3 ms·

[Reading articles online is] a shallow kind of learning. I couldn't agree more, and often wonder if we've even begun to work out the implications of this.

• greenyoda 14y ago
  I also agree, and I'm also troubled by how addicted I've become to shallowly browsing dozens of such articles a day. I find that it's getting harder and harder for me to concentrate on something like a lengthy book for long periods of time, something I used to do frequently. But it's ironic that the author of that article is himself writing articles in his blog for people to read online - articles that contain some interesting opinions but have no particularly deep content.
  • bdr 14y ago
    Working on it...
• madiator 14y ago
  Yes but one should not leave it out altogether. There is always a tradeoff between exploration and exploitation. One needs to explore around for ideas but not forget to dig deep into the task at hand (or whatever it is). If one has read Richard Hamming's "You and your research", this is what he refers to by advising one to keep his/her door open while working.
  • gruseom 14y ago
    Excuse my irritability, but no one here needs to hear that "one should not leave [the internet] out altogether". And this is obviously not what Hamming was talking about in 1986.
    • madiator 14y ago
      Just to make it clear, I was agreeing with you for the most part, except that I decided to add my own viewpoint. If that offends you, sorry about that.
      • gruseom 14y ago
        I'm not offended personally and hope you feel the same. Let me try to explain what my issue is. I object to the cheap argument for "balance" that commonly shows up when someone is making a specific point. "By all means, let's acknowledge X, but on the other hand let's not throw out Y" -- that kind of thing. I object because it's so unobjectionable. Who could be against it? It just sits there like a big impassive blob pumping lukewarm water into the conversation and diluting everything interesting about it. That is what I felt your comment did. But my annoyance is at the general phenomenon, not at you. That's part of the problem with these patterns; you can't object to them without changing the subject even further (and coming across as a jerk). The interesting thing in the current conversation is the question of how and why reading articles on the internet is comparatively shallow, more shallow than it would seem like it ought to be from the surface. Speaking metaphorically (and no I do not have "data" on this), it is as if it provides druglike stimulation to some outer layer of the brain without ever reaching the deeper, slower layers where the truly valuable transformations are possible. Or, to change the metaphor, it is like the difference between sugar highs and nutrition. It seems clear that it is an addictive cycle, leading to a starvation problem: we spend so much time at the shallow stimulation that we have little left for deep reflection. It reminds me of rats in a cage pushing a lever for cocaine pellets. I sometimes wonder if future generations will look back on this as an epidemic that took a while to recognize and get under control.