4 ms·
This is not true. Reading in print has lots of benefits, particularly for learning and comprehension, as opposed to reading on a screen. Beyond the simplest l
by eldaisfish 3y ago
This is not true.
Reading in print has lots of benefits, particularly for learning and comprehension, as opposed to reading on a screen.
Beyond the simplest level of comprehension, reading in print has clear and proven benefits. This became very obvious during the pandemic.
Here is a good article with several citations: https://theconversation.com/why-we-remember-more-by-reading-especially-print-than-from-audio-or-video-159522 https://theconversation.com/why-we-remember-more-by-reading-...
>The discrepancies between print and digital results are partly related to paper’s physical properties. With paper, there is a literal laying on of hands, along with the visual geography of distinct pages. People often link their memory of what they’ve read to how far into the book it was or where it was on the page.
>But equally important is mental perspective, and what reading researchers call a “shallowing hypothesis.” According to this theory, people approach digital texts with a mindset suited to casual social media, and devote less mental effort than when they are reading print.
- scoofy 3y agoFirstly, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with books. I'm saying they are not explicitly necessary. I actually went through the article, and don't find the citations extremely compelling (especially when the author is selling a book, and also with the the lack of a bibliography was quite frustrating), but I'm it's compelling that research in that field is warranted. The theory seems to suggest that reading on your phone primes you to be in a certain mental state, but that argument means that a dedicated ereader would be an entirely reasonable alternative.
- eldaisfish 3y agothe core idea is that reading a book in print develops other forms of memory that do not happen with other means, especially digital versions (including e-readers) or audio books. Digital and print aren't equivalent and there's lots of anecdotal experience showing this.
- scoofy 3y agoI mean, I definitely understand the thesis. I don't really follow the underlying arguments behind the thesis. The studies that are cited don't seem to take into account quality of ereader, or even amount of desire for reading. Again, I'm not saying the studies are wrong, quite the opposite. I'm saying I'd actually like to see the studies continue until there is a thesis that makes a good amount of sense so that ereaders can be updated to better include any reading retention that books have. I only say that glancing at the abstracts included, I have half a dozen issues with studies, and the seem ripe for the replication crisis. My biggest concern being, if we are testing these things on people who haven't grown up with them. It makes a lot of sense that format you learn on at a young age could effect retention on reading in other formats. Paper isn't magic. If there is some benefit to in-book-physical-location responses, it makes little sense it would be hard to argue that this is evolutionary adaptive, as mass publishing is only a few hundred years old, and an argument for spoken word stories would make much, much more sense. If the thesis of in-book-physical-location as a benefit is actually real, ereaders could be adapted to fit something like this, by having, say, edges of the ereader change in thickness as the amount of content has been read.
- adolph 3y ago> other forms of memory What form of memory would that be? https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/memory/types-memory https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/memory/types-memor... https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2017.00438/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/1...