What we lose by reading 100,000 words every day • Hacker News Board

Re: What we lose by reading 100,000 words every day

#91

Post by EGreg » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 8:58 PM UTC

jasode wrote: post #41

EGreg wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For anyone who found the above too long, basically she means that deep reading often wastes too much time and you don’t know ahead of time what to read. She didn’t mention that you can check other shorter sources before you commit to reading, like reading this comment before hers.

>, basically she means that deep reading often wastes too much time I apologize that you found my text length was too long but I thought the extra background was necessary to state why deep reading is often a waste of time. If I only state a 1 sentence punchline in my original post, it can seem like a cheap hit-and-run comment and therefore not really engaging with the article's arguments. (Or the extreme brevity wou…

I was just making a joke, with a few layers :)

Part of that joke was that I probably got your gender wrong while summarizing, and I made it like I missed what you said about the “HN contents” because I skimmed too fast before I summarized in my own comment.

Kind of meta that the comments which we may look to, before reading the article, may themselves have skimmed it and missed the point!

To make the joke more obvious I also replied to my own comment!

Re: What we lose by reading 100,000 words every day

#92

Post by daveslash » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 9:16 PM UTC

tinalumfoil wrote: post #88

daveslash wrote: post #73

This reminds me of Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 . Many people believe the story to be about censorship, but Bradbury himself (in his later years) publicly claimed it was about peoples' increasingly short attention spans. In Fahrenheit 451 , people were afraid of books because the stories, thoughts, and concepts were more than mere sound-bytes and were thus unintelligible to the masses with shortened attention spans.…

I tried reading 451 once, since it seemed up my alley. I got about a chapter in, put it down and never picked it up again. It wasn't that I didn't like the book (I don't remember if I did), but I just happened to get really busy right after that and just forgot that I ever started reading. Maybe if I had read it I would understand the importance of having an attention long enough to finish the book. Thing is if I had…

Good point. I enjoyed it, but never picked up on the attention-span lesson at all; I read it thinking it was about censorship. I know now that the author's intent was to write a story about attention-span. I now take it to be a social commentary. Side-note: after reading the book, I rented the movie on DVD. The DVD had a scratch on it -- a scene faded out, the player hit the scratch and skipped ahead... it landed on a fade in scene. I didn't even notice. The movie I watched was only about 20 minutes and I thought "man, they left out a lot of stuff".

Re: What we lose by reading 100,000 words every day

#93

Post by bllguo » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 9:29 PM UTC

daveslash wrote: post #92

tinalumfoil wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried reading 451 once, since it seemed up my alley. I got about a chapter in, put it down and never picked it up again. It wasn't that I didn't like the book (I don't remember if I did), but I just happened to get really busy right after that and just forgot that I ever started reading. Maybe if I had read it I would understand the importance of having an attention long enough to finish the book. Thing is if I had…

Good point. I enjoyed it, but never picked up on the attention-span lesson at all; I read it thinking it was about censorship. I know now that the author's intent was to write a story about attention-span. I now take it to be a social commentary. Side-note: after reading the book, I rented the movie on DVD. The DVD had a scratch on it -- a scene faded out, the player hit the scratch and skipped ahead... it landed on…

bradbury's stance on Fahrenheit 451 is what convinced me that authorial intent is irrelevant.

Re: What we lose by reading 100,000 words every day

#94

Post by dpark » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 9:43 PM UTC

longerthoughts wrote: post #87

dpark wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but many people read tweets and novels, just as many people watch short clips on YouTube but also watch 3-hour films and binge watch entire drama series on Netflix. I don’t see much evidence that consuming fluff significantly impacts our ability to consume material with depth. With the exception that they are competing for time.

It's less about depth vs fluff than sustained focus and engagement vs scattered, rapid micro-doses of information. Yes, many people read both tweets and novels, but they have different demands and the brain adapts. Somebody who exclusively reads tweets could be less adapted to effectively engaging with a novel than somebody who reads both novels and tweets, and both people would be less effective than somebody who ex…

The problem is the utter lack of evidence for the claim. The assertion that reading tweets makes it harder to read novels is not supported by any evidence I’m aware of.

You can find plenty of people saying “I stopped reading books because of [X,Y, or Z] and now it’s harder to read books”. But the common thread there is not X, Y, or Z. It’s “I stopped reading books”.

The idea that “adaptation” to one type of reading makes other types of reading harder doesn’t sound unreasonable but that doesn’t mean it’s actually true. Adaptation to running doesn’t exactly make walking harder.

Re: What we lose by reading 100,000 words every day

#95

Post by gutnor » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 10:09 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #69

bootsz wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've definitely noticed it myself. I have a much harder time reading novels or any long-form content these days, and I suspect it's due to consuming lots of very-short-form content on a daily basis. On HN and elsewhere on the internet you can consume a huge number of distinct ideas in a very short time. This causes me to now be impatient with long-form pieces where I find myself wanting to just "get to the point alre…

What kind of long-form content do you have problems with? All kinds, or just long-form articles/journalism we're told we're supposed to enjoy? I have huge problems with the latter, but that's just because I hate fluff, and most of those articles are 10% content and 90% offtopic musings about boring things (like life stories and emotions of people tangentially related to the main theme). Wanting a piece to "get to the…

> 10% content and 90% offtopic musings about boring things

The worst problem I have with them is the structure. It is bait and switch, structured a bit like US TV Shows:

"Coming Next - you will learn the extraordinary conclusion X reached", but first let's go back 20 years to X formative years. Back to the present, X started working on Y where he made his huge discovery, but before talking about it let me give some context. And now you know why it is important, and X has been taking an original approach, to really understand how original, let me explain you all the other approaches first, except I won't explain any of those fully, just jump back and forth from one to the other, not necessarily in chronological order, just to build some sort of bullshit tension leading up to ... the sister of X explaining what she thinks of X and now we are back 40 year to learn about X grand parent living in the rigour of communist somewhere would create the core family value X is the present culmination of ...

You can't even reach directly to the end because the conclusion it is wrapped in pages of semi-intellectual musing.

edit: Make me think also of the semi-intellectual vocabulary. Nothing should be said clearly. X didn't have a dog, he "had a canine confident that contrasted with the rest of the family which was generally more attracted to the feline order"

Re: What we lose by reading 100,000 words every day

#96

Post by starshadowx2 » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 10:35 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #70

AlwaysRock wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I consume books endlessly and almost always have... Unless I stop. A few times in my life I've started reading a book and when it didnt hold my interest I stopped picking it up. 3 months to a year later I would come across an interesting book and then it was back to constantly reading. To help avoid this situation I've made it part of my morning routine to read for 15 minutes every morning (keeps the world/stor…

I actually limit my exposure to novels because I find it extremely hard to stop reading once I start. I'll stay up way too late, and sneak reading in throughout the day, basically doing whatever I have to to continue and finish the story. I enjoy this process, as it keeps me immersed, but it's not healthy.

You may find webserials interesting. They're novels (generally multiple novels in length) published a couple/few chapters a week. You may get into the binge mood if you're reading one already completed or catching up with one currently publishing but once you're at the point waiting it's really nice to be forced to stop and wait.

Re: What we lose by reading 100,000 words every day

#97

Post by romwell » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 11:23 PM UTC

hodgesrm wrote: post #75

kbenson wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually limit my exposure to novels because I find it extremely hard to stop reading once I start. I'll stay up way too late, and sneak reading in throughout the day, basically doing whatever I have to to continue and finish the story. I enjoy this process, as it keeps me immersed, but it's not healthy.

Binge reading was serious problem with the Stieg Larsson Millenium novels, starting with 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo'. I didn't sleep much until I finished them.

I remember that. Nothing else was done while I was reading them.

Seriously, that's why I read so few books - it's like jumping on a long-haul express train, when I really need to get off in 30 minutes to do all that I need to do. But nooooooooo.

I'm very thankful to authors that have chapters with a small sense of closure, it somewhat alleviates the problem.

The last book I read was "To Say Nothing Of The Dog" by Connie Willis - a great sci-fi - and it had this property, along with a brief summary of the chapter preceding it (a summary that somehow was not a spoiler!), in the style of "Three Men In A Boat (to say nothing of the dog)" -- yet another great brook that inspired this one.

It really helped me to put it down and go to bed at night, and I wish other authors followed suit.

Re: What we lose by reading 100,000 words every day

#98

Post by longerthoughts » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 11:38 PM UTC

dpark wrote: post #94

longerthoughts wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's less about depth vs fluff than sustained focus and engagement vs scattered, rapid micro-doses of information. Yes, many people read both tweets and novels, but they have different demands and the brain adapts. Somebody who exclusively reads tweets could be less adapted to effectively engaging with a novel than somebody who reads both novels and tweets, and both people would be less effective than somebody who ex…

The problem is the utter lack of evidence for the claim. The assertion that reading tweets makes it harder to read novels is not supported by any evidence I’m aware of. You can find plenty of people saying “I stopped reading books because of [X,Y, or Z] and now it’s harder to read books”. But the common thread there is not X, Y, or Z. It’s “I stopped reading books”. The idea that “adaptation” to one type of reading m…

> The idea that “adaptation” to one type of reading makes other types of reading harder doesn’t sound unreasonable

This is all I'm saying. Neuroplasticity is fairly well-documented and the author's theory seems plausible based on what we know about it.

> You can find plenty of people saying “I stopped reading books because of [X,Y, or Z] and now it’s harder to read books”.

Unless those people are all living off the grid, they were also reading through different mediums during the time that they weren't reading books. Again, seems reasonable that both have an impact, but you can hardly claim this as evidence for your theory and reject it as evidence for the author's theory given that both suggested factors were imposed simultaneously.

Re: What we lose by reading 100,000 words every day

#99

Post by bigger_cheese » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 11:38 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #70

AlwaysRock wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I consume books endlessly and almost always have... Unless I stop. A few times in my life I've started reading a book and when it didnt hold my interest I stopped picking it up. 3 months to a year later I would come across an interesting book and then it was back to constantly reading. To help avoid this situation I've made it part of my morning routine to read for 15 minutes every morning (keeps the world/stor…

I actually limit my exposure to novels because I find it extremely hard to stop reading once I start. I'll stay up way too late, and sneak reading in throughout the day, basically doing whatever I have to to continue and finish the story. I enjoy this process, as it keeps me immersed, but it's not healthy.

Oh wow I have exactly the same problem. I really dislike putting down a novel half read I usually won't start reading until I know I'll be able to spend a large amount of uninterupted time on it. Which typically means a weekend. Long distance flights are good too.

It also does mean a lot of late nights.

Perhaps as a result of this I am a very fast reader. My former housemate would lend me novels to read sometimes and would be astonished when I'd return them to him a few hours later read.

Re: What we lose by reading 100,000 words every day

#100

Post by dpark » Fri, Oct 12, 2018, 2:18 AM UTC

longerthoughts wrote: post #98

dpark wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the utter lack of evidence for the claim. The assertion that reading tweets makes it harder to read novels is not supported by any evidence I’m aware of. You can find plenty of people saying “I stopped reading books because of [X,Y, or Z] and now it’s harder to read books”. But the common thread there is not X, Y, or Z. It’s “I stopped reading books”. The idea that “adaptation” to one type of reading m…

> The idea that “adaptation” to one type of reading makes other types of reading harder doesn’t sound unreasonable This is all I'm saying. Neuroplasticity is fairly well-documented and the author's theory seems plausible based on what we know about it. > You can find plenty of people saying “I stopped reading books because of [X,Y, or Z] and now it’s harder to read books”. Unless those people are all living off the g…

Stepping back for a second, do you agree with the statement “Not reading books for an extended period of time makes it harder to start read books again”?

If so, how do you establish causal effect for some other action coupled with no longer reading books? Literally any action coupled with “I don’t read books anymore” will lead to “its hard to read books now”. The secondary action could be “I read Twitter” or “I got married” or “I lost 50 pounds”. It doesn’t matter because the condition for “hard to read books” is already met. This “X and Y implies Z” is a common pattern for falsely attributing effect Z of X to Y.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say “I still read books an hour every night, but it’s really hard now that I also read Twitter.“ I have heard plenty of people say “it’s hard to read books now that I stopped actually reading them consistently for reason X.”

Maybe reading fluff online is a factor, but it’s probably a pretty small factor relative to the fact that you’re allowing a skill to atrophy when you don’t use it.