How on earth can composing written material be mindless? I mean, YouTube comments come close sometimes, but even making up stupid Facebook memes demands a level of skill with the English language that 3⁄4 of people didn’t have a century ago.
For that matter, how is reading any less mindless than TV? I tend to prefer reading, because it tends to be more lengthy and detailed, but the fundamental experience of sitting in a chair as a story enters through your eyeballs is basically identical.
I’m not making an argument against reading. Nor did I say it was mindless. I was making a comparison between some of the cheaper sorts of reading and writing, and highly passive entertainment (i.e. TV). The medium is of only relative importance.
Of course, even within TV, there is a spectrum. And there is some funny, novel, useful stuff on Facebook, though it is the exception to mostly drivel.
I’d argue there is generally a much more involved process involved in reading vs. TV. Reading requires the manual cognitive creation of audio and visual stimuli while TV serves it on a platter. It’s really not even close.
One other point: Bad memes via Facebook is not something I see as “good”, per se. You might say that is often ignorance manifesting itself through basic literacy; irrationality spreads through the use of language.
I think one of us misunderstood the other. You said you liked reading because it’s less mindless than TV, I said TV is not particularly mindless, you talk like I said reading was mindless.
Facebook is not mostly drivel, it’s mostly a computerized manifestation of its users’ lives. Boring people make boring posts, interesting people make interesting posts, and you keep track of party plans and weddings and deaths.
As for reading forcing you to mentally create audio and visual stimuli, that’s never been my experience. I’m an avid reader, and I read the words on the page. Descriptive text is basically lost on me, because I’m simply not imagining what the characters look like. I may possibly be capable of turning a written description of someone’s looks into a mental picture of them, but I can’t think of a time when I have actually done so.
And no, bad Facebook memes aggravate me. But they’re better than no writing at all. Reading and writing may be getting less classy on average, but that’s because more people are doing it, and plebs gonna pleb.
I have a hard time believing you sincerely think reading is “basically identical” to TV in terms of the mindlessness of the activity, by any reasonable definition of the word “mindless”.
Facebook is not mostly drivel, it’s mostly a computerized manifestation of its users’ lives.
I’ve no idea what sort of distinction you are making.
and you keep track of party plans and weddings and deaths.
Like a calendar?
As for reading forcing you to mentally create audio and visual stimuli, that’s never been my experience. I’m an avid reader, and I read the words on the page. Descriptive text is basically lost on me, because I’m simply not imagining what the characters look like. I may possibly be capable of turning a written description of someone’s looks into a mental picture of them, but I can’t think of a time when I have actually done so.
Noted.
And no, bad Facebook memes aggravate me. But they’re better than no writing at all. Reading and writing may be getting less classy on average, but that’s because more people are doing it, and plebs gonna pleb.
I’m a pleb. And it’s ludicrous to say every meme is good. Every meme created exhibits non-zero intelligence and is therefore evidence of skill in language...so… I guess you’ve technically made some sort of point.
I sincerely think that the mediums of TV and books are largely the same in intellectual requirements(subject to necessary levels of literacy, of course). I think the sort of people who read a lot of books and don’t watch much TV read intellectual books and come across drivel on TV, which gives them a false impression, but the same thing happens the other way for someone who watches Breaking Bad religiously and only comes across Fifty Shades of Grey as far as books go. The choice of medium is, so far as I can tell, completely irrelevant. Passive entertainment is passive entertainment. Now, if you were comparing either one to computer games I’d say the games win an a heartbeat, but books = TV = radio = movies = plays = listening to your buddies bullshit over a couple drinks.
The distinction I’m making is that Facebook is only drivel if your friends lead drivelly lives. If you have interesting friends, Facebook is an interesting place. And I was unaware that calendars inform me of my friends getting hatched, matched, and dispatched. Here I just thought they told me what date it was.
How on earth can composing written material be mindless? I mean, YouTube comments come close sometimes, but even making up stupid Facebook memes demands a level of skill with the English language that 3⁄4 of people didn’t have a century ago.
For that matter, how is reading any less mindless than TV? I tend to prefer reading, because it tends to be more lengthy and detailed, but the fundamental experience of sitting in a chair as a story enters through your eyeballs is basically identical.
I’m not making an argument against reading. Nor did I say it was mindless. I was making a comparison between some of the cheaper sorts of reading and writing, and highly passive entertainment (i.e. TV). The medium is of only relative importance.
Of course, even within TV, there is a spectrum. And there is some funny, novel, useful stuff on Facebook, though it is the exception to mostly drivel.
I’d argue there is generally a much more involved process involved in reading vs. TV. Reading requires the manual cognitive creation of audio and visual stimuli while TV serves it on a platter. It’s really not even close.
One other point: Bad memes via Facebook is not something I see as “good”, per se. You might say that is often ignorance manifesting itself through basic literacy; irrationality spreads through the use of language.
I think that largely depends on your facebook friends.
I think one of us misunderstood the other. You said you liked reading because it’s less mindless than TV, I said TV is not particularly mindless, you talk like I said reading was mindless.
Facebook is not mostly drivel, it’s mostly a computerized manifestation of its users’ lives. Boring people make boring posts, interesting people make interesting posts, and you keep track of party plans and weddings and deaths.
As for reading forcing you to mentally create audio and visual stimuli, that’s never been my experience. I’m an avid reader, and I read the words on the page. Descriptive text is basically lost on me, because I’m simply not imagining what the characters look like. I may possibly be capable of turning a written description of someone’s looks into a mental picture of them, but I can’t think of a time when I have actually done so.
And no, bad Facebook memes aggravate me. But they’re better than no writing at all. Reading and writing may be getting less classy on average, but that’s because more people are doing it, and plebs gonna pleb.
I have a hard time believing you sincerely think reading is “basically identical” to TV in terms of the mindlessness of the activity, by any reasonable definition of the word “mindless”.
I’ve no idea what sort of distinction you are making.
Like a calendar?
Noted.
I’m a pleb. And it’s ludicrous to say every meme is good. Every meme created exhibits non-zero intelligence and is therefore evidence of skill in language...so… I guess you’ve technically made some sort of point.
Tap.
I sincerely think that the mediums of TV and books are largely the same in intellectual requirements(subject to necessary levels of literacy, of course). I think the sort of people who read a lot of books and don’t watch much TV read intellectual books and come across drivel on TV, which gives them a false impression, but the same thing happens the other way for someone who watches Breaking Bad religiously and only comes across Fifty Shades of Grey as far as books go. The choice of medium is, so far as I can tell, completely irrelevant. Passive entertainment is passive entertainment. Now, if you were comparing either one to computer games I’d say the games win an a heartbeat, but books = TV = radio = movies = plays = listening to your buddies bullshit over a couple drinks.
The distinction I’m making is that Facebook is only drivel if your friends lead drivelly lives. If you have interesting friends, Facebook is an interesting place. And I was unaware that calendars inform me of my friends getting hatched, matched, and dispatched. Here I just thought they told me what date it was.