37 ms·

> Why is not going 3 days without screens an addiction, but not going 3 days without reading a book not an addiction? Because books are not (yet) generally aut

by jen20 5y ago

> Why is not going 3 days without screens an addiction, but not going 3 days without reading a book not an addiction? Because books are not (yet) generally authored by sociopaths working at social media companies, altering what you see to maximise "engagement".

maccard 5y ago
> Because books are not (yet) generally authored by sociopaths working at social media companies, altering what you see to maximise "engagement". You're making the same mistake that OP is; conflating screens and social media. How is watching one hour of Line of Duty/Better Call Saul a day worse than reading 3-4 hours of any of the hundreds of nonsense romance novels that are published every year. Also, if you think that book publishing is exempt from the abusive marketing/psychology tactics, you're sorely mistaken.
- noduerme 5y ago
  > How is watching one hour of Line of Duty/Better Call Saul a day worse than reading 3-4 hours of any of the hundreds of nonsense romance novels Watching doesn't require imagination. It doesn't activate the creative part of the brain that even the most idiotic dime store novel requires to interpret. That's how. Again, this isn't new; it was standard knowledge taught to children in the 1960s-1980s as to why television was mind-rot.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    That is such complete and utter nonsense. And lots of things taught to children over the years have been complete and utter nonsense. Yes, at some level, you can sit in front of a mindless sitcom or reality show half-asleep and not engage at all. But there are plenty of TV shows and movies that require active engagement to even know what's going on. The idea that printed material occupies some higher plane than video material because it requires turning a page doesn't make a lot of sense.
  - maccard 5y ago
    imagination is not the same thing as visualisation. If you look at many modern TV shows, video games, and movies and only see what is explicitly put in front of you, that's on you, not the medium.

by jen20 5y ago

maccard 5y ago

> Because books are not (yet) generally authored by sociopaths working at social media companies, altering what you see to maximise "engagement". You're making the same mistake that OP is; conflating screens and social media. How is watching one hour of Line of Duty/Better Call Saul a day worse than reading 3-4 hours of any of the hundreds of nonsense romance novels that are published every year. Also, if you think that book publishing is exempt from the abusive marketing/psychology tactics, you're sorely mistaken.

noduerme 5y ago
> How is watching one hour of Line of Duty/Better Call Saul a day worse than reading 3-4 hours of any of the hundreds of nonsense romance novels Watching doesn't require imagination. It doesn't activate the creative part of the brain that even the most idiotic dime store novel requires to interpret. That's how. Again, this isn't new; it was standard knowledge taught to children in the 1960s-1980s as to why television was mind-rot.
- ghaff 5y ago
  That is such complete and utter nonsense. And lots of things taught to children over the years have been complete and utter nonsense. Yes, at some level, you can sit in front of a mindless sitcom or reality show half-asleep and not engage at all. But there are plenty of TV shows and movies that require active engagement to even know what's going on. The idea that printed material occupies some higher plane than video material because it requires turning a page doesn't make a lot of sense.
- maccard 5y ago
  imagination is not the same thing as visualisation. If you look at many modern TV shows, video games, and movies and only see what is explicitly put in front of you, that's on you, not the medium.