Subject:
|
Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:23:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1478 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
>
> > > 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?
>
> Does it offend you that I hobby-research lay opinion on education or something?
No, not at all. I honestly meant what I said. It's just that some of your
terminology and phrases were way above my head. See the two paragraphs
below for further examples.
But to be honest again, I didn't realize you were researching anything. I
thought we were just debating. :)
> A correlation says that when you observe X, you are to some extent likely to
> ovserve Y as well. Y might be phrased as _not_ Z which means that X and Z are
> inversely correlated. Level of formal education and childhood socio-economic
> status are inversely correlated.
>
> To demonstrate a correlation between two factors does not at all demonstrate a
> causal link. I can't look at the data, pronounce the correlation between
> education and SES, and say that poor families don't have equall access to
> education. There are tons of other causal and non-causal explanations that
> have to be explored.
Chris, I don't mean to harp on this point, but I just don't see what you're
trying to get at in the two paragraphs above. Can you perhaps use an
analogy or two for those of us who haven't studied education at a university
level?
> > Music is called the 'universal language' for a reason. It speaks to, or
> > communicates directly with the heart, bypassing the brain altogether.
>
> I'm not sure how to discuss this. I assume you are openly romanticizing about
> the affective results of music, but it kind of clouds the issue for me.
I'm openly and proudly romanticizing music. Sorry to cloud any issues. I'm
not sure how this is a problem though. :)
> > 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.
>
> But consider the difference in time that it takes. I can absorb tree in a
> fraction of a second from a picture. It takes several seconds for me to
> process the description of the same tree in writing. Even if your hypothesis
> about synaptic activity is correct, I can continue to process maybe 25 other
> tree images in the time it's taking you to read about the one. So how does
> synaptic activity across the same frame of time compare?
You seem to have mentioned this point at least once before. The issue of
time vs. amount learned in that time period. Could it be that you feel
books are simply less efficient than multi-media in terms of how much you
learn over a given time span?
If that's so, I would just add that I have found that 'cramming' or quick
study, no matter what the delivery method, is rarely effective.... for me.
Perhaps others feel different. I like the idea of taking my time to learn,
comprehend and ultimately retain any knowledge I'm seeking.
> > The ideas and symbols are more abstract and require more re-engineering on
> > the part of the person deciphering the message.
>
> How so? I don't agree off hand, but maybe you have an angle that I'm missing.
Perhaps an example might help illustrate the point I think I'm trying to
make. :)
If I put in a movie with sounds of a dog barking in it, my dog will respond
by barking back at the dog that she thinks she hears. The sound of the dog
doesn't require my dog to utilize any skills or knowledge to understand the
sound. However, if you show my dog a page in a book that describes a dog
barking..... well, she just doesn't get it.
The point I guess I'm trying to make is that reading is infinitely more
complicated than hearing or seeing something. The very act of creating the
words from the letters is something we need to respect, cherish and ensure
is never lost to the relative ease of 'multi-media'. How much you learn in
a hour, or two or ten isn't really as big an issue as are you intelligent
enough to make these squiggily lines into meaningful data? We, as people,
are that intelligent. It would be a shame to lose it by sitting in front of
a screen and simply absorbing information.
Now keep in mind that you're hearing this from a guy who spent the better
part of his youth sitting (and eating, and building with LEGO) in front of
the TV. But I never stopped reading and, in fact, learned to adore reading
even more as I grew older.
> > 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?
>
> No, I don't mean that. What I mean is that most people in our society don't
> question that reading is important. I would guess that those who do question
> this notion tend to have thought about it a bunch, and those who have, probably
> study it and are thus educated. I think it takes a certain amount of immersion
> in a paradigm -- studying the details, to be able to break through to something
> new.
So you're saying that those who do question the importance of reading
ultimately find it to be........ ?
You don't have to worry about taking a stand and simply stating an opinion.
I won't take offense to that, as I do it all the time. I think we've gotten
too afraid of stating opinions anymore and too worried about backing
everything up with facts. If everything in the world had to be backed up
with pure fact and nothing could be based, even in part, on opinion then we
would never have reached the moon.
> > 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.
>
> I agree. And those who watch TV recreationally are more likely to catch
> instructive programs while flipping through the stations. Those programs too
> may enhance their lives.
Absolutely! I hope I haven't given the impression that I'm somehow
anti-media if it isn't in book form. Far from it. Channels like Discovery,
TLC, The History Channel etc. all make for a great use of time. But do I
want a surgeon who's only ever watched 'Operation' on the Discovery channel
cutting into me? :)
> And if they weren't busy spending all that _time_ reading, they might be
> exposed to more topics through other more accessible media.
Again, see notes above. I think movies, music and *some* TV are great ways
of spending your time.
> > > 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.
>
> OK. I guess we disagree.
It's like the person who can't name their favorite album. I guess I just
surround myself with people who do have a favorite book, a favorite CD, a
favorite movie. People who are willing to simply say, "This is my favorite
thing....... because."
> > 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.
>
> I don't think so. If reading were such hard work, people wouldn't do it much.
I didn't mean to indicate it was hard work. I think once you've learned to
do it, it's quite easy. But you have to keep it oiled and functioning. The
analogy I used at the end there may not be the best, but I think your mind
can get soft if you don't work at it. And again, I still think reading
requires that extra something that visual and audio don't. See dog example
above. :)
> I've never met a person who was worse off for reading.
>
> You don't really know that.
Well, from my point of view, I do. I associate more often with people who
do read recreationally. And none of them are any the worse for wear by
doing so.
> How do you know that a person wouldn't have been
> better off engaging in some other activity for the time that was spent reading?
Guess I've never gone looking. :)
> And who gets to define "better off" anyway? When you want people to be
> encouraged to read, how do you imagine this encouragement taking place?
> Bribery?
Why not. Whatever works. If we're both right, that people will eventually
come to it and learn to enjoy it, then how they get started is irrelevant.
> > 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.
>
> On this we seem to agree completely.
Out of all this..... at least there is one thing. :)
> > 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.
>
> So if TV (or multimedia, really) is a better technology, then we should fully
> adopt it as well, right?
You might have a point. After all, the internet/computers etc. are now
approaching the two-way communication that TV first promised. In the
beginning, TV was to be a way in which children could attend school from
home. It was to be a two-way transmission, not a broadcast medium. Shame
it didn't work out that way in the beginning. But with the newer
interactive technologies, perhaps it's time to more fully bring them into
the educational stream. Without leaving our paperbacks and textbooks
behind. :)
> > 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.
>
> I get audio from my web browser. And further, if we were more geared toward
> audio communication, the web would be different.
But again, you can't stick a laptop into a backpack and take it deep into
the woods and prop yourself up beneath a tree and read Hemmingway. Well,
you can, but without the smell of a cheap paperback and the sound of pages
being flipped, it just isn't the same. :)
> > I've read a number of computer books, from networking to operating systems
> > and from programming to HTML.
>
> Me too. Same categories even. But they aren't the end all of educational
> technology.
>
> > 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.
>
> Did you learn VB in a few hours of reading? If so, your uptake is pretty
> phenominal. And if so, why couldn't you have been exposed to the same content
> through some kind of interactive teaching application that played video and
> simulated the programming environment for you?
To learn the amount of VB I need for my job, I would think the videos would
have had to have been dozens of hours long. I can't imagine sitting and
'watching' someone else coding.
I've also tried online learning at work. A sysytem that incorporates text,
audio commentary and animation. It takes me way too much coffee to get
through an hour of that stuff. I'll take a book anyday, no matter how dry.
All the best!
Allan B.
|
|
Message has 2 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
|
|
|
|
