Sunday, November 4, 2018

Skimming and scanning makes you a scatterbrain

link


Is reading on digital devices instead of paper making our thinking shallower, or simply making us think differently?  Does how we read affect what we read?  If digital reading is making us less competent readers, what, if anything, should be done about it?

6 comments:

  1. In my opinion, digital media are not harder to read than the paper ones. The problem is that it is possible to access them in various conditions, which usually are not very concentration friendly, such as public transport or waiting rooms, where is “deep-reading” almost impossible. Personally, when I use my time in the traffic to read some news, I usually don’t look for stuff to think about as I just want to kill time. In case I would read p-news (printed) in the bus, I believe I won’t experience any improvement in concentration or critical thinking. In fact, I would be even less concentrated because I’d be chasing the A2 pages around the bus most of the time. Therefore, I believe digital media don’t make us think shallower, but they allow us to read in conditions we never tried before.

    As I believe digital media aren’t worse than the print ones, the results of the e-readers experiment are, at least for me, a bit shocking. Usually, when I read books using my e-reader, I experience more pedantic approach to the text, as there is a smaller amount of text placed on one page, what allows me to read the book completely and concentrate on detail. However, this may depend on the nature of the reader and my experiences may be caused by my overly pedantic character.

    I believe there is not much we can do about this unless we’d regulate the number of applications which can be run at the same time on phones, PCs and other internet access devices. If something is read on the phone, e. g. news, usually one also receives and answers messages, listens to music and possibly thinks about homework, and the quality of the reading goes down because of the multitasking. Unfortunately, phones make this too easy to perform.

    Mrs Wolf was working seven years on a book describing the history and development of reading. As she mentions, human reading habits have been changing all the time, and even during her writing of the book. I believe this signalizes there is no need to panic about our reading habits of today because they are continuously changing. Therefore, there is a high possibility we will be solving the same dilemma in 50 years.

    (I am sorry for posting this comment twice, this is the final version)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adam,

      You make a great point, I'm glad you brought this up because it seems to me like the article tries to completely demonize digital reading. I understand that comparing digital and paper text is not the point of the article, but it completely ignores the fact that digital reading does have lots of benefits. I am similar to you in the sense that I have no problem with reading off of an e-reader while staying fully focused on the content. I do, however, know people on the other side of the spectrum that can't say the same, but that's unimportant. On top of that, I also prefer the convenience of e-books: the ability to keep them all on one, portable device, less vulnerability to damage from the environment, backlighting, among others. However, the fact that the devices which facilitate digital reading offer other distractions is, in my opinion, a problem with the reader's self-control and ability to focus. It's not a drawback of the medium itself. Therefore, I don't think that restricting the amount of things that can be done on these devices simultaneously is a logical solution. It's rather a matter of changing the reader's mindset to not succumb to these distractions.

      Delete
  2. I think digital reading does indeed affect our way of thinking. I have heard numerous times that I shouldn't be studying in bed because the brain associates laying in bed with sleep and that creates cognitive dissonance, making it harder to study. That might also be true with electronic devices and reading with comprehension. For me, I associate any sort of screen with entertainment or very quick delivery of information. The fact that reading tends to be a slow process where information is read piece by piece, may lead to conflicting associations in the brain.

    The article claims that digital reading may lead to shallower thinking that may leave us susceptible to false information and demagoguery. While that may be true, I think it's just a part of a bigger problem.
    In today's world of high-speed internet and access to pretty much everything, it is just a matter of time where this much freedom can have a negative effect. Humans are curious being and the human brain loves to receive information. From birth, we explore the world around us and the brain rewards us by releasing dopamine, which makes us feel good.
    On the web, companies are battling for our attention.
    The brain does not distinguish between useful information such as learning how to do taxes and what the Kardashians are up to.
    Website content and the way it is delivered is done in such a way to exploit the brains curious nature and capture our attention for as long as possible.

    People voluntarily indulge in poisoning our brain with instant gratification and that shortens peoples' attention span. We browse through Facebook and Instagram instead of doing the most human thing, thinking. Boredom is unpleasant. While boredom makes us feel uninterested, we are left only with our thoughts.
    Whenever I am bored, I usually daydream about my future or think about my plans for the day. I think most people can relate to that and that is why I think boredom is beneficial. Sometimes it is good to have a mental cleanup and think. So, next time you find yourself standing in line, keep that phone in your pocket.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Written by Rio

    As the article mentions, there are a lot of demerits on reading from the screen, and it is clear that digitalization of texts called the decline in reading ability. However, from my perspective, it is not that we have to stop digital reading because its bad, although it is simply just the matter that reading from paper is better.

    Besides its easiness and accessibility, I have never liked reading an e-book. Whenever I read those, I always lack in eagerness to continue reading the rest of the book. In my opinion, what is important is its physical presence; the fact that the book is physically present within the sight motivates the person to continue reading what they started. Although when it comes to digital books, the physical dimensions, in some ways, are quiet limited. Even if the tablet stores 1000 books, it is really easy for us to forget its existence if it is not physically present in our sight.

    It is also proven by neuroscience that choosing prints as the platform to read will increase our reading comprehension skills compared to digital platform. When we read through light emitting device (through screens), such as our computers and tablets, we are reading through transmitted lights. In this case, our brain switches its state in to pattern recognition and relaxing mode, and whenever we read, it will only recognize the whole text as a picture, making us unable to pay attention to the detail. On the other hand, studies showed by Marshall McLuhan, leading scholar in Media Studies, proved that when we read from prints, which means reading through reflected lights, our brain switches in to analysis and critics mode, making us able to examine the text closely and precisely.

    At last, what makes prints so valuable is the sense of touch, as the article states that the sense of touch gives “Geometry” and “spatial therenss” to the text, which adds to the comprehension and memory of the written word. The feel of paper, thickness, weight, checking the pages left, all those physical touching stimulates our experience of reading, making us more comprehensive, and excited to turn the page.

    (Sorry for sending it twice, didn’t knew my name was “ChibiliskiJP”)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rio,
      I completely agree with your point. I do think the things we read text from affects our perception of the text. What struck me more is that though e-readers such as Kindle are very convenient, it just is not like the real thing. I do many things just to feel like a person that would do such a thing. I wear Puma Suedes for practising breakdance even though the new line of Adidas sneakers are much more comfortable and put less stress on the spine. For the same reason some people smoke to feel artsy, rebellious or like James Bond, I would still read a book over an e-reader. It is irrational but I do it anyway. Something just doesn't feel right when I make myself a cup of tea, get comfy in bed and read from an e-reader.

      Delete
  4. Although I can easily relate to most of the points raised by the article, to me it seems that everything (as usual) depends. In this case, it depends on who reads. I believe there are not many researchers or a literary critics whose skills, in terms of reading comprehension, differ when reading printed or on computer. No matter what they read (printed or digital), the quality of reading must be sufficient enough to understand
    every detail and not to read intermittently. The six millennia of development of new brain circuitry is put to the test in their daily life. It naturally follows from their
    profession/lifestyle. Therefore, I expect that their -ability to apply critical analysis- and -gauge inference- is always positively stimulated because of the constant training, regardless of the presence of digital media.

    In analogy, as Wolf says, "the more we skim, the more we're likely to keep skimming". And this can be generalized for any type of text we read. It does not matter whether we read something that is printed or in digital form. If we associate our reading with quick scanning of short messages on messenger, twitter, etc., we will tend to apply it to any type of text we read. This is, unfortunately, the worst scenario of: practice makes perfect. Thus, I think the most important thing is to be exposed to many types of texts. Short, long, simple and complex, all approximately in the same amount, just to keep the training. Maybe, the most advisable reaction to the situation today would be to boost the amount of reading of scientific articles and complex essays as part of standard curriculum in schools.

    ReplyDelete