3 ms·

the 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-reade

the 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 ago
I 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...

scoofy 3y ago

I 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...