Subject:
|
Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 27 Mar 2002 04:00:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1426 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > > This sounds like one of those common sense assertions, but can you back it • up?
> > > I studied education at university for seven years and I don't recall
> > > ever reading demonstration of such a correlation. (Though my personal
> > > annecdotes do suggest that as well.)
> >
> > So you're saying you agree, because you've seen this as a person..... but
> > you disagree because there is no academic proof? :)
>
> No. I'm saying that I can see how one would come, through a non-rigorous
> examination, to believe that stance. But even when a correlation is shown
> (which we haven't pointed to) it says nothing of causality.
You'll have to forgive this member of the laity, but I'm kind of unsure what
you're saying here. Do you mean to say that even when a link is shown to
exist, there is no explanation of it's cause? I'm having trouble with
this..... perhaps you can elaborate?
> > You can never 'see' as much on TV as you can in a book. The very act of
> > reading involves making gigantic connections between abstract symbols and
> > abstract concepts. It is inherently more difficult and engaging than visual
> > media. The exception, which is difficult to compare, would be music, which
> > is inherently visceral. Although while it's tough to learn to build a house
> > by listening to music, with a book it can be done.
>
> Your stance on music is interesting but I'm not enough of a music person to
> really get into it.
Music is called the 'universal language' for a reason. It speaks to, or
communicates directly with the heart, bypassing the brain altogether.
However, it doesn't always speak to each person in exactly the same way,
which is why it makes a poor delivery channel for instructions on how to
make a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich.
> I would say that you can never 'see' as much in a book as
> you can on TV. The connection of abstracts that you mention WRT reading...do
> you mean the deciphering of text symbols into meaningful words and ideas?
Yes, exactly. It's knowing the difference between this set of symbols:
diraeng
and this set:
reading
same symbols, different meanings depending upon how they are interpreted.
The act of being able to interpret them correctly is profoundly important.
If I show you a picture of a tree on TV, you see..... a tree. If I describe
a tree in a book, you are forced to decipher a series of symbols into words
which you then connect into a mental image of a tree. I'm no scientist, but
I'm fairly certain that the latter requires connecting many more synapses
than the former.
> Surely you realize that's what happens when you hear an utterance, right?
It does happen, but it's less profound. There is a direct link between the
sender and the receiver. With words, there is a less distinct connection.
The ideas and symbols are more abstract and require more re-engineering on
the part of the person deciphering the message.
> Or
> are you addressing the difficulty in teaching abstract notions with documentary
> film as the medium rather than books? I bet I could design a one hour program
> on irrational numbers that would convey the idea to John Q. Public much better
> than any one hour of reading would.
I gave up studying the irrational years ago, I found it illogical. :)
> Further, you are surely not suggesting that you can't learn to build a house by
> watching videos...right?
You can. But how long is this video? Can I take it to the worksite with
me? Does it include all the charts, graphs, figures, drawings and other
reference materials that I need? Or does it give a nice overview, with easy
to understand visual steps?
> > The importance of reading may be lost on the well-educated as they know no
> > different. But when you see the difference that reading makes in the lives
> > of average people, you stop wondering why reading is important and simply
> > accept that it is.
>
> I think that it is rather...you grow up accepting that it is (I'm pretty sure
> that most people, even those who read poorly accept that reading is important)
> and then if you examine it deeply enough you begin to question it.
This is where I'm sincerely confused by your argument Chris. You seem to be
saying that a person who is well-read and well-educated knows that reading
isn't terribly important. I guess I would throw this back at you and ask
why you feel this way?
> > Perhaps we are confusing ourselves with the difference between reading (as
> > in actively engaging in it) and the ability to read at all.
> >
> > Reading is so fundamentally critical to our everyday existence that you can
> > hardly function without it. How would someone read this debate if they had
> > never learned to read? How would they fill out a job application? Or a
> > form in a doctor's office?
>
> I'm not suggesting illiteracy as a way of life. People should be (and
> basically are) familiar enough with the written word to get along, filling out
> forms and ordering at McDonalds. We're (at least that's what you were
> taling about earlier) talking about people who choose to read recreationally.
I still stand by my feelings that those people who do read recreationally
are generally more likely to read other things that may not be recreational,
but may enhance their lives. Examples: company financial reports, medical
research, automobile or other product reviews, sports scores, science
articles, etc. In other words, they may read something, somewhere that
might just make their life more interesting, more informed or just more
entertained. But no matter how you slice it, reading anything is better
than reading nothing.
> > > > Reading isn't just important for a healthy mind, it's essential.
> > >
> > > For what?
> >
> > Perhaps you're not a reader. I think anyone who's ever made that intimate
> > connection with a special novel can answer this question in their own head.
>
> I am. So you're basically saying that making a connection with a favorite
> novel is essential for a healthy mind?
Yes. I don't trust anyone who can't name their favorite novel.
To those without a favorite book I suggest trying to find one, then reading
it at least once every couple of years, to remind yourself how wonderful it
is to read your favorite book. And yes, I follow my own advice.
> > It may not be possible to express it in words, but it's possible to feel it
> > none-the-less.
>
> Let's keep working on it.
On trying to express, in words, the importance of reading? I'm game.
> > > Since many people do seem to get along quite nicely without advanced
> > > reading skills, I'd say that the reality is that reading is obviously not
> > > essential.
> >
> > You can 'get along' but you can rarely advance.
>
> Advance?
Mentally, spiritually, technologically...... we humans have a knack for
advancing. And how rapid has our advance been since the invention of the
printing press which gave reading to the masses.
> > You stretch your mind by
> > creating the pictures that accompany the words; by filling out the details
> > of what isn't written about, not just taking in what's actually on the page.
>
> I enjoy that activity too. But I'm not sure how it affects the ability to
> thrive.
A mind that isn't exercised is prone to whither and weaken. Watching TV,
listening to music, surfing the web. They're all good exercise; perhaps
akin to a leisurely walk in the park. But reading is like running a
marathon at the pace of a 100 yard dash.
> > You'll have to help me. You have said at least twice now that you agree
> > with some of the things being said, but you again insist that reading isn't
> > all that important. I'm confused.
>
> I think there are lots of things you can spend time doing. Virtually all of
> them are instructive. Reading is but one of many ways of taking in
> information. I object to the place reading occupies in our common educational
> paradigm as and end in itself.
I honestly have trouble understanding an objection to trying to get people
to read. Be they young or old, I think reading should be wholely
encouraged. I've never met a person who was worse off for reading.
> Further, I don't think that reading should be taught as a subject in school.
> All the research (John Holt, Daniel Greenberg, A.S. Neil, etc.) that I can find
> suggests that kids who are not pressured at all to learn to read, but are in a
> literate environment, learn to read when they are ready and all of them choose
> to read for the rest of their lives. The act of teaching reading creates balky
> readers who think of it as a chore.
You said the magic word..... pressured. You are 100% correct. Kids should
never be pressured to read. They should be *encoraged* to read. Let them
read anything...... everything. This is what burns my britches about people
who object to kids reading the Harry Potter books. At least they're
reading. And, according to the scholarly folks you noted above, if they
like this reading and are doing it willingly, then they will choose to read
for the rest of their lives.
Don't get me wrong.... I'm not talking about every kid reading the same
book. I'm talking about every kid reading ANY book.
> > It is O.K. But some people also don't value brushing their teeth everyday.
> > Should we accept that habit? Or should we try to encourage them to do
> > something that is probably good for them. Reading is like flossing your mind.
>
> It stands unproven that reading is so much more valuable a mental exercise
> than e.g. conversation that it should be strongly encouraged.
Conversation is terribly important and should be likewise encouraged. But
if you aren't well and widely read, then from where do you draw your
vocabulary and language skills?
> > > Some people learn really powerfully by reading and others have a hard
> > > time without discussion. People are different. Reading has been placed on • an
> > > educational alter largely because it was the primary way that we passed
> > > information around for a long long time.
> >
> > But if it ain't broke, why fix it?
>
> Oh but before the technology of the written word was invented information was
> quite handily passed down through oral traditions. That wasn't broke(en)
> either. Why fix it?
Because something better did come along. The written word. It allowed
ideas to live on, past their orators... this was a vital link in passing on
advanced ideas so that each generation didn't have to reinvent them.
I'm not convinced that any of the 'modern' technologies are any better than
the printed word. After all, without reading, the web would be nothing more
than a bunch of blurry pictures surrounded by incomprehensible symbols.
> Because an advance in technology allowed us to do more! And that keeps
> happening.
>
> > How do you learn to use these advanced technologies if you can't read the
> > user's manual? ;)
>
> The emoticon suggests that this was a throw-away line, but I think it's a
> good question. Have you ever read the manual for your computer?
Yes, but then I'm a reader. :)
I've read a number of computer books, from networking to operating systems
and from programming to HTML. It's the way I learn best. I can't imagine
having learned Visual Basic from a video tape. There's simply too much
detail to squeeze into a few hours of visual media.
> I
> haven't...at least not since ~1982. I don't read the manuals for my VCR, DVD
> player, Laser Disc player, Blender, Toaster or Microwave. And my son (who's
> seven) hasn't either. Yet we can use all of those devices just fine.
I don't doubt this to be true, I just don't follow this path myself. Just
last night I was reading the manual for a $10 clock radio that I just
bought. Yes, I'm that much of a reader.
All the best!
Allan B.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
