I Learned to Read Again • Hacker News Board

Re: I Learned to Read Again

#81

Post by BoingBoomTschak » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 7:22 PM UTC

legacynl wrote: post #80

BoingBoomTschak wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He obviously meant "is choosing to spend your time reading morally superior" , though.

I hate these discussions on HN. Unless we first agree on what 'good' and 'bad' are, this question is basically nonsense. In any case, what you choose to do on your own in your free time has basically no moral or ethical impact whatsoever.

No man is an island, you know.

Re: I Learned to Read Again

#82

Post by legacynl » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 7:23 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #22

BoingBoomTschak wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He obviously meant "is choosing to spend your time reading morally superior" , though.

> He obviously meant "is choosing to spend your time reading morally superior", though Sure. I'm answering it by another measure. Killing is, ceteris paribus , morally inferior to not killing. I'd argue a psychopath is henceforth morally debilitated despite it not really being their "fault" that they're born without empathy. This, in turn, helps me conclude that a murderer is, in fact, doing wrong. Same here. Someone…

That reading gives the capacity to gain a better understanding, doesn't mean that all readers use it that way. The act of reading itself doesn't make the people more willing to be more understanding. Someone who cannot read could have the same desire for understanding and might choose to engage that desire by talking to people in person. The fact that the latter doesn't read, doesn't make him less morally superior.

The only correlation that reading and intelligence have is that intelligent people find it easier to read, and therefore enjoy reading more, and therefore read more. It's not the other way around.

Re: I Learned to Read Again

#83

Post by shant_extry » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 12:02 AM UTC

I think this presents an opportunity to explore balance in the type of information you want and the time it takes to consume it.

I'll use podcasts as an example. I think podcasts became very popular because the host could sit with a guest for a long time and discuss important topics at depth. The problem, in my view, is that that medium locked itself into longer lengths of time that it always has to fill. I may want to hear a politician talk for 3 hours if they're running for office but I don't necessarily want to hear an actor's thoughts on life for that long (for the fifth time). Sometimes, a late night show's 5 minutes is sufficient for the latter.

Does every Substack have to include an SEO-esque preamble before it gets to the ultimate point it's trying to make or perspective it's trying to explore? I think, in an ideal situation, the format (including length) of the article/book/etc. would match the reader's capacity and willingness to read it.

One last note - just because I read it somewhere and it stuck with me - "Learning is an intelligent person's favorite form of procrastination." So if you're consuming whatever you're consuming and you feel like it's not just social media-like consumption in a different form, then more power to you.