One more reason, I think, that reading nonfiction is better for developing critical thinking skills in particular than watching videos about nonfiction is that the physical experience of reading a book keeps the reader in their own bearings or mindset, whereas a video experience takes most people into a more passive, consuming style of processing information. Seeing the author’s thoughts in black and white, when something confusing or unconvincing is said, it is so simple to pause and reread, perhaps go back, perhaps pull out another book. When something stunning is said, the same - it’s so simple and natural to highlight it or write it in your own notebook so you remember the line. In watching a video, in contrast, the specific words and sentences are much less noticed while watching a video, and the mind is apt to skim past something nonsensical or wrong more easily. This is actually somewhat the case as well for reading digital text v paper, https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/25/skim-reading-new-normal-maryanne-wolf. But profoundly more so for watching videos.
I agree in part. In regards to learning, books have a structured approach whereas many videos tend to be abstract, that is, part of the information you seek is there, but frequently the information tendered is not at the beginning of what you need to learn first. You wouldn't start reading a book on page 50, and then skip to page 10, that is what I refer to as abstract.Non fiction learning books tend to have considerable fact checks before they are published, Videos tend to be less reliable.
That said, Video is processed by the brain 60,000 times faster than text says Psychology Today. This statement is consistent with my own experience.I take the juxtaposition to your assertions of books being a quicker way to learn. I believe your position, that you cannot or will be less likely to be objective to the information you are being told in a video and that you are gullible if you accept what the video is telling you without applying critical thinking is merely an attempt to muddy the waters, and poisoning the well ( so to speak), anyone who happens to disagree, well the implication is that they are gullable, however, there is absolutely no evidence to support the contention that you can learn quicker from a book than a video ( anyone who believes that must be gullible.lol).
An avid book reader will agree that books are better to learn. However, that is merely confirmation bias, they believe what they want to believe unless they can adduce supporting evidence that is more compelling than counter-evidence.). The level of concentration required to fully digest the information from a book is higher than the concentration levels necessary to digest what a video requires. A video is not only telling you but also showing you.
An excellent essay, as usual Rupert. I have a small problem with attributing to THC consumption what can be more fairly attributed to the medium itself. It has long been known that the medium of television has a specific mesmerizing effect on the human brain due to the way the incomplete picture projected by light from behind the screen requires the brain to assemble a meaningful visual narrative. This accounts for the “buzz” that accompanies long-term viewing and is highly distinct from what one experiences in movie theaters, where the light is projected onto the front of the screen. This physical engagement of the brain is what makes television in all of its forms so addictive and it can (and does) lead to chronic suspension of higher thought processes such as the ability to maintain a critical perspective.
Thanks, Henry. My observation is just anecdotal, obviously, but I do know one or two Flat Earthers and bleach drinkers in real life and they always do their "research" while very high. I'd love to see some academic studies on the issue!
Two additional reasons to prefer books over YouTube videos 1. At the tedious but important end of the scale, books of the sort you're describing contain references and sources, formal and informal. You can check and cross-check facts and claims, follow up ideas and even just read a work cited for pleasure. I can't recall a YouTube video that ends with a list of references/sources 2. This marks me out as antediluvian, but to produce a physical book just needs paper, centuries-old print technology and a safe place to store the result. Access to any online material requires the technology both of us are using to produce our text; the internet communications to transmit and retrieve it; the storage to ensure its survival, probably in a vast data vault in somewhere like Nebraska, and not least the goodwill and longevity of the producer and data vault owner to ensure its survival. But of course, I still wouldn't live without my PC, full fibre broadband and mobile phone!
One more reason, I think, that reading nonfiction is better for developing critical thinking skills in particular than watching videos about nonfiction is that the physical experience of reading a book keeps the reader in their own bearings or mindset, whereas a video experience takes most people into a more passive, consuming style of processing information. Seeing the author’s thoughts in black and white, when something confusing or unconvincing is said, it is so simple to pause and reread, perhaps go back, perhaps pull out another book. When something stunning is said, the same - it’s so simple and natural to highlight it or write it in your own notebook so you remember the line. In watching a video, in contrast, the specific words and sentences are much less noticed while watching a video, and the mind is apt to skim past something nonsensical or wrong more easily. This is actually somewhat the case as well for reading digital text v paper, https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/25/skim-reading-new-normal-maryanne-wolf. But profoundly more so for watching videos.
Very good point! I agree.
I agree in part. In regards to learning, books have a structured approach whereas many videos tend to be abstract, that is, part of the information you seek is there, but frequently the information tendered is not at the beginning of what you need to learn first. You wouldn't start reading a book on page 50, and then skip to page 10, that is what I refer to as abstract.Non fiction learning books tend to have considerable fact checks before they are published, Videos tend to be less reliable.
That said, Video is processed by the brain 60,000 times faster than text says Psychology Today. This statement is consistent with my own experience.I take the juxtaposition to your assertions of books being a quicker way to learn. I believe your position, that you cannot or will be less likely to be objective to the information you are being told in a video and that you are gullible if you accept what the video is telling you without applying critical thinking is merely an attempt to muddy the waters, and poisoning the well ( so to speak), anyone who happens to disagree, well the implication is that they are gullable, however, there is absolutely no evidence to support the contention that you can learn quicker from a book than a video ( anyone who believes that must be gullible.lol).
An avid book reader will agree that books are better to learn. However, that is merely confirmation bias, they believe what they want to believe unless they can adduce supporting evidence that is more compelling than counter-evidence.). The level of concentration required to fully digest the information from a book is higher than the concentration levels necessary to digest what a video requires. A video is not only telling you but also showing you.
Interesting points. Thanks! I agree that there might be a bit of confirmation bias - I fell in love with reading as a boy.
An excellent essay, as usual Rupert. I have a small problem with attributing to THC consumption what can be more fairly attributed to the medium itself. It has long been known that the medium of television has a specific mesmerizing effect on the human brain due to the way the incomplete picture projected by light from behind the screen requires the brain to assemble a meaningful visual narrative. This accounts for the “buzz” that accompanies long-term viewing and is highly distinct from what one experiences in movie theaters, where the light is projected onto the front of the screen. This physical engagement of the brain is what makes television in all of its forms so addictive and it can (and does) lead to chronic suspension of higher thought processes such as the ability to maintain a critical perspective.
Thanks, Henry. My observation is just anecdotal, obviously, but I do know one or two Flat Earthers and bleach drinkers in real life and they always do their "research" while very high. I'd love to see some academic studies on the issue!
Two additional reasons to prefer books over YouTube videos 1. At the tedious but important end of the scale, books of the sort you're describing contain references and sources, formal and informal. You can check and cross-check facts and claims, follow up ideas and even just read a work cited for pleasure. I can't recall a YouTube video that ends with a list of references/sources 2. This marks me out as antediluvian, but to produce a physical book just needs paper, centuries-old print technology and a safe place to store the result. Access to any online material requires the technology both of us are using to produce our text; the internet communications to transmit and retrieve it; the storage to ensure its survival, probably in a vast data vault in somewhere like Nebraska, and not least the goodwill and longevity of the producer and data vault owner to ensure its survival. But of course, I still wouldn't live without my PC, full fibre broadband and mobile phone!
Great points! I agree, particularly with the first one.