PG grew up before then. As far as fiction, books have told richer stories, though, again, things are somewhat different in the “prestige TV” era.

BoxOfRain 5y ago

I stopped watching broadcast TV out of sheer spite towards the TV licensing system and the slack-jawed oafs that enforce it, but that's a uniquely British reason!

Zababa 5y ago

> There are time-wasting things on tv, but there are also time-wasting books Books require constant attention to progress, TV doesn't, for me that's the big difference. If you start to drift out and don't remember the last few paragraphs, you know you can pause, read them again and continue. With a TV, you usually can't go back. You may be conscious that you were not engaged, but you can't take the steps to fix this.