Changes in the Nature of Reading?

[Jack7]

The speaker's point: Americans will learn whatever it is they need to do a job, and will take pride in that skill...but may learn it to the exclusion of anything of deep cultural significance, whereas other societies seem to value having a well-rounded education (arts, literature, culture, politics, etc.) more highly than we do.

The sad thing is, even though it's a stereotype, I've also seen the grain of truth from which it sprang all too often. I can't tell you how many guys I know- educated guys- whose conversation rarely strays outside the boundaries of their last session of Medal of Honor or a couple of TV shows. The question "Read any good books lately?" is almost like throwing out conversational spike strips.

I think you can do both. Be exceptional in your field and yet also well rounded and well educated. But what do I know?

I think though there's much truth in your observations.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think you can do both. Be exceptional in your field and yet also well rounded and well educated. But what do I know?

I think though there's much truth in your observations.

Oh, I agree that you can be both. The speaker was making a generalization based on his past experiences...and sadly, upon the experiences of his colleagues.

But its no more absolutely a truth that Americans are well trained and narrowly educated than it is that Europeans are slightly less trained but with broader educations. Again, its just a generalization, one with a grain of truth- just compare curricula from European and American public schools- but no more accurate than other generalizations.

You know, like Men vs Women or New Yorkers vs Los Angelinos.

 

[Jack7]

I was just being facetious Dan in saying, "but what do I know?"

I think some generalizations are just that, generalizations, and not necessarily true. But some are true, basically speaking.

But in either case individual people aren't limited to them. People can become whatever they wish to become, with a little work.

So I think we probably agree on that.

 

[Umbran]

People can become whatever they wish to become, with a little work.

I quote one of my favorite songs ("My Secret Origins"), by a little known band called Ookla the Mok:

"There was a boy who knew
he could be anything that he wanted to.
Everybody told him he had a singular destiny.
Everybody said he'd go far--
everybody said he'd be a star.
They said he could be anything he wanted to be--
then he turned into me.
Now it seems increasingly unlikely
that I'm gonna grow up to be Luke Skywalker--
not gonna be Indiana Jones.
And after all this time
it's probably not gonna turn out
that I'm the super-powered heir
to a world that isn't there anymore."

We quite regularly lie to kids. It is not true you can be what you want, with a little work - luck, lack of support, and personal limitations can get in the way. It is true that work can overcome many obstacles. It is true that if you don't try, you most certainly won't be what you want, but that's not the same thing.

And, even if we are talking about something that the majority of folks could do, if they wanted - what if they don't want to?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And, even if we are talking about something that the majority of folks could do, if they wanted - what if they don't want to?

I know a guy who is a math whiz- as in, if you race him vs a calculator, he probably wins. He only just recently took a job as a math tutor after nearly 20 years of seeking/having employment in other fields...and only because he had been unemployed for a while and his wife gave him an ultimatum.

And me? I was so good in biology, everyone thought I'd follow my Dad into medicine. While it was true I aced those courses with minimal effort (by which I mean I usually didn't even buy the books), I hated the labwork. Especially dissection. I didn't see myself getting through med school without working with cadavers, so I had to find another path.

 

[Janx]

We quite regularly lie to kids. It is not true you can be what you want, with a little work - luck, lack of support, and personal limitations can get in the way. It is true that work can overcome many obstacles. It is true that if you don't try, you most certainly won't be what you want, but that's not the same thing.

true.

Assuming we all want to run a surf board shop down by the beach, we can't ALL have that job. There's not enough beaches for 6 billion shops. And there are other jobs that need to get done.

Somebody has to be the janitor.

back on topic:
I would certainly like to read more books again. I just don't have enough time where I can sit in uninterrupted quiet to do so. I certainly still read words with, just not anything as formal as a book.

 

[Umbran]

And me?

I can add my own - like most boys, I wanted to be an astronaut. Like many, I had the science proclivity - do good in school, and maybe it would be possible. At the time they had like 1500 qualified applications each year for 20 positions - those are odds that work might be able to beat.

But, at the time I was in high school making choices on career paths, though, I was *too tall* to be an astronaut. No amount of academic study was going to change the distance from my head to my feet.

 

[Morrus]

Will Social Media and New Information Delivery Systems (such as Kindle) not only change how people read, but what they read?

I dunno, but your choice of font might! It might just be me, but I'm finding that font really hard to read!

[Edit - ah, I see others said the same before me].

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No amount of academic study was going to change the distance from my head to my feet.

Hey, If Hugo Drax could get "Jaws" up to his space station, why couldn't NASA?

Besides, you could have just volunteered to spend a few months in the High-G Simulator Centerfuge...

 

[GSHamster]

I don't think the new tech will greatly change reading fiction. I have an e-reader, and the primary advantage is space savings. I can carry several books in the same physical space as one book. Otherwise it's pretty much the same, one page at a time.

Non-fiction, on the other hand, is a more interesting question.

However, I don't think the important tech is social media or e-readers. Rather, it is "search".

Being able to rapidly and accurately search a text for the exact information you need changes things. Before we had good search, you would often read an entire reference work in advance when learning something. Then when you had a problem, you'd kind of remember the book talking about something and you'd try and find where you saw what you need.

But now, you just search for your exact problem and you find the exact answer quickly.

But that "pre-reading" step was helpful in exposing the entire subject matter to you. Search can give you laser-like depth, but it is not conducive to breadth.