4 ms·

Certainly an essay being written in book form is not a guarantee of higher quality, but incentives and dispositions towards different types of media do matter a

by qsort 5y ago

Certainly an essay being written in book form is not a guarantee of higher quality, but incentives and dispositions towards different types of media do matter at least a bit. The act of reading a book encourages the - let's admit it - painstaking act of actively questioning what's being said, cross-checking when necessary, and eventually reaching your own conclusions in a way that Twitter hot takes don't. The intuition and discipline it takes to apply that kind of rigor takes time to develop, arguably a lifetime.

mdp2021 5y ago
Can you see educated people «reaching [their] own ["]conclusions["] [with] Twitter» - apart from getting elements for judging the speaker (not the matter)? Who would seek knowledge from stubs - and disorganized, "latest without history", and thrown in the unregulated chaos? We have been educated through books since substantially forever, who would call "writings on a daily repainted wall" credible competition? The new ways recently born, and quickly massively misused - for not wanting to see them for what they are, in their limits, and to ride the wave of new games -, seem to have deviated the attention of some to the preexisting context and its already present issues: a large amount of imperfect material (in credible formats) was published. In many Countries critical thinking is (was?) taught with basic education: we have always known that problems are not trivial (centuries of theological debates in front of a Revelation?!). Now: books are what you must have used and continuously use for intellectual preparation; in the current fast dynamics we need more of articles for information and competent analysis. The problem does not change: identifying reliable sources. And the typical solution has always been: identifying the most convincing "authorities", and following them cum grano salis et caveats, judgement always alert, for as long as they will be human.
- prox 5y ago
  As long as you doubt, you learn. And as you doubt you also keep striving for the best quality sources or insights. It’s indeed a lifelong skill, but it also starts with picking up the first book that helps you contextualize information.

by qsort 5y ago

mdp2021 5y ago

Can you see educated people «reaching [their] own ["]conclusions["] [with] Twitter» - apart from getting elements for judging the speaker (not the matter)? Who would seek knowledge from stubs - and disorganized, "latest without history", and thrown in the unregulated chaos? We have been educated through books since substantially forever, who would call "writings on a daily repainted wall" credible competition? The new ways recently born, and quickly massively misused - for not wanting to see them for what they are, in their limits, and to ride the wave of new games -, seem to have deviated the attention of some to the preexisting context and its already present issues: a large amount of imperfect material (in credible formats) was published. In many Countries critical thinking is (was?) taught with basic education: we have always known that problems are not trivial (centuries of theological debates in front of a Revelation?!). Now: books are what you must have used and continuously use for intellectual preparation; in the current fast dynamics we need more of articles for information and competent analysis. The problem does not change: identifying reliable sources. And the typical solution has always been: identifying the most convincing "authorities", and following them cum grano salis et caveats, judgement always alert, for as long as they will be human.

prox 5y ago
As long as you doubt, you learn. And as you doubt you also keep striving for the best quality sources or insights. It’s indeed a lifelong skill, but it also starts with picking up the first book that helps you contextualize information.