nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Is reading really better for you than tv?

paleoperson

If so how?

"imagination"

When you watch tv and hear dialogue, you are using your imagination a lot. By filling in all the details like what the characters look like so seamlessly, your brain has more free time to think about the important points.

If reading is for smart people then why isn't talking by text online or on mobiles considered for smart people? There are too many contradictions to the typical reasons given.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Woke Hogan

I’m certainly not feeling any smarter for reading that first post.

PsychoPete

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

There's reading and then there's reading.

IamtheWalrus

Bentlee Fresh Shellfish wrote: »

There's reading and then there's reading.

I much prefer the latter

[Deleted User]

I can't remember which book I read this in

but those with a rich inner life survived psychologically much better in the concentration camps, a rich inner life is cultivated by things like reading music, etc.

maudgonner

Watch TV with the subtitles on. Problem solved OP.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

https://whytoread.com/benefits-of-reading-over-watching-tv/

odyssey06

If I had to choose one, I would choose reading. I think especially for non-fiction \ factual, you can read information a lot more quickly than it can be presented to you in a documentary.
Also, for fictional works, books are much better at representing internal monologues than film.
Especially in pre-CGI era, for something like Lord of the Rings, your imagination was a much more effective 'world builder' than anything that could be put on screen.

Against that, with appropriate use of graphics, some documentaries eg The Planets, Cosmos can explain certain concepts much better than a book.
And in fictional works, films are usually much better at presenting actions and both displays of emotion - and their concealment.

Luckily we don't have to choose only one... so enjoy all mediums!

[Deleted User]

Spending all day looking at screens OP?

Lookit your eyes are probably sore.
Go look at some paperback.

Or even an adult colouring book. That's acceptable in the AH forum.

[Deleted User]

I'd say so, i always feel recharged after reading, in a way that tv couldn't do

paleoperson

I'm not here trying to argue that tv is better. I'm opening a discussion. Reading is a lot more "passive" than interacting here, because you're not constantly pushing back with something - and that's no bad thing. I'm not saying reading isn't better, I'm saying the conventional reasons given are flawed.

odyssey06 wrote: »

Against that, with appropriate use of graphics, some documentaries eg The Planets, Cosmos can explain certain concepts much better than a book.
And in fictional works, films are usually much better at presenting actions and both displays of emotion - and their concealment.!

Crime documentaries, survival stories, Chernobyl... anything involving interviews with the people. A lot of fiction also you just have to see.

maudgonner

Bentlee Fresh Shellfish wrote: »

https://whytoread.com/benefits-of-reading-over-watching-tv/

No offence to you Bentlee Fresh Shellfish, but that article contains more than a bit of smug ráiméis. For example:

We cant imagine a “[fill in you favorite show] TV club” to discuss the latest episode. Can you?

Anybody who's turned up to work having not watched the previous night's Game of Thrones/Making a Murderer will have felt the effects of water cooler TV.

In comparison, TV eliminates much of the extra inputs and provides a visual feed instead. The typically simple plots limit the variables a watcher needs to remember. After all, you can only fit a limited story into a 30-50 minute ‘episode’.

Modern quality TV shows have intricate plots that span not just multiple episodes but multiple series. The like sof Arrested Development had such density of gags that some were only spotted years after first broadcast (there's probably some that still haven't been picked up.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

There's a bucket load of mind numbing, soulless TV out there but there's also a mountain of trashy dull literature. Fortunately, we're not forced to choose, nor limited to either. There's stimulating, educational, entertaining TV galore and a multitude of quality books in all genres. We're in the happy position of being able pick and mix.

beauf

With the exception of the hobbit, which they made 3 films from one small book. Most books will have vastly more detail and content than the equivalent movie/TV show.
There's also a huge amount more variety and diversity in books than in movies.

But enjoy both. End of....

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

maudgonner wrote: »

No offence to you Srameen, but that article contains more than a bit of smug ráiméis.

Oh no offence taken. Just throwing it in there for the sake of the discussion.

Yer Da sells Avon

No its for nerd's why read the book when you could of just watched the film instead lol

odyssey06

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

No its for nerd's why read the book when you could of just watched the film instead

We should've kept the internet that way...

A better question... book then film or film then book... I'm going to say book then film; except Game of Thrones, it was good to get introduced to the world via TV before plunging into the book.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

No its for nerd's why read the book when you could of just watched the film instead lol

I read a couple of books a week and, while I enjoy TV and Film, nothing I've read in the past few years has yet been filmed.

CrankyHaus

Much more risque stuff can go into books, even widely read ones, without triggering the outrage brigade as it would in film, Tv or music.

This was even more true in the past when film and tv censorship was much more of a thing.

This suggests that the audience for books is both less likely to be outraged by "decadent and immoral" material and perceived as less likely to be influenced by it. This in turn suggests that readers are both more intelligent and perceived as more intelligent.

odyssey06

If we can broaden this out to other mediums, I think that some of the BBC output of radio plays do a great job of combining the best parts of reading (internal monologue, narration) with the atmosphere through background sounds and music and the emotional delivery of the voice actors. But it is a hard trick to get right.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Much more risque stuff can go into books, even widely read ones, without triggering the outrage brigade as it would in film, Tv or music.

This was even more true in the past when film and tv censorship was much more of a thing.

This suggests that the audience for books is both less likely to be outraged by "decadent and immoral" material and perceived as less likely to be influenced by it. This in turn suggests that readers are both more intelligent and perceived as more intelligent.

An influence in all that is the tendancy to watch TV or a film just because it's on or somebody else is watching it, while we choose, or make a more conscious effort, when it comes to selecting a bit of reading material. Hence a book can have an audience made up of those it's targeted to, while that of TV or Film can be much broader.

[Deleted User]

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

No its for nerd's why read the book when you could of just watched the film instead lol

0lddog

Bentlee Fresh Shellfish wrote: »

....... Just throwing it in there for the sake of the discussion.

In the same vein

(a) What of talking books ?

(b) Are people with ( even a modest ) tendency to dyslexia a special case ?

facehugger99

I've never met an interesting person who wasn't well-read.

Rubberchikken

audiobooks. kinda like reading and no telly.

paleoperson

facehugger99 wrote: »

I've never met an interesting person who wasn't well-read.

That's a bold statement, how do you know they how well-read people you meet are? What about people who are dyslexic. I guess your reading never led you to stories of tremendously successful people who were hiding their illiteracy? What about bushmen, aborigines, farmers... not interesting enough for you?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

facehugger99 wrote: »

I've never met an interesting person who wasn't well-read.

I have. Many indeed. The previous generation that I had contact with in my youth were hardly literate but were interesting, perceptive, original and inspiring people all the same.

Church on Tuesday

I love a good book. Cup of coffee, quiet space, lost for hours.

joe40

odyssey06 wrote: »

We should've kept the internet that way...

A better question... book then film or film then book... I'm going to say book then film; except Game of Thrones, it was good to get introduced to the world via TV before plunging into the book.

Always book first then film for me. If I watch a movie and then read the book it is hard not it visualise characters as they appeared in the movie which may not be how they are described in the book.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

joe40 wrote: »

Always book first then film for me. If I watch a movie and then read the book it is hard not it visualise characters as they appeared in the movie which may not be how they are described in the book.

A classic example of that is the Jack Reacher series of books - a big mountain of a man and that stature is pivotal to both the character and many of the plots. And who is in the movies?. Wee Tom Cruise.