3 ms·

> Numbing is the opposite of stimulating. Your point being? Over-stimulation in the short term can be numbing in the long term by building up tolerance. And th

> Numbing is the opposite of stimulating. Your point being? Over-stimulation in the short term can be numbing in the long term by building up tolerance. And that's assuming that stimulation is somehow a one-dimensional thing and it can only ever be one or the other. The brain is complex, stimulation can go many ways, and simplifying too much is not constructive. > I can only think of "entertainment value" which is often sacrificed to make more profit and which books are clearly lacking when compared to other more entertaining things. In the previous reply it was only informational value. Putting that aside, this also reduces something to a single dimension when there is really no reason or benefit in doing so. There is no such thing as The Entertainment just as stimulation does not happen along a single axis.

James_K 2y ago
> Over-stimulation in the short term can be numbing in the long term by building up tolerance You are confusing mental stimulation with visual stimulation. We were talking about mental stimulation, not merely entertaining colours and lights. Mental stimulation is something which causes you to think rather than observe. > this also reduces something to a single dimension when there is really no reason or benefit in doing so Yes everything is very multidimensional and that conveniently means you never have to explain the concrete meaning of the words you chose to use.
- MildlySerious 2y ago
  Can you explain where you hope to take this conversation? I don't seem to understand the point you're trying to make regarding books.
  - James_K 2y ago
    Then maybe try reading what I'm saying. It should be pretty obvious that I think the mental stimulation that is supposedly attributed to books is massively overrated which is evidenced by the fact that more mentally stimulating things do not have those same benefits attributed to them.
    - MildlySerious 2y ago
      Is that really a topic to be this snarky and standoffish about? What's the point?
      - James_K 2y ago
        I am annoyed by silly questions and I wish to communicate this to you. Your decision to respond with more silly questions is an interesting one.
        MildlySerious 2y ago
        It doesn't seem like you care to communicate anything, really. You've pivoted and conflicted your own words multiple times now, and you were markedly annoyed before I asked questions, which is what prompted them in the first place. "Books are about information primarily. Then they are about stimulation, of which there is only one type. But not that kind of stimulation." You seem most interested in figuratively listening to yourself talk, because I refuse to believe that your goal is to convince a stranger on the internet that instead of picking up a book they might as well binge whatever is hot on Netflix, which is all I've gathered from your words. Your comment history seems similarly pessimistic and snarky, and other commenters in sibling threads seem to be getting a similar impression. I wish you the best. Truly.
        James_K 2y ago
        > You seem most interested in figuratively listening to yourself talk Projection. > Books are about information primarily. Then they are about stimulation I have repeatedly said that my point is that books provide stimulation but no more than some other media and that it is not the principal benefit of books over said other media (video games primarily). You have been in bad faith for this entire conversation repeatedly failing to grasp this point and then putting words in my mouth which you then use as evidence I contradict myself then gaslighting me when I get annoyed about you doing it. I assumed you were merely not grasping the concept before but this is clearly malicious. > I refuse to believe that your goal is to convince a stranger on the internet that instead of picking up a book they might as well binge whatever is hot on Netflix, which is all I've gathered from your words. It's good that you refuse to believe that. Maybe do a bit of reading and thinking to figure out what my actual point is. Here is a useful excerpt from past posts of mine: > It should be pretty obvious that I think the mental stimulation that is supposedly attributed to books is massively overrated which is evidenced by the fact that more mentally stimulating things do not have those same benefits attributed to them. > I think the benefit of books is limited to the information you might learn from reading them Can you figure out from these two quotes which you have access to what my position on books is? Why I think they're better than a Netflix show? Yes you can because you literally did it: > Books are about information primarily Then in the next sentence you wonder how I could possibly think that books are better for you than a medium with less information in it. I sorry if you genuinely lack the mental capacity to figure this out on your own, but you can hardly expect me not to be annoyed by it. Especially when you go out of your way to read my comment history to insult me, try a nice little game of "everyone doesn't want to be your friend", and then act all holier than thou about it.

James_K 2y ago

> Over-stimulation in the short term can be numbing in the long term by building up tolerance You are confusing mental stimulation with visual stimulation. We were talking about mental stimulation, not merely entertaining colours and lights. Mental stimulation is something which causes you to think rather than observe. > this also reduces something to a single dimension when there is really no reason or benefit in doing so Yes everything is very multidimensional and that conveniently means you never have to explain the concrete meaning of the words you chose to use.

MildlySerious 2y ago
Can you explain where you hope to take this conversation? I don't seem to understand the point you're trying to make regarding books.
- James_K 2y ago
  Then maybe try reading what I'm saying. It should be pretty obvious that I think the mental stimulation that is supposedly attributed to books is massively overrated which is evidenced by the fact that more mentally stimulating things do not have those same benefits attributed to them.
  - MildlySerious 2y ago
    Is that really a topic to be this snarky and standoffish about? What's the point?
    - James_K 2y ago
      I am annoyed by silly questions and I wish to communicate this to you. Your decision to respond with more silly questions is an interesting one.
      - MildlySerious 2y ago
        It doesn't seem like you care to communicate anything, really. You've pivoted and conflicted your own words multiple times now, and you were markedly annoyed before I asked questions, which is what prompted them in the first place. "Books are about information primarily. Then they are about stimulation, of which there is only one type. But not that kind of stimulation." You seem most interested in figuratively listening to yourself talk, because I refuse to believe that your goal is to convince a stranger on the internet that instead of picking up a book they might as well binge whatever is hot on Netflix, which is all I've gathered from your words. Your comment history seems similarly pessimistic and snarky, and other commenters in sibling threads seem to be getting a similar impression. I wish you the best. Truly.
        James_K 2y ago
        > You seem most interested in figuratively listening to yourself talk Projection. > Books are about information primarily. Then they are about stimulation I have repeatedly said that my point is that books provide stimulation but no more than some other media and that it is not the principal benefit of books over said other media (video games primarily). You have been in bad faith for this entire conversation repeatedly failing to grasp this point and then putting words in my mouth which you then use as evidence I contradict myself then gaslighting me when I get annoyed about you doing it. I assumed you were merely not grasping the concept before but this is clearly malicious. > I refuse to believe that your goal is to convince a stranger on the internet that instead of picking up a book they might as well binge whatever is hot on Netflix, which is all I've gathered from your words. It's good that you refuse to believe that. Maybe do a bit of reading and thinking to figure out what my actual point is. Here is a useful excerpt from past posts of mine: > It should be pretty obvious that I think the mental stimulation that is supposedly attributed to books is massively overrated which is evidenced by the fact that more mentally stimulating things do not have those same benefits attributed to them. > I think the benefit of books is limited to the information you might learn from reading them Can you figure out from these two quotes which you have access to what my position on books is? Why I think they're better than a Netflix show? Yes you can because you literally did it: > Books are about information primarily Then in the next sentence you wonder how I could possibly think that books are better for you than a medium with less information in it. I sorry if you genuinely lack the mental capacity to figure this out on your own, but you can hardly expect me not to be annoyed by it. Especially when you go out of your way to read my comment history to insult me, try a nice little game of "everyone doesn't want to be your friend", and then act all holier than thou about it.