Brains Adapting to a Different Kind of Reading Style

[Mivo]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

This, at least, is dead wrong. It is a healthy outlet for our natural aggressive instincts, thus preventing us from carrying out our fantasies in real life.

Have you ever hung out around teens and adults after they spent a lot of time playing shooters? The level of aggression seems much higher than usual. These games are not an outlet, but a generator of adrenaline. Garbage in, garbage out.

This doesn't turn people into murderers, obviously, but I have little doubt that the impact of exposure to interactive violence isn't beneficial. Neither are violent movies and shows, but they are not as engaging.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by latepaul

What experience has anyone else had with this? Do you think your reading style has changed? Can you still consume dense prose and convoluted sentences with relish? (assuming you ever did!)

Yes, I can; online stuff didn't change my reading, as far as I can see. IMHO the change in reading is not caused by online reading per se, but by the pace of life nowadays; or better, the pace of life which many people seem to find normal.

My modus operandi is quite different (and very comparable to CWatkinsNash).

Basically, I just *don't hurry*. Not even at work, if there's not a very good reason for it. I don't get stressed out (normally), and I'm not always trying to do many things at the same time. You'll never find me trying to make a phone call while paying my groceries while also chatting with someone else.

My unhurried way of living has given me a 20 hour attention span (if I should need it), and patience, among other things.

I *refuse* to jam-pack every single minute in my schedule with some sort of activity or task, and I build in buffers whenever possible. The result is that, mostly, I always have time, while others are always rushing.

Others: "Let's see.... yes, I can fit that appointment in between 16:21 and 16:47; Yes, see you then. I just need to make sure I leave on time for my appointment of 16:50."

Me: "No, sorry. Can't fit that appointment today, but you can pick another date. Choose any time after 16:00, and any day, except next Tuesday."

I am also alone, by choice, which provides me the option of doing (or not doing) whatever I want, when I want, and how I want.

Other people actually hate me for my way of living. Not too long ago, someone told me:

"Yeah, easy for you to say, but you have a *simple* life!"

Indeed. That's the entire point of my remark, fool. You don't just *have* a simple life, you *choose* to lead it as such.

I chose this simple life, just as you chose the complex one, having a wife, a girlfriend, two mistresses, 5 children (in between mentioned four women), packing every single waking minute with tasks and appointments (making up lies in the process to keep the wife, gf and mistresses out of each other's hair), causing you to have the attention span of a goldfish, because you always feel you need to be doing something else than the thing you are actually doing.

So there. That was some monstrous sentence, wasn't it?

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

I agree. There seems to be such a drive to fill one's time to capacity...

Agree completely.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

What I notice more and more, is that many people seem to be taking a huge amount of pride in how busy they are...

Never understood this either. Why would I *WANT* to be so busy I have to almost fly from task to task or appointment to appointment?

The one place I experience that is at work: whatever you do, however you do it, it's never fast enough. Faster, more faster, fasterderder is the motto. At some point, it will only start to cause errors, so you need to re-do the work, and in the end, you'll end up being slower.

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

Is that why I can settle into a novel just as easily as I always have? No idea, really, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case.

IT is exactly the case, because you feel you actually HAVE the time to settle into a novel. Many people can't, just because they feel they are "wasting time", or because "they have stuff to do." Those are the ones that, at some point, will have a burnout.

Now that we have computers, e-mail, cars, and so on, we CAN do more in one day, so we WILL do more in one day, up to the point of absurdity. I can remember my grandma saying: "Huh? That bus isn't late." It was 5-6 minutes late, but she remembered a time in which bus arrival and departure times stated to be 12:30 actually meant "somewhere between 12:25 and 12:40," so she arrived at 12:20 and expected having to wait up to 20 minutes.

It's completely unfathomable to the current day commuters/travelers. If the bus sign says "12:34", they'll be at the stop at 12:33, and grumbling at 12:35 (or, grumbling if they missed the bus that was 21 seconds early).

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Mivo

Have you ever hung out around teens and adults after they spent a lot of time playing shooters? The level of aggression seems much higher than usual. These games are not an outlet, but a generator of adrenaline. Garbage in, garbage out.

This doesn't turn people into murderers, obviously, but I have little doubt that the impact of exposure to interactive violence isn't beneficial. Neither are violent movies and shows, but they are not as engaging.

As fjtorres pointed out, that's just frustration at our own perceived incompetence. Nothing to do with the violence, which according to my philosophy is actually a mitigating factor!

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Mivo

Have you ever hung out around teens and adults after they spent a lot of time playing shooters?

.

You ever hung around anybody trying to assemble furniture or kids bicycles tagged as "some assembly required"? Or coming out of government offices?

Frustration is frustration and bureaucracies lead to more violence than all video games ever, combined.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Mivo

Have you ever hung out around teens and adults after they spent a lot of time playing shooters? The level of aggression seems much higher than usual. These games are not an outlet, but a generator of adrenaline. Garbage in, garbage out.

This doesn't turn people into murderers, obviously, but I have little doubt that the impact of exposure to interactive violence isn't beneficial. Neither are violent movies and shows, but they are not as engaging.

It's no secret that some people enjoy an adrenaline rush. Some people like being scared on roller-coasters, for example, while others (myself included) wouldn't go on one for (almost) any inducement.

Isn't it more likely that people with a naturally high level of aggression choose to play shooting games, than that playing shooting games creates the aggression?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's no secret that some people enjoy an adrenaline rush. Some people like being scared on roller-coasters, for example, while others (myself included) wouldn't go on one for (almost) any inducement.

Horror movie fans put up with idiot plots and poor acting for a reason.

QUOTE=HarryT;2807514]
Isn't it more likely that people with a naturally high level of aggression choose to play shooting games, than that playing shooting games creates the aggression?

No fair bringing in common sense!
It's not as if people pickup violent video games expecting nice, sedate, easy puzzles...

[jandrew]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

That the web trains users not to sustain their attention seems obvious, since hypertext was famously designed by someone with ADD.

Just to clarify: that article is about the hypertext vaporware project Xanadu (and the people involved in it) -- the www is *not* the same thing and did not come from that project. The article even states:

While Miller, Gregory, and the other coders were agonizing over their broken system, the Internet was offering a simple prototype of a universal library. Unlike the carefully guarded Xanadu code, the programming tools on which the Internet depended were open to all, and tens of thousands of users tinkered with them. In Geneva, Tim Berners-Lee, completely ignorant of the Xanadu propaganda, wrote a simple standard for hypertext publishing, which he named the World Wide Web.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by latepaul

What experience has anyone else had with this? Do you think your reading style has changed? Can you still consume dense prose and convoluted sentences with relish? (assuming you ever did!)

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Yes, I can; online stuff didn't change my reading, as far as I can see. IMHO the change in reading is not caused by online reading per se, but by the pace of life nowadays; or better, the pace of life which many people seem to find normal.

Interesting perspective.

However for myself I have to say that I live at a very similar pace to you. I live alone, don't have a hectic social life and work a job where as far as it is in my power I work on one task at a time until I complete it. But I don't have a 20-hour attention span (I need sleep for a start) and I find it harder to get into denser books than I used to. I find it harder to motivate myself to read.

As I said in my initial post, I'd noticed this problem before and not blamed it on "the internet" but more on my memory. But I wonder if another part of the problem is that I've just read more. And the more I have to compare with the less good the new stuff seems. It usually seems OK but rarely more than that. (I call it the 7/10 problem as it's the most common rating I tend to give books)

I've tried over the last few years to really push myself to read. I've tried reading different genres. I've tried just picking stuff that seems fun. I've set reading goals. I've tried lots of things. And don't get me wrong I've read some good books and enjoyed them OK. I've read a few really good books. But at the end of the day, I'm more likely to reach for the TV remote than my ereader and I'm more likely to reach for my PC than that.

And I'm nervous admitting that because it seems like people see that as a moral failing but it's just where I'm at. I'd like to be a more engaged reader. I still get excited by the idea of books. I didn't set out to change but it seems I have. The problem is everything I've tried to reverse the trend seems to make it feel like a chore.

Oh well.

[ApK]

Hmm. I think I agree with just about everything that's been said in this thread so far, except Mivo's comment on shooter games. I have always found shooters to be an outlet.

Key point I agree with: We sometimes want our info in bite-size chunks because we often have a great number of other things we'd like to squeeze into our time.
This hectic-ness is often beneficial to getting things done, sometimes necessary, but should be thought of as a temporary state better off avoided, not something to aspire to.

Like pushing the engine past the red-line, nice to know the power is there when you need it, but it's not supposed to be driven like that all the time. The goal should be to be free to stop and smell the roses. And then do so when possible.

[QuantumIguana]

Any sort of outlet for aggression is going to raise adrenaline levels. Playing basketball - or any other sport - is going to raise adrenaline levels. It's probably not so good if people's adrenaline-raising activities are all one where they sit on a couch not getting exercise, but there isn't good evidence that video games make people violent. As games have become more realistic, violence levels have decreased.

[jandrew]

Originally Posted by latepaul

...
It usually seems OK but rarely more than that. (I call it the 7/10 problem as it's the most common rating I tend to give books)

I've tried over the last few years to really push myself to read. I've tried reading different genres. I've tried just picking stuff that seems fun. I've set reading goals. I've tried lots of things. And don't get me wrong I've read some good books and enjoyed them OK. I've read a few really good books. But at the end of the day, I'm more likely to reach for the TV remote than my ereader and I'm more likely to reach for my PC than that.

I guess one thing to ask yourself, given the 7/10 rating you mention as common for books -- ask yourself honestly, at the end of day, after you have reached for the TV remote or your PC -- what quality rating do you give an evening (or whatever) spent with the TV or PC? Higher than 7/10? Or just easier?

Originally Posted by latepaul

And I'm nervous admitting that because it seems like people see that as a moral failing but it's just where I'm at. I'd like to be a more engaged reader. I still get excited by the idea of books. I didn't set out to change but it seems I have. The problem is everything I've tried to reverse the trend seems to make it feel like a chore.

Well, I certainly wouldn't see it as any kind of moral failing. Perhaps, rather than pushing or challenging yourself to read (which can make it a chore), just give yourself permission to read (it is too easy to see it as a luxury of time we can't afford), permission to disconnect (from the news, from online life, from current events and information for information's sake), permission to escape (from the usual). Further, make sure to give yourself permission to *not* enjoy a book (regardless of its critical acclaim) and to put it down and move on (our egos can make that harder than it sounds).

At the end of the day, it's the end of *your* day -- read, write, TV, the corner pub (with moderation), walk in the park, PC, yoga (with moderation) ...

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by latepaul

Interesting perspective.

However for myself I have to say that I live at a very similar pace to you. I live alone, don't have a hectic social life and work a job where as far as it is in my power I work on one task at a time until I complete it. But I don't have a 20-hour attention span (I need sleep for a start) and I find it harder to get into denser books than I used to. I find it harder to motivate myself to read.

As I said in my initial post, I'd noticed this problem before and not blamed it on "the internet" but more on my memory. But I wonder if another part of the problem is that I've just read more. And the more I have to compare with the less good the new stuff seems. It usually seems OK but rarely more than that. (I call it the 7/10 problem as it's the most common rating I tend to give books)

I've tried over the last few years to really push myself to read. I've tried reading different genres. I've tried just picking stuff that seems fun. I've set reading goals. I've tried lots of things. And don't get me wrong I've read some good books and enjoyed them OK. I've read a few really good books. But at the end of the day, I'm more likely to reach for the TV remote than my ereader and I'm more likely to reach for my PC than that.

To me, it just sounds as if your interests are shifting, and at this point in time, reading is not one of your hobbies anymore. It happens. I've had periods that my photography stuff sits in the closet for weeks or even months, and suddenly, I get the urge to get the camera out again. Then I'll be taking pictures like crazy for a year or more, and after I lose interest, I stash everything in the closet again... for a few days, weeks, or months.

It's the same with all of my other hobbies, even reading. Normally I don't go months without a book, but weeks is not unheard of (such as right now, because of too much work to do...).

And I'm nervous admitting that because it seems like people see that as a moral failing but it's just where I'm at. I'd like to be a more engaged reader. I still get excited by the idea of books. I didn't set out to change but it seems I have. The problem is everything I've tried to reverse the trend seems to make it feel like a chore.

I have this same feeling with RPG's. I really love to play them, but halfway through, I lose interest. "I'll continue after the weekend." Then the weekend becomes a week, a month, half a year. Then I forgot where I'm at in the story, and at some point, I restart.

This way, I have played Neverwinter Nights (2006), The Witcher 1 (2007), Dragon Age (2009), and The Witcher 2 (2011; I even upgraded my graphics card for that one), but never finished any of them. I actually lost interest in Dragon Age at around 90%, after waiting 5 years and reading the pre-release books as fast as if the next day would be the last I'd live.

[QuantumIguana]

I used to stay up into the late hours of the night reading when I just couldn't put a book down. I've been up past 4 AM reading and then gone to work in the morning a bit tired, but nothing that some coffee won't fix. I don't do that anymore. But it's nothing to do with the internet, it's just getting older.

[Namekuseijin]

the only thing that changed is attention span: there's so many different kinds of entertainment right now that people focus on no one, they just zap between them all. Back in other centuries, it was pretty much just books and sex.

My focus for a novel when it is really attention grabbing is as strong as it ever was. I have tons of books on the kindle (and luckily no game or videos), but I'm able to concentrate on one alone when they have my full attention.