3 ms·

Is reading morally superior? It seems like greater society (with the apps) is rapidly changing back to an oral culture which seems to be humanity’s default sett

Is reading morally superior? It seems like greater society (with the apps) is rapidly changing back to an oral culture which seems to be humanity’s default setting. Edit - via the visual boost of short form video

JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
> Is reading morally superior? No. Of course not. Someone who can't read due to mental disability isn't morally inferior to someone who can and does.
- BoingBoomTschak 3mo ago
  He obviously meant "is choosing to spend your time reading morally superior", though.
  - JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
    > He obviously meant "is choosing to spend your time reading morally superior", though Sure. I'm answering it by another measure. Killing is, ceteris paribus, morally inferior to not killing. I'd argue a psychopath is henceforth morally debilitated despite it not really being their "fault" that they're born without empathy. This, in turn, helps me conclude that a murderer is, in fact, doing wrong. Same here. Someone who can't read isn't inherently less morally capable than someone who can. What reading gives one is the capacity to gain a better understanding of ethics and morals. So I'd guess folks who read books are, on average, more intelligent and at least seeking to conduct themselves in a more moral fashion than someone who doesn't. But that doesn't make spending time reading morally superior to some other activity.
    - legacynl 3mo ago
      That reading gives the capacity to gain a better understanding, doesn't mean that all readers use it that way. The act of reading itself doesn't make the people more willing to be more understanding. Someone who cannot read could have the same desire for understanding and might choose to engage that desire by talking to people in person. The fact that the latter doesn't read, doesn't make him less morally superior. The only correlation that reading and intelligence have is that intelligent people find it easier to read, and therefore enjoy reading more, and therefore read more. It's not the other way around.
  - legacynl 3mo ago
    I hate these discussions on HN. Unless we first agree on what 'good' and 'bad' are, this question is basically nonsense. In any case, what you choose to do on your own in your free time has basically no moral or ethical impact whatsoever.
    - BoingBoomTschak 3mo ago
      No man is an island, you know.
szundi 3mo ago
[dead]
augustocallejas 3mo ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48830868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48830868
Yizahi 3mo ago
For a long time learning required a primary attention of a person. Usually a monopoly attention. You can't read printed text and do something else in parallel (fidgeting doesn't count). Radio and TV facilitated background viewing and listening but there weren't many options to personalize those. And then IT revolution happened and humanity discovered that they can do something as a primary attention task and "learn" in background by listening to a narrated educational media. And with the invention of speed-up, those people are now debating is x2 speed-up too slow, and just how fast can they go while still discerning words. it's my personal hot-take, but I think that a majority of those background listeners are doing performative "learning" and aren't learning anything really. It's just to brag once a year that they have "read" 100+ books in a year and post a wall of covers or a number on their social network feed. Basically, books aren't morally superior media than anything else really. But focused and monopoly attention dedicated to some media is morally superior to a performative background "learning". Books simply eliminate even a possibility of reading them in background.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
protocolture 3mo ago
>Is reading morally superior? Yes. Because its less information that "Oral" which is just video content. Text is raw information. Viewing a person speaking is Information + social and context clues. Clues that humans find it very hard to resist. We are social mammals built to fathom our place in the hierarchy by listening to the noises and expressions of other mammals. People will tell you that they love science or philosophy or something, but often what they actually love is the person telling them about it. With monetised content being the norm these days, people are exploiting these side channels while handing out sub par information. And it works. You only need to look at the flat earth movement, almost entirely built on video content, to see the truth in this. People aren't signing up to be flat earthers because the information is valid, they are signing up because they like the people giving them the faulty information. No we would absolutely be better off going back to reading. Its much healthier.

JumpCrisscross 3mo ago

> Is reading morally superior? No. Of course not. Someone who can't read due to mental disability isn't morally inferior to someone who can and does.

BoingBoomTschak 3mo ago
He obviously meant "is choosing to spend your time reading morally superior", though.
- JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
  > He obviously meant "is choosing to spend your time reading morally superior", though Sure. I'm answering it by another measure. Killing is, ceteris paribus, morally inferior to not killing. I'd argue a psychopath is henceforth morally debilitated despite it not really being their "fault" that they're born without empathy. This, in turn, helps me conclude that a murderer is, in fact, doing wrong. Same here. Someone who can't read isn't inherently less morally capable than someone who can. What reading gives one is the capacity to gain a better understanding of ethics and morals. So I'd guess folks who read books are, on average, more intelligent and at least seeking to conduct themselves in a more moral fashion than someone who doesn't. But that doesn't make spending time reading morally superior to some other activity.
  - legacynl 3mo ago
    That reading gives the capacity to gain a better understanding, doesn't mean that all readers use it that way. The act of reading itself doesn't make the people more willing to be more understanding. Someone who cannot read could have the same desire for understanding and might choose to engage that desire by talking to people in person. The fact that the latter doesn't read, doesn't make him less morally superior. The only correlation that reading and intelligence have is that intelligent people find it easier to read, and therefore enjoy reading more, and therefore read more. It's not the other way around.
- legacynl 3mo ago
  I hate these discussions on HN. Unless we first agree on what 'good' and 'bad' are, this question is basically nonsense. In any case, what you choose to do on your own in your free time has basically no moral or ethical impact whatsoever.
  - BoingBoomTschak 3mo ago
    No man is an island, you know.

szundi 3mo ago

[dead]

augustocallejas 3mo ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48830868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48830868

Yizahi 3mo ago

For a long time learning required a primary attention of a person. Usually a monopoly attention. You can't read printed text and do something else in parallel (fidgeting doesn't count). Radio and TV facilitated background viewing and listening but there weren't many options to personalize those. And then IT revolution happened and humanity discovered that they can do something as a primary attention task and "learn" in background by listening to a narrated educational media. And with the invention of speed-up, those people are now debating is x2 speed-up too slow, and just how fast can they go while still discerning words. it's my personal hot-take, but I think that a majority of those background listeners are doing performative "learning" and aren't learning anything really. It's just to brag once a year that they have "read" 100+ books in a year and post a wall of covers or a number on their social network feed. Basically, books aren't morally superior media than anything else really. But focused and monopoly attention dedicated to some media is morally superior to a performative background "learning". Books simply eliminate even a possibility of reading them in background.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

protocolture 3mo ago

>Is reading morally superior? Yes. Because its less information that "Oral" which is just video content. Text is raw information. Viewing a person speaking is Information + social and context clues. Clues that humans find it very hard to resist. We are social mammals built to fathom our place in the hierarchy by listening to the noises and expressions of other mammals. People will tell you that they love science or philosophy or something, but often what they actually love is the person telling them about it. With monetised content being the norm these days, people are exploiting these side channels while handing out sub par information. And it works. You only need to look at the flat earth movement, almost entirely built on video content, to see the truth in this. People aren't signing up to be flat earthers because the information is valid, they are signing up because they like the people giving them the faulty information. No we would absolutely be better off going back to reading. Its much healthier.