4 ms·

Such a surface level view. Books can lie and deceive and they can be wrong and evil. There's this strange idea that books are good for you and television is g

Such a surface level view. Books can lie and deceive and they can be wrong and evil. There's this strange idea that books are good for you and television is garbage. Nothing is further from the truth. Both books and television are just different forms of human output both of which can be bad or good because humans themselves can be bad or good. One isn't particularly better than the other. One thing about books though is the amount of effort it takes to read it. The effort is so great that completion of a book often leads to more bias. Not always but often. The more effort you spend on something the higher positive bias you build towards it. Hence books tend to be more convincing then television which requires zero effort to consume.

samsquire 3y ago
I want and prefer things that are in this category of words: good, light, love, faith, kindness, beauty, glory, majesty, magnificence, sophistication, elegance, awe, fruit, colour, right, righteousness, wholesome, truth, noble. I think television, films and books focus on the opposite of utopia. But if you know any that I would like, please recommend.
- webnrrd2k 3y ago
  fruit? It seems out of place in your list. Is it an autocorrect typo?
  - quercusa 3y ago
    Not the poster but bearing fruit is a common biblical metaphor that fits with the rest of the list. The righteous... still bear fruit in old age. Ps 92
    - webnrrd2k 3y ago
      Oh, yes, thanks -- I read it too literally. It was meant in the sense of "being fruitful".
  - corethree 3y ago
    I think he's saying all forms of media including books are rubbish. Except for of course the bible. Sort of proves my point. This guy likely spent more time decoding, analyzing and reading the Bible then he has spent time on almost anything else other than sleeping. If he spent the same amount of time doing the same for the Koran both biases towards the bible and the Koran would neutralize each other allowing him to become atheist.
raincole 3y ago
The article has nothing do to with "books are inherently good for you". Ironically, your comment shows that you didn't read the article. Maybe TV (and internet) has destroyed your attention span and reading books is inherently good for you.
- corethree 3y ago
  I quote from the first two paragraphs: "I used to believe that every book has an objective value. And I used to believe that this value is fixed and universal. Now, I believe it’s much more useful to say something in this form: this book has this value to this person in this context." If you read the article, which I think you did you would know that the person is saying books are inherently good for you and it's based on context. In the right context books are universally good. But I think you just know this. I think you are just lying here. You didn't misread or misinterpret anything. You simply disagree with my opinion. Disagreement is fine, but lying because you disagree is not. You also got personal here you stated that tv perhaps destroyed my attention span. I mean that's close to "stupid". It's literally as far as you can go without straight up calling me stupid. It's still a personal statement or speculation on my character and it's basically an insult. Look if you disagree then vote me down and state your disagreement. But respond respectfully. Don't outright lie and then insult me.
tizzy 3y ago
I don't think you read the article, or if you did you didn't understand it. The idea isn't books themselves are good or bad, it's that the same book can be good or bad depending on who you are. Maybe that's a surface level view, but it doesn't relate to the second half of your comment?
- corethree 3y ago
  I did read it. I know the idea. My statement is saying books can be bad irregardless of context just like how television or video can be bad. This person is basically saying all books are good. Just reframe context and everything is good. I mean you can say this about practically everything in the universe even literal shit. Shit fertilizes plants. I made a comparison to television which flew over everyone's head. Basically it's obvious to everyone that tv can be universally bad or good right? There are good movies and shit movies and excellent documentaries. This concept makes sense. But suddenly for books it makes no sense? All books are good? You just need the right context? This is wrong.
  - quibono 3y ago
    > This person is basically saying all books are good. I'm sorry, I really don't see how you arrive at this. I would say the author expresses the opposite of what you're talking about (i.e. "this book has this value to this person in this context."). I understand what you're trying to say about the inherent effort-bias relationship but I think it's very tenuous at best.
    - corethree 3y ago
      I think your entire post is tenuose given how a quote can prove your first paragraph completely and utterly wrong. You're the one that didn't read the article: "Now, I believe it’s much more useful to say something in this form: this book has this value to this person in this context." She used to think all books were good. This paragraph shows her current thinking. That all books are still good. You just need to think about it from a different angle/context. I'm sorry. But saying I didn't read the article is offensively wrong. I'm even inclined to believe that it's a lie. You're just deliberately making it up.
jhbadger 3y ago
It's a bit silly to think that, for example, novels are inherently better than television (and in fact in the 19th century people complained about people wasting their time reading novels much as modern people complain about television and social media as time wasters), but in terms of nonfiction, books simply provide more depth than any other source, except perhaps academic papers.
- corethree 3y ago
  But that depth can be wrong. And it can be lies. It can be deception. And who's to say visual media can't provide that depth? One can provide audio narration along with visual narration which in totality is greater information then just text alone. You example of 19th century people saying books are time wasters and people now saying they are not illustrates changing bias in the people. Who's to say the people in the 19th century are wrong? Who's to say our opinion now is right? It's simply cultural opinion with no logical basis.
mym1990 3y ago
'There's this strange idea that books are good for you and television is garbage. Nothing is further from the truth.' This seems very hyperbolic. I might agree with you if we are talking about short form content...a magazine column vs something similar in video format. And of course, selection matters as well...watching one hour of a well vetted documentary vs watching an hour of Love Island are going to engage the brain differently. Consuming books is a very active way of thinking, and consuming video media is generally very passive. The research that needs to go into getting a whole book across the finish line is pretty staggering(again, if you're not choose complete trash). Even when I read fiction, my brain has to create the imagery from the text, in rough form...and that is kind of beautiful. Watching an epic like Lord of the Rings...the scene is already there...there is little room for your brain to interpret it any other way. Your comment about becoming more biased as one engages in one direction of thinking definitely holds true...each "fact" reinforces the held world view. Which is why it is great to try to read things across a spectrum on one topic...its difficult, but it gives way more perspective on the issues.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  > (again, if you're not choose complete trash). So you're not really dismissing parent's point that books aren't inherently good, and many will be half mass produced trash. I think people tend to forget that for many centuries book were the only game in town, and you'd have to write a play, a movie or a radio show if you wanted your content to reach an audience. That means what we currently see as blogspam, trash documentaries, stuff like Joe Rogan's podcasts whatever you categorize them were produced in news, magazines and book form. You could look around for the industry of speed ghost writing memoires when big events happen: you get famous for being involved in news cycle for a few months ? a publisher will approach you to get a book out with your name on it and it will be out in the world pretty quick. There is a misconception that "money spend on something" = "higher quality". A book needing an editor, a printer and money to distribute doesn't mean it's intrinsically better than something that costs less. It just mean it has reasonable prospects to sell, whatever the reason is. Sure we can only focus on the top of the pyramid of books written as an art, but then we should do the same for all the other media (think about people starting a youtube channel after retiring from decades of work in a field. Would these channels be worse that a book meddled by an editor/publisher ? probably not) > Consuming books is a very active way of thinking, and consuming video media is generally very passive That's the argument based on the brain needing to read and parse the sentences. Sure it takes more effort that parsing audio. But that says nothing about the quality of the experience. You're more "engaged", the same way you'd be engage in a TV show if you had to crank a lever to run it frame by frame. But I think in this social media area we already understand that engagement is far from the best metric to evaluate if a content is good for your or not. [edited]

samsquire 3y ago

I want and prefer things that are in this category of words: good, light, love, faith, kindness, beauty, glory, majesty, magnificence, sophistication, elegance, awe, fruit, colour, right, righteousness, wholesome, truth, noble. I think television, films and books focus on the opposite of utopia. But if you know any that I would like, please recommend.

webnrrd2k 3y ago
fruit? It seems out of place in your list. Is it an autocorrect typo?
- quercusa 3y ago
  Not the poster but bearing fruit is a common biblical metaphor that fits with the rest of the list. The righteous... still bear fruit in old age. Ps 92
  - webnrrd2k 3y ago
    Oh, yes, thanks -- I read it too literally. It was meant in the sense of "being fruitful".
- corethree 3y ago
  I think he's saying all forms of media including books are rubbish. Except for of course the bible. Sort of proves my point. This guy likely spent more time decoding, analyzing and reading the Bible then he has spent time on almost anything else other than sleeping. If he spent the same amount of time doing the same for the Koran both biases towards the bible and the Koran would neutralize each other allowing him to become atheist.

raincole 3y ago

The article has nothing do to with "books are inherently good for you". Ironically, your comment shows that you didn't read the article. Maybe TV (and internet) has destroyed your attention span and reading books is inherently good for you.

corethree 3y ago
I quote from the first two paragraphs: "I used to believe that every book has an objective value. And I used to believe that this value is fixed and universal. Now, I believe it’s much more useful to say something in this form: this book has this value to this person in this context." If you read the article, which I think you did you would know that the person is saying books are inherently good for you and it's based on context. In the right context books are universally good. But I think you just know this. I think you are just lying here. You didn't misread or misinterpret anything. You simply disagree with my opinion. Disagreement is fine, but lying because you disagree is not. You also got personal here you stated that tv perhaps destroyed my attention span. I mean that's close to "stupid". It's literally as far as you can go without straight up calling me stupid. It's still a personal statement or speculation on my character and it's basically an insult. Look if you disagree then vote me down and state your disagreement. But respond respectfully. Don't outright lie and then insult me.

tizzy 3y ago

I don't think you read the article, or if you did you didn't understand it. The idea isn't books themselves are good or bad, it's that the same book can be good or bad depending on who you are. Maybe that's a surface level view, but it doesn't relate to the second half of your comment?

corethree 3y ago
I did read it. I know the idea. My statement is saying books can be bad irregardless of context just like how television or video can be bad. This person is basically saying all books are good. Just reframe context and everything is good. I mean you can say this about practically everything in the universe even literal shit. Shit fertilizes plants. I made a comparison to television which flew over everyone's head. Basically it's obvious to everyone that tv can be universally bad or good right? There are good movies and shit movies and excellent documentaries. This concept makes sense. But suddenly for books it makes no sense? All books are good? You just need the right context? This is wrong.
- quibono 3y ago
  > This person is basically saying all books are good. I'm sorry, I really don't see how you arrive at this. I would say the author expresses the opposite of what you're talking about (i.e. "this book has this value to this person in this context."). I understand what you're trying to say about the inherent effort-bias relationship but I think it's very tenuous at best.
  - corethree 3y ago
    I think your entire post is tenuose given how a quote can prove your first paragraph completely and utterly wrong. You're the one that didn't read the article: "Now, I believe it’s much more useful to say something in this form: this book has this value to this person in this context." She used to think all books were good. This paragraph shows her current thinking. That all books are still good. You just need to think about it from a different angle/context. I'm sorry. But saying I didn't read the article is offensively wrong. I'm even inclined to believe that it's a lie. You're just deliberately making it up.

jhbadger 3y ago

It's a bit silly to think that, for example, novels are inherently better than television (and in fact in the 19th century people complained about people wasting their time reading novels much as modern people complain about television and social media as time wasters), but in terms of nonfiction, books simply provide more depth than any other source, except perhaps academic papers.

corethree 3y ago
But that depth can be wrong. And it can be lies. It can be deception. And who's to say visual media can't provide that depth? One can provide audio narration along with visual narration which in totality is greater information then just text alone. You example of 19th century people saying books are time wasters and people now saying they are not illustrates changing bias in the people. Who's to say the people in the 19th century are wrong? Who's to say our opinion now is right? It's simply cultural opinion with no logical basis.

mym1990 3y ago

'There's this strange idea that books are good for you and television is garbage. Nothing is further from the truth.' This seems very hyperbolic. I might agree with you if we are talking about short form content...a magazine column vs something similar in video format. And of course, selection matters as well...watching one hour of a well vetted documentary vs watching an hour of Love Island are going to engage the brain differently. Consuming books is a very active way of thinking, and consuming video media is generally very passive. The research that needs to go into getting a whole book across the finish line is pretty staggering(again, if you're not choose complete trash). Even when I read fiction, my brain has to create the imagery from the text, in rough form...and that is kind of beautiful. Watching an epic like Lord of the Rings...the scene is already there...there is little room for your brain to interpret it any other way. Your comment about becoming more biased as one engages in one direction of thinking definitely holds true...each "fact" reinforces the held world view. Which is why it is great to try to read things across a spectrum on one topic...its difficult, but it gives way more perspective on the issues.

makeitdouble 3y ago
> (again, if you're not choose complete trash). So you're not really dismissing parent's point that books aren't inherently good, and many will be half mass produced trash. I think people tend to forget that for many centuries book were the only game in town, and you'd have to write a play, a movie or a radio show if you wanted your content to reach an audience. That means what we currently see as blogspam, trash documentaries, stuff like Joe Rogan's podcasts whatever you categorize them were produced in news, magazines and book form. You could look around for the industry of speed ghost writing memoires when big events happen: you get famous for being involved in news cycle for a few months ? a publisher will approach you to get a book out with your name on it and it will be out in the world pretty quick. There is a misconception that "money spend on something" = "higher quality". A book needing an editor, a printer and money to distribute doesn't mean it's intrinsically better than something that costs less. It just mean it has reasonable prospects to sell, whatever the reason is. Sure we can only focus on the top of the pyramid of books written as an art, but then we should do the same for all the other media (think about people starting a youtube channel after retiring from decades of work in a field. Would these channels be worse that a book meddled by an editor/publisher ? probably not) > Consuming books is a very active way of thinking, and consuming video media is generally very passive That's the argument based on the brain needing to read and parse the sentences. Sure it takes more effort that parsing audio. But that says nothing about the quality of the experience. You're more "engaged", the same way you'd be engage in a TV show if you had to crank a lever to run it frame by frame. But I think in this social media area we already understand that engagement is far from the best metric to evaluate if a content is good for your or not. [edited]