Reading Articles vs. Books: Impact Upon the Individual and Society

[keysersoze]

I'd like to know what your thoughts are on reading articles versus books... I was thinking about this the other day about how I rarely read books anymore - sure I'll read book reviews/critiques through articles but I rarely (1 book every 4 months) read entire books.

I feel that our quick paces society, especially the wiki-generation quickly goes through everything and therefore we all end up have discussions based on just the few simplified articles that exist.

I once was speaking a classics major about the lack of inspiration of anyone trying to be a "Renaissance Man" - someone who excells in multiple fields - and how our society was creeping towards group think because we have a few "experts" that we designate for that field and rely upon them to provide us with our content for the "intellectual discourse" we will engage in. For instance, we all found ourselves quoting/reading the same NY Time or WaPo articles on politics.

I've become convinced of that this has hindered our society's debate on critical issues such as the financial crisis because the public including the media does not know much about the financial instruments/implications created.

So I guess, both the individual and society are becoming less sophisticated in their discussion and analysis of our problems - especially since the rise of the blogging generation.

 

[Imhotep]

You can hear who reads books vs the articles reader. The article reader have limited deep of subject matter. This is based on conversation I have with people with different social functions. The books read have various other sources of information other than the book, and appear to have a deep understanding.

My final thought, anyone with a true interest of a subject matter will actively seek out more information on it.

The impact on the individual and society is we are basing thought and discussion on little facts, and mass speculation.

But I could be wrong.............

 

[AristotlesOwn]

You can look at BGOL and tell those who likely read books vs. those who read articles only. This is painfully apparent in this (the news) forum. Some folks have an almost encyclopedic knowledge of certain topics, while others skim the surface with articles and try to debate without historical context. It's pretty entertaining to see actually.

 

[UniqueStyles82]

You can hear who reads books vs the articles reader. The article reader have limited deep of subject matter. This is based on conversation I have with people with different social functions. The books read have various other sources of information other than the book, and appear to have a deep understanding.

My final thought, anyone with a true interest of a subject matter will actively seek out more information on it.

The impact on the individual and society is we are basing thought and discussion on little facts, and mass speculation.

But I could be wrong.............

no no you are absolutely right. I will admit Im guilty of this as well. The internet has made it moderately difficult to just want to sit down and read about a certain topic. You can get the information you seek summed up in a nice neat package and most folks are content with that. Then turn around speculate to your hearts content. Case in point the financial institutions and credit deriviatives. Have you seen how thick a book on just credit deriviatives alone is. So why go through all that when someone in a washington post editorial can sum it up for you in 2-3 sentences and then go off their tangent. Thats what society has pretty much succumbed to.

People shouldnt view reading articles as a bad thing but if I were to use the analogy of food and dieting, articles should never ever be considered your main staple/meal, just either the appetizer or dessert. Articles if anything should be used as a supplementation to reading books. A refresher of sorts. Same goes for documentaries.

 

[keysersoze]

no no you are absolutely right. I will admit Im guilty of this as well. The internet has made it moderately difficult to just want to sit down and read about a certain topic. You can get the information you seek summed up in a nice neat package and most folks are content with that. Then turn around speculate to your hearts content. Case in point the financial institutions and credit deriviatives. Have you seen how thick a book on just credit deriviatives alone is. So why go through all that when someone in a washington post editorial can sum it up for you in 2-3 sentences and then go off their tangent. Thats what society has pretty much succumbed to.

People shouldnt view reading articles as a bad thing but if I were to use the analogy of food and dieting, articles should never ever be considered your main staple/meal, just either the appetizer or dessert. Articles if anything should be used as a supplementation to reading books. A refresher of sorts. Same goes for documentaries.

That analogy is right now.

The whole issue with credit derivatives is something complex and would take chapters explaining and here we are told what it is in a few sentences.

There really is cause for concern.

 

[QueEx]

I'd like to know what your thoughts are on reading articles versus books... I was thinking about this the other day about how I rarely read books anymore - sure I'll read book reviews/critiques through articles but I rarely (1 book every 4 months) read entire books.

Interesting questions.

Of course, I would think that you're more likely to get in-depth analysis from books than articles. On the other hand, some articles can be quite thorough and provide more than just a superficial treatment of an issue. Of course, that depends upon the issue and its complexity.

I think the real issue, however, is "Reading" period. Most people probably find little time to read books -- but the real kicker is: even fewer find the time or have the interest in even reading articles, i.e., how often is the "Colin" comment raised on these boards ??? An article does not have to be long at all for someone to "Colin" out. LOL

I believe that reading is definitely fundamental. If you can't do it with comprehension, you've got a problem -- and it usually shows.

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

`

Keyser,

I don't want to hijack this thread, but along the same lines as your questions above, is there an issue that needs to be raised regarding "Video Clips" vs. "Reading" ???

Is it possible that not only are we being harmed by a lack of in-depth reading, but are video clips also adding to our "Dumbing Down" ??? It could just be me, but I seem to notice how a lot of vids seems to gather followings -- but if one examines the script, absent the images, you find that there is little offered in the form of proof or strong support for the conclusions put forth by the vids.

We know words can be powerful; but images, even with weakly supported or virtually unsupported script, seem to be even more powerful and yet, perhaps, even more harmful.

QueEx

 

[keysersoze]

`

Keyser,

I don't want to hijack this thread, but along the same lines as your questions above, is there an issue that needs to be raised regarding "Video Clips" vs. "Reading" ???

Is it possible that not only are we being harmed by a lack of in-depth reading, but are video clips also adding to our "Dumbing Down" ??? It could just be me, but I seem to notice how a lot of vids seems to gather followings -- but if one examines the script, absent the images, you find that there is little offered in the form of proof or strong support for the conclusions put forth by the vids.

We know words can be powerful; but images, even with weakly supported or virtually unsupported script, seem to be even more powerful and yet, perhaps, even more harmful.

QueEx

No Q,

I appreciate the extension of the discussion. Your right that society places great emphasis on video learning than actual reading. Your right that images are a source to be easily distorted to represent one side. Its part of the nature of what an image does: conjure powerful emotions.

 

[keysersoze]

Interesting questions.

Of course, I would think that you're more likely to get in-depth analysis from books than articles. On the other hand, some articles can be quite thorough and provide more than just a superficial treatment of an issue. Of course, that depends upon the issue and its complexity.

I think the real issue, however, is "Reading" period. Most people probably find little time to read books -- but the real kicker is: even fewer find the time or have the interest in even reading articles, i.e., how often is the "Colin" comment raised on these boards ??? An article does not have to be long at all for someone to "Colin" out. LOL

I believe that reading is definitely fundamental. If you can't do it with comprehension, you've got a problem -- and it usually shows.

QueEx

Reading is the larger issue but everyone will agree with you on that and say something like we need to read more. But then what? What after that? I think we (society) should start speaking about exploring options on what are the most beneficial forms of readings.

From my experience, anything that is more that is more than two paragraphs is immediately given the Colin pic followed by a

I hate Colin and what he stands for on this board. He is an intellectual cancer eating away at American society.

 

[keysersoze]

Keysersoze,

You raise some really valid points and observations in your post and as such, I applaud you for this excellent thread topic.

There is no doubt in my mind that people for the most part, are reading books less in favour of quick entertainment and informercial based sources of information.

We now live in a fast paced world with seemingly multiple outlets for information but most people are more stupid for this due to the fact that the information available through most of these sources is heavily censored and controlled.

Add to this the fact much of it is tailored to match the consumers well shaped and manipulated needs and you're left with a world full of drones being spoon fed information.

Reading a book on the other hand, involves one actually taking the time to slowly ingest information at a steady pace and in a manner that's more likely to have a lasting impact on the mind due to the way in which the human brain assimilates and stores information.

The drone syndrome is exactly the thing that we want to prevent.

 

[Imhotep]

`

Keyser,

I don't want to hijack this thread, but along the same lines as your questions above, is there an issue that needs to be raised regarding "Video Clips" vs. "Reading" ???

Is it possible that not only are we being harmed by a lack of in-depth reading, but are video clips also adding to our "Dumbing Down" ??? It could just be me, but I seem to notice how a lot of vids seems to gather followings -- but if one examines the script, absent the images, you find that there is little offered in the form of proof or strong support for the conclusions put forth by the vids.

We know words can be powerful; but images, even with weakly supported or virtually unsupported script, seem to be even more powerful and yet, perhaps, even more harmful.

QueEx

Very interesting point....