3 ms·

> This and the most recent hbomberguy video (4 hrs about plagiarism) is a perfect microcosm of the issue, actually: The population at large does not want to rea

> This and the most recent hbomberguy video (4 hrs about plagiarism) is a perfect microcosm of the issue, actually: The population at large does not want to read, they want to be read to. I think long form essays are better done as a video, actually. If I'm going to absorb 4 hours of content, then 4 hours is a lot of time to dedicate. A video playing while I do the laundry is a lot more doable than trying to read at the same time. And if you're doing some sort of in-deep analysis, then a video allows for very seamless diagrams, screenshots, and video excerpts. Different mediums have different tradeoffs. Not everything is best as a webpage.

bigstrat2003 3y ago
> I think long form essays are better done as a video, actually. If I'm going to absorb 4 hours of content, then 4 hours is a lot of time to dedicate. A video playing while I do the laundry is a lot more doable than trying to read at the same time. Yeah, but the difference is that it takes me 15 minutes tops to read the essay, versus 4 hours for that video. Give me text any day of the week - I don't want to spend hours listening to someone talk when I can absorb the same communication 10x faster in text form.
- fasterik 3y ago
  10x faster is a huge exaggeration. Average speaking speed is 150 WPM, while average reading speed is 300 WPM. If you watch/listen at 1.5-2x speed, which many people do these days, we're only talking ~10-20% slower on average. I would agree that reading is better for things that I know I will want to read. But there is a finite amount of attention in a human lifespan. There are many things I know I wouldn't want to spend my reading time on, but which I would happily throw on at times when reading would be impossible, like doing chores, exercising, or driving. Audio makes it possible to learn more things in the same amount of time.
  - bigstrat2003 3y ago
    It's not a huge exaggeration. I'm speaking from experience of how quickly I can process the written word versus a video.
    - fasterik 3y ago
      For that to be true you'd have to be reading text at 2000 WPM and retaining as much information as you would from watching a video at 200 WPM. That would imply reading the average New Yorker article (~6000 words) in 3 minutes. Count me skeptical. Generally anything over 700 WPM is considered skimming, not reading. There's very little evidence that anyone can read above 1000 WPM without severe loss of comprehension, except in the top percentiles of competitive speed readers. Even they are only achieving 50-60% comprehension. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_reading

bigstrat2003 3y ago

> I think long form essays are better done as a video, actually. If I'm going to absorb 4 hours of content, then 4 hours is a lot of time to dedicate. A video playing while I do the laundry is a lot more doable than trying to read at the same time. Yeah, but the difference is that it takes me 15 minutes tops to read the essay, versus 4 hours for that video. Give me text any day of the week - I don't want to spend hours listening to someone talk when I can absorb the same communication 10x faster in text form.

fasterik 3y ago
10x faster is a huge exaggeration. Average speaking speed is 150 WPM, while average reading speed is 300 WPM. If you watch/listen at 1.5-2x speed, which many people do these days, we're only talking ~10-20% slower on average. I would agree that reading is better for things that I know I will want to read. But there is a finite amount of attention in a human lifespan. There are many things I know I wouldn't want to spend my reading time on, but which I would happily throw on at times when reading would be impossible, like doing chores, exercising, or driving. Audio makes it possible to learn more things in the same amount of time.
- bigstrat2003 3y ago
  It's not a huge exaggeration. I'm speaking from experience of how quickly I can process the written word versus a video.
  - fasterik 3y ago
    For that to be true you'd have to be reading text at 2000 WPM and retaining as much information as you would from watching a video at 200 WPM. That would imply reading the average New Yorker article (~6000 words) in 3 minutes. Count me skeptical. Generally anything over 700 WPM is considered skimming, not reading. There's very little evidence that anyone can read above 1000 WPM without severe loss of comprehension, except in the top percentiles of competitive speed readers. Even they are only achieving 50-60% comprehension. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_reading