
Yes, the Internet is rotting your brain - jseliger
http://www.salon.com/books/what_to_read/index.html?story=/books/laura_miller/2010/05/09/the_shallows
======
nopinsight
It really depends on what you choose to read. When you read a good summary of
a book coupled with insightful comments, you may gain better balanced
perspectives than reading the whole book itself (which in a lot of cases just
present one-sided arguments). Moreover, you might have spent only 1/10 of the
time and will likely have a pretty good idea whether it's worth spending more
time to read it in full.

A nice example is the Wikipedia article on the book 'Guns, Germs, and Steel'
which presents an outline of its theory together with criticism and responses
--the latter two cannot be found in the book itself. I read the whole 480-page
book a few years ago and I currently remember less than the outline given in
that single article. Yes, it was a fairly enjoyable reading experience, but
comparing to all other opportunities and hobbies I could be doing, I would
have saved the time by reading the Wikipedia article and other summaries &
critics instead. Another book I regret reading in full is the 320-page 'Blink'
which is well-summarized in a single article:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_%28book%29>.

To actually learn rather than having fun with prose and anecdotes, in the
amount of time reading one book in full, you can instead explore a summary of
ten books in interconnected areas and develop a more complete model of the
field. If you pick good summaries and well-cited books (so that we can delve
into conclusions without arguing too much about raw data), you can learn a
whole lot more and in a more balanced way in the same amount of time. (Unless
you are working on a dissertation in that field, too many details are simply
unnecessary and could in fact interfere with analysis and understanding--as
stated in the book 'Blink' above.)

~~~
gnosis
_"I read the whole 480-page book a few years ago and I currently remember less
than the outline given in that single article."_

It sounds like you're implying that the value of reading a book can be
measured by how much of it you can consciously recall at some given instant
after you've read it. But what if there's more to it than that? You also
mention enjoyment of the experience of reading the book. But is there yet
more?

I propose that reading a book can stimulate thought that a mere summary would
not. Reading a book can generate ideas that a summary might not. Reading a
book can change you in ways that a summary would not. Summaries also
frequently omit critical details. Summaries are often biased, unfair, and
inaccurate.

You may not remember much about a given book you've read, but that doesn't
mean that the most you got from it was whatever enjoyment you had of reading
it at the time.

------
timwiseman
_Still others dared to argue that the value of what Carr calls "literary
reading" has been inflated._

I find it amusing how dismissive he is of this idea. I personally highly value
deep, literary reading.

But is it necessarily an inherent good for everyone. Many people prefer to
take their entertainment in small chunks and may need the shallow knowledge of
a wide variety of topics more than a deep understanding of any one area.

I am certainly not saying that it is overvalued, but I would not be dismissive
of the idea and I could at least see arguments for it being inessential for
certain types of people whose needs and desires lie in other areas.

------
mtinkerhess
_...even the microseconds of decision-making attention demanded by hyperlinks
saps cognitive power from the reading process..._

This seems like a pretty good argument for hardcore minimalism in web design.

------
julius_geezer
1.'What will we lose socially, politically, civilly, scientifically,
psychologically, if a majority decides that the intellectual "shallows" are
the proper habitat for the 21st-century mind?'

By comparing the high culture of a previous age to the average culture of a
later one, you can always make an argument for a decadence. But what
percentage of the population read Tolstoy in his day, even of the literate
population?

2\. Hyperlinks: Is one supposed to do deep reading without reference to
anything other than the text? Does the handiest volume of Shakespeare on your
shelves lack footnotes? Do you ever mark up page n of a book with a reference
to page n minus m? Does that make you stupider?

------
bitwize
All right, look.

Project Gutenberg + nook = reading bliss.

Snarf some epubs of your favorite authors, philosophers, etc. and have some
rich brain food for your bus ride.

------
jseliger
Compare and contrast this with Disconnecting Distraction:
<http://paulgraham.com/distraction.html> .

~~~
adamhowell
The other week my 4th or 5th - lost track - iPhone got wet and useless and it
would've cost $200 to replace, so I finally got fed up with how expensive a
habit it'd become and instead bought a $30 Nokia.

In the few weeks I've been using it, I've been amazed by how often I kick into
"iPhone mode" whenever I have a moments pause while waiting in line or stopped
in traffic.

Whether or not that's good or bad, I don't know, but I certainly remember 10
years ago being able to stand in line for a few minutes without jonesing for a
hit of infotainment.

~~~
jcromartie
"... whenever I have a moments pause while waiting in line or stopped in
traffic"

I've noticed this as well, and it really bothers me. I wonder why I can't sit
through a stoplight without a distraction, and I realize it must not be a
healthy thing that I've developed.

------
sabat
Nicholas Carr is excellent at being reductive -- that is, intentionally
leaving out important facts in order to make a successful argument. He's
pretty good at red herrings, too.

For instance: he wrote a whole book about why the day when you get an
automatic advantage against your competitors because you're using technology
is over. (And that, he strongly implies, is the whole point of technology: to
get an advantage over competitors.) Red herring. That's not why businesses use
technology; they use it so that they can do stuff they could never do before.
No one orders MS Office because they think they're doing something their every
competitor hasn't done.

He was being reductive when he wrote a book about why IT services will quickly
become a commodity the way electrical service did. (The analogy does not fit;
few people need "custom" electricity, but most business have special needs and
will need something beyond standard installs of software.)

I'm willing to bet that he's using one or both of these tactics here, in order
to get hackles up and sell books. I find it hard to take him seriously.

 _It turned out that a whole lot of people were just then realizing that, like
Carr, they had lost their ability to fully concentrate on long, thoughtful
written works. "I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something
else to do," Carr wrote._

Really? I'm probably better at reading long-form prose now than I've ever
been. It's like saying if you spend some time as a sprinter that you will
completely lose the ability to run long distances.

~~~
hristov
The latter sentence is actually true. It is a well known fact. That is why
long distance runners make sure never to practice sprinting and sprinters as
well as athletes that have to run short distances only (such as American
football players) never run long distances during practice.

Anyways sorry for going off on an OT tangent. The internet must be rotting my
brain.

~~~
pwhelan
Some runners do that. Others do not. My cousin is a D1 cc runner. He runs a
lot of sprints in his training (mostly 400, 800m), but his shortest race
distance is 10k. He is doing a marathon soon and an ironman is in the works.

Good football players often go jogging or do other continuous, light cardio
for longer periods in general training.

It is sorta like how to be a good reader you need to be able to
read/comprehend novels and academic articles -- imho.

