Subject:
|
Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Mar 2002 05:24:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1394 times
|
| |
|
|
To Allan, Chris, and all others interested:
My humorous input: I must say that I simply could not live without reading
LEGO Idea Books.... <grin>
Okay, now my less humorous input: I think I will have to side with Allan
(based on his previous post) in that reading and learning are separate things.
I love both, and in my life the two have been related, but there is no proof
that other media are less effective in this manner. ...at least not inasmuch as
it would negatively impact the average person's life.
Most of the things we read in print are either journalism or text-books. The
former rarely provides more than does broadcast journalism (IMHO). Books,
although capable of much greater depth, are still mass-media (developed and
manufactured by more than one person for the intellectual use by many people).
I imagine in the days that the printing press was first used that some people
somewhere were debating this same issue (Monk #1: "Man, kids today have it
easy." Monk #2: "I know. How can they learn anything when they don't have to
spend months memorizing and scribing each single page with a quill??")
Television (at least what I have seen of it) does have a fair share of useless
entertainment, but so does print media. If you watch documentaries (such as
those presented by the Discovery networks) you are likely to get a rudimentary
overview of a subject, and at best a peaked interest in a particular topic.
This is both the advantage and disadvantage of television. For someone who is
not a scholar or an enthusiast in a subject, television can teach the basics of
a topic, and with a different topic every hour or so, a viewer can learn about
quite a few things in one night (if they watch the right networks).
But the advantages of T.V. pretty much end there. For those whose interest is
sparked on a topic, books (true text books, not print journalism) can provide a
far greater depth of knowledge. An hour long documentary on Discovery can
often be found in just the summary of one chapter of a book. For most people,
that's all the information they need about Killer Asteroids or the Secrets of
Demolition or How Plants Grow. But for true knowledge, only a book can go
beyond that. If you have interest, and if you have a little more time, I
recommend you read the book...
So reading in general is not key to learning, but it does open up a greater
knowledge. Only through reading about a subject can a person become an expert
on it.
But reading does provide one other important thing (as implied in some of the
earlier posts): communication skills. Television is usually fast paced, even
more so during the commercials (of which there is often more than programming
here in the U.S.). This lends toward smaller vocabulary, frequent use of buzz
words, and an increase in unprofessional terms and grammer. Those who read, be
it non-fiction texts or novels, are far more likely to have a firm grasp of
their language. Such skill goes beyond mere vocabulary and grammer as it
acutally impacts the reader's ability to formulate thoughts, reason through
arguments, and present their beliefs in logical, intelligent, and sometimes
impressive ways. This is where (IMO), reading is important. Would I have been
able to write all I just did, here in this forum, had I never read a book?
My 2 Bricks,
-Hendo
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
59 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
