Sunday, September 30, 2007
Why Reading Is More Efficient Than Watching Video
The Guardian: "I was a religious affairs writer for many years, so I obviously don't mind people lying to me. But I do appreciate it when they do so efficiently, without using pictures; and, in particular, without using moving pictures. The important fact about words is that they are almost the most efficient use of communication ever devised; and reading plain text is the fastest way to absorb them. I can read faster than I can write; more to the point, I can read much faster than I can listen, and so can any normally literate person."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
I just read another article why reading is better than playing Nintendo brain age. The article suggested that the game only activates frontal lobe by demonstrating simple math problems or reading out loud. But reading helps your creativity and imagination. And as a proud brain age player, I must say that I was a bit offended, but I thought it was a legitimate arguments.
Reading does improve comprehension better than either audio and video. However, it's much easier to multitask while listening to something than while reading, so there are advantages to other mediums.
if there's one thing i've learned from foundations and the design classes, err..., high school english, is that there is no substitute for reading the original text. apart from the obvious differences in detail you get between text and other formats, the experience of the language and style used is what truly makes the content worthwhile. shakespeare wouldn't really be shakespeare if it were presented using modern slang
The reason that I always enjoy a good book is that imagination has such a huge role in it. It is constantly telling the mind to picture a person, place, or situation. With media such as tv or movies yes that is all filled in which leaves less effort on the audience. But the fun thing about books is that it is always intergrading the reader in, never letting them just sit there.
Everyone is talking about how reading text is best - and yes I mostly agree. But I thought it was interesting that the article did still speak of the validity for visual mediums. There are some things words just can not express - which is why visuals are priceless. Someone could write a description of a sunrise, but is that nearly as worthwhile or fulfilling as seeing it for yourself? Not nearly.
I agree with the points presented in this article, I found that indeed reading is less time consuming as far as information absorption is concerned, and that imagination is key as far as imaginative thinking when limited to information absorption through reading. However I had trouble with the play analogy. Reading a script and seeing a play does not equate to watching the news and reading the paper in the morning. A script is merely a framework for a play, not a text containing all for the information for the work itself. A play consists of a production consisting ofmany visual representations on stage that cannot be conveyed through the script. Therefore I think that indeed reading is significantly faster when reading ofr information's sake though when there is much more to an experience outside of the information to be gained, other media can provide a more complete representation.
I find it odd that this article bases so much of its argument on the idea that reading is faster than writing or hearing/speaking. It seems to completely disregard the essential differences between the typical act of reading and writing, which are the instruments used and the act of "composing" versus simply "absorbing" text. Reading versus writing a novel, for example, takes into account so many other factors that I don't think it really effectively backs up the argument.
This article makes a really valid point that text can "compress" ideas more efficiently than visual or audio mediums. In theatre, however, you definitely have to take into account the performance aspect of a piece of drama in order to really study it. It's not always sufficient in Drama to simply discount seeing a production or listening to a play read aloud and read the text. Often meaning in the text depends on something seen or heard by the audience.
Subconsciously, I constantly find myself trying find preference between forms of entertainment, whether they be literature, cinema, music, or art. In my eyes, I can't say that reading is more effective than video, primarily because I've never tried to compare the two. I receive impact from both forms in two completely different ways.
The common phrase that makes us question that difference is, "The book is so much better". Honestly, I have the potential of hating a story in print, but absolutely loving it expressed visually. They are that different to me.
There's a reason we make distinctions between forms of art. What people have to understand is that they should always treat them equally.
Whatever happened to "A picture is worth a thousand words". Don't get me wrong, reading is extremely valuable and stimulates the imagination, yes, but you can convey huge amounts of information with just one picture. The article says that there are limited things that words can fail to represent. But there are so many things we learn from looking at a picture (or a movie or a play) that would take forever to be explained even semi-accurately using words. For example, reviews rarely just adress the book of a play or a movie, but spend time detailing the set, costumes, mood, acting... all things that are not expressed with words, but with images. I just think there's a difference from reading words saying that "she was sad" and actually SEEING that she was sad.
I agree about reading is better than watching in terms of communication. With words, we can be better impressed, and we can look back if we are not clear about the idea. Also, by reading, we can be like director and cameraman to image and create our own vision. It is enjoyable. However, laziness is one of human being’s weaknesses. When there is the image, people would unconsciously focus on it.
My generation is marked by a major change in how people think. Ours is the most visual group of people to ever hit the planet. Our ability to take in visual information is amazing. In contrast, our ability to take in text is dismal. So the simple fact is that the adult generation is just better suited to taking in text. But how can text be more efficient when over 90% of communication is non-verbal?
I find it is easier to learn from visual means. Even thought reading is done through your eyes, I find that just reading is the least efficient way for me to learn. It helps when visual aids, whether they be pictures or movies, help in seeing the concepts in action.
i disagree that video always conveys less meaning than written word and in more time. because i believe, in most cases, that one can get much more information when seeing a play performed (whether it is a recording of not) than just reading it. Because so much of the meaning comes from the way the words are said, and does not come from when they are read.
"They take more time to convey less meaning. There are some things which print cannot easily - or at all - convey, and which sound and pictures can. But there are surprisingly few of them" This seems a little like a shot at our career but I think thats part of the challenge of theatre. However I think visual forms of communication (like theatre) can allow viewers to more easily connect with performers, ideas, etc. I find its easier to remember ideas, concepts, etc. from a play I see rather than a book I read.
I think this is a matter of personal preference. i personally think I pick up a whole lot more when I watch a video than read. I hate reading. Every liek 3 pages i start thinking aobut other thinks like what I want to eat that day and such. It's really wierd. I guess there is one advantage to reading though. It allows your imaginations to go wild. You percieve your own setting and characters with little detail given to you. That is cool.
Reading is a dying art thanks to the accessiblity of moving pictures. Playing on what Jeanie said, reading builds and improves your creavity and imagination unlike the television that removes all the work. I do notice that when I manage to find time to get back into my reading habits that my vocabulary and speech inproves, however, I do not now if I necessarily remember more. We are all different learns. Talk WITH me, I'll remeber the whole conversation. Talk AT me I'll lose all the info. It's all about the interest and approach. Every author has to face this challenge when addressing their audience. It's wrong of the author to state that reading is a stronger art form merely because it is for her.
I think this argument is a little open to be broken down because it's a little to situation specific. Reading is indeed much more efficient if there is significant content pertaining to the subject. You will certainly get quite a bit of information from a well written document than a video that can be very easily distracted by other images...but if there is a poorly written item, then there probably not much helping you comprehend the subject.
I agree that reading is probably the most efficient of the ways of learning, different people learn more efficiently thru different mediums. I personally, am more of a visual and kinesthetic learner and though I am a fan of the written word, I prefer graphs, charts and visual representations any day.
I habe always found that reading isn't only better for the brain but much more interesting. I find that the images that I create in my mind are always so much more vivid than anything that is put on film or in some sort of television show.
I have always found that reading isn't only better for the brain but much more interesting. I find that the images that I create in my mind are always so much more vivid than anything that is put on film or in some sort of television show.
I would have to say that for me, video/graphical images are way better for me to learn something. I remember back in high school taking notes in an art history class where i would sketch out the painting that we were talkign about in class and takes notes after drawing the picture myself. By engraining image in my mind, i find it easier to attach facts to the image, because there are things in the image that make facts easier to remember.
Post a Comment