What we lose by reading 100,000 words every day

Post by jasode » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 2:00 PM UTC

EGreg wrote: post #37

jasode wrote: post #23

First off, I haven't studied Maryanne Wolf's neuroscientific research on "deep reading" and its claimed benefits. But, as a person who has read most of the major thick books like Moby Dick, War & Peace, Les Miserables, Middlemarch, Proust, and reading cover-to-cover the old computer books like the 3-ring binders of C Language[1], my lifetime reading experience could offer counterpoint to why "deep reading" seems to b…

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.

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 2:12 PM UTC

tech-no-logical wrote: post #33

hyko wrote: post #4

the average person “consumes about 34 gigabytes across varied devices each day” — some 100,000 words’ worth of information - seems like an odd and misleading statistic.

seems it stems from a study called "How Much Information? 2009 Report on American Consumers" from the management summary : "In 2008, Americans consumed information for about 1.3 trillion hours, an average of almost 12 hours per day. Consumption totaled 3.6 zettabytes and 10,845 trillion words, corresponding to 100,500 words and 34 gigabytes for an average person on an average day. (...) We defined “information” as fl…

Post by simonebrunozzi » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 2:14 PM UTC

raindropm wrote: post #35

jasode wrote: post #23

First off, I haven't studied Maryanne Wolf's neuroscientific research on "deep reading" and its claimed benefits. But, as a person who has read most of the major thick books like Moby Dick, War & Peace, Les Miserables, Middlemarch, Proust, and reading cover-to-cover the old computer books like the 3-ring binders of C Language[1], my lifetime reading experience could offer counterpoint to why "deep reading" seems to b…

This is why many of us go to HN comments first instead of reading the actual article. Now I'm a bit ashamed haha. Anyway, I've read her book, and have to admit that I skim quite a bit. Her writing style is deep and informative, but with a lot of literary allusions. I found my knowledge and life experience is still inadequate to understand everything she wrote. Overall an interesting read though!

Post by tomjen3 » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 2:22 PM UTC

tw1010 wrote: post #7

hyko wrote: post #4

the average person “consumes about 34 gigabytes across varied devices each day” — some 100,000 words’ worth of information - seems like an odd and misleading statistic.

The precise number doesn't really matter. The strongman interpretation is that we just read and skim too much each day.

Post by ninju » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 2:28 PM UTC

StevenRayOrr wrote: post #42

jasode wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>, 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 apologize that you found my text length was too long but I thought the extra background was necessary to get state why deep reading is often a waste of time. I read @EGreg as poking a bit of fun, rather than raising a legitimate complaint: simultaneously supporting your point, but also gently pushing at the limits of shallow reading.