Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

46% of Americans didn't read a book in 2023

nathanbransford.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 181 posts

Re: 46% of Americans didn't read a book in 2023

#171

Post by naet »

faeriechangling wrote: post #149

People are lying about how much they do read books, and for me, it's not that books are bad but books simply have more competition than they used to. There are multiple history podcasts, some of which are made by actual historians, which go for hundreds of episodes. It might not be "reading a book" but I really fail to see the big difference between that and an audiobook. Except that it's cheaper/easier/better than u…

I like podcasts a lot, but I think books can often get more in depth.

A lot of times I'll hear an hour podcast with the author of a book summarizing some parts of it, but when I read the book itself it includes a lot more detail, hard data, etc.

Some podcasts are well researched but many others feel very conversational and not as well fact checked.

Re: 46% of Americans didn't read a book in 2023

#172

Post by ModernMech »

borski wrote: post #129
brightly-salty wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true. I and many other people have aphantasia[0], our brains are simply unable to imagine visually the way other people are. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia

Fair enough; I shouldn’t have said “everyone” because that’s obviously not true, but only pedantically, for the most part. It’s not insensitive to say “everyone has a nose” and mean “except the very small percentage of people that don’t have noses due to birth defects, trauma, or genetics”. 1-3% of people have aphantasia. That’s not everyone, but it’s close.

The question remains.

Re: 46% of Americans didn't read a book in 2023

#173

Post by xethos »

faeriechangling wrote: post #149

People are lying about how much they do read books, and for me, it's not that books are bad but books simply have more competition than they used to. There are multiple history podcasts, some of which are made by actual historians, which go for hundreds of episodes. It might not be "reading a book" but I really fail to see the big difference between that and an audiobook. Except that it's cheaper/easier/better than u…

> It might not be "reading a book" but I really fail to see the big difference between that and an audiobook.

First, I reject the premise that audiobooks count as reading. We can agree it's consuming a book, or listening to one, but it's pretty objectively not reading.

This is important to my next point too: reading is important not only for expanding ones horizons, but for learning spelling, grammar, sentence structure, and forming long-form arguments. Some of these can be picked up from listening, but certainly not all.

And because we communicate so much by text in the modern world, spelling, grammar, punctuation and sentence structure can have an outsized impact on your life and social interactions

Re: 46% of Americans didn't read a book in 2023

#174

Post by xethos »

sateesh wrote: post #78
shikshake wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading is an active skill vs watching something is more passive. There’s lots of pathways in your brain that intensive reading lights up compared to other mediums. And lots of studies show that you retain more information and building stronger informational connections when reading vs watching. No one is telling you to stop watching movies or playing video games, but being a more active participant in a leisure acti…

I do read a lot, but I don't completely agree that reading is an active skill all the time. It also depends on what one is reading. When I am reading a fast paced thriller or page turner , it doesn't feel like a very active skill/activity.

The fact that you control the pace in your page turner example is part of what makes reading active instead of passive. You don't really get that watching a documentary or listening to a lecture or podcast

Re: 46% of Americans didn't read a book in 2023

#175

Post by Engineering-MD »

mattlondon wrote: post #99
fifilura wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, I agree with you. Between work and kids it just has to go. I am also blessed with no sleeping problems which means that I fall asleep the moment i go to bed. I try to read at least one book per year during vacation. I read so much when I was younger. I am not certain I will get the habit back when I get older.

Same. Can't say I miss it, either. Reading a book at this stage in my life (busy with kids) feels self-indulgent and selfish.

Or could it could instil good habits in your children? Obviously looking after/active okay with kids is better, but I don’t see it being selfish to also enjoy yourself and encourage a valuable hobby in them too. It’s hard being a parent, make time for things you enjoy too!

Re: 46% of Americans didn't read a book in 2023

#176

Post by blahbob »

borski wrote: post #129
brightly-salty wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true. I and many other people have aphantasia[0], our brains are simply unable to imagine visually the way other people are. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia

Fair enough; I shouldn’t have said “everyone” because that’s obviously not true, but only pedantically, for the most part. It’s not insensitive to say “everyone has a nose” and mean “except the very small percentage of people that don’t have noses due to birth defects, trauma, or genetics”. 1-3% of people have aphantasia. That’s not everyone, but it’s close.

Throughout my life, I thought "mind's eye" was a metaphor, and that people didn't actually see images in their heads. When I discovered aphantasia was a thing, and that I had it, I also accepted it was rare. But turns out, about a third of my male friends also have it. Not one female friend has it, though. It's a pity there isn't much research on the subject.

Re: 46% of Americans didn't read a book in 2023

#177

Post by edanm »

xethos wrote: post #173
faeriechangling wrote: post #149

People are lying about how much they do read books, and for me, it's not that books are bad but books simply have more competition than they used to. There are multiple history podcasts, some of which are made by actual historians, which go for hundreds of episodes. It might not be "reading a book" but I really fail to see the big difference between that and an audiobook. Except that it's cheaper/easier/better than u…

> It might not be "reading a book" but I really fail to see the big difference between that and an audiobook. First, I reject the premise that audiobooks count as reading. We can agree it's consuming a book, or listening to one, but it's pretty objectively not reading. This is important to my next point too: reading is important not only for expanding ones horizons, but for learning spelling, grammar, sentence struct…

> First, I reject the premise that audiobooks count as reading. We can agree it's consuming a book, or listening to one, but it's pretty objectively not reading.

For (some of) the specific points you're making here, you're right that reading is not the same as listening to an audiobook - you're not learning spelling and punctuation. I don't think that's true of grammar, sentence structure, etc, but ok.

However I push back strongly on the idea that, in general, "audiobooks don't count as reading" in other respects. It's drawing a completely artificial distinction between different modes of consuming information, almost always for the purposes of "gatekeeping" or making one thing seem "less" than the other.

The purpose of reading is mostly to get information and/or a story, "expanding one's horizons" as you put it. This is equally achieved via either physically reading or via listening to someone read the story to you. To the extent that we think reading books is a worthwhile endeavor, 90% of what you get is gotten via audiobooks as much as via physically reading.

> And because we communicate so much by text in the modern world, spelling, grammar, punctuation and sentence structure can have an outsized impact on your life and social interactions

We also communicate a lot by spoken language.

Re: 46% of Americans didn't read a book in 2023

#178

Post by edanm »

arnaudsm wrote: post #8

Why do we obsess so much over legacy form factors? Watching movies, listening to 2h conference talks, playing a 60h narrative videogame, and reading scientific papers in PDF may not be as noble, but they are equally meaningful to me.

> Why do we obsess so much over legacy form factors?

We shouldn't. We also don't, not really. Reading books has a certain prestige, but by almost any measure, we "obsess" more about movies and/or tv shows. Even some of the best selling books of all time probably have orders of magnitude less exposure than tv shows, movies or games. Not unrelatedly, far more people talk about TV shows and games, etc.

I think the only obsession is that some people consider books to be "better" in some sense. Personally, I don't think books are better, just different. I enjoy TV shows and movies as much as I enjoy books, and consider them to both be important. (I don't play many games, which I think truly is me missing out!)

Re: 46% of Americans didn't read a book in 2023

#179

Post by praisewhitey »

lovecg wrote: post #125
voidfunc wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont think so. For "great works" all that stuff has been covered somewhere if you really care. You're putting way too much faith into people's intelligence (or projecting your own onto them) if you think people are picking up the nuanced bits just by reading. Which still to the thread starts point. All of that stuff could be captured in a diff medium and to my point if it's worth capturing in the first place can be…

Reading a good book is a closest approximation we have to actually meeting the author in person. There are books that I read years ago that had such a big emotional impact they probably affected my personality in some way. I barely remember a single youtube video I watched last week.

This is simply not true. I've met writers and they're exactly like they are in podcasts/youtube videos and nothing like their writing would suggest.

Re: 46% of Americans didn't read a book in 2023

#180

Post by [deleted] »

xethos wrote: post #173
faeriechangling wrote: post #149

People are lying about how much they do read books, and for me, it's not that books are bad but books simply have more competition than they used to. There are multiple history podcasts, some of which are made by actual historians, which go for hundreds of episodes. It might not be "reading a book" but I really fail to see the big difference between that and an audiobook. Except that it's cheaper/easier/better than u…

> It might not be "reading a book" but I really fail to see the big difference between that and an audiobook. First, I reject the premise that audiobooks count as reading. We can agree it's consuming a book, or listening to one, but it's pretty objectively not reading. This is important to my next point too: reading is important not only for expanding ones horizons, but for learning spelling, grammar, sentence struct…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN