Do we need a new word for "reading" on screens since it is a very different animal?

[danbloom]

Turns out I might be very very wrong.

.....as a learned professor at a major university today in an email knocks my suggestion of a possible new word being beneficial or even needed, he tells me: "alas, i can't agree with your premise about needing a new word for reading on screens. I think you are wrong here. reading, by screen or paper, is mediated by the retinal image. Gould's experiments, at IBM, have shown that when the images are made similar, reading is similar. thus i think it would be a step backward to give the same task different names.

reference: Gould, J. D., Alfaro, L., Barnes, V., Finn, R., Grischkowsky, N., & Minuto, A. (1987). Reading is slower from CRT displays than from paper: attempts to isolate a single-variable explanation. Hum Factors, 29(3), 269-299.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=3623564

-- a note from an un-named Professor of Psychology and Neural Science
at major US college

[danbloom]

offline now, thread closed

[Donnageddon]

Perhaps danbloom, you could shed some light on your thoughts regarding the "end of critical thinking in the 'screen age'" Something about that feels vaguely condescending.

[danbloom]

offline now thread closed

[danbloom]

I think, or I feel sometimes here, that I naively wandered into a hornet's nest where most forum posters have already adopted the ebook and therefore find my worries about ebooks a bit, how shall we say? -- condescending? But I am not condescending anyone. If anything, the angry posts here to me show just how some aspects of critical thinking get lost when people read and write on screens. It has not been very civil, to be honest. Why is that? i just came here to discuss, as a friendly and honest person. It almost seems like everything in the USA today is red state blue state, with us or against us, paperers vs screeners, is there no middle ground to discuss these things rationally, or has all this become a religion now for most people, and no rational discussions allowed? Ouch!

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by danbloom

I think, or I feel sometimes here, that I naively wandered into a hornet's nest where most forum posters have already adopted the ebook and therefore find my worries about ebooks a bit, how shall we say? -- condescending?

Well, gosh-- who would have thought that a web forum created for the express purpose of being used for information about reading on mobile devices, posted to by people interested in reading on mobile devices, and read by people interested in mobile devices, would be populated mainly by people who read on mobile devices? And then you-- who admit that you don't use mobile reading devices, never will use a mobile reading device, come in here to preach how it is so fundamentally different from "real" reading that there should be a new word for it-- might be considered condescending? Perish the thought!

[Donnageddon]

Dan, Dan, I can not speak for everyone on this international forum, but I was initially just dismayed by the repeated posting of new threads by danbloom on the same subject clogging up the front page. Then I was dismayed and bewildered by you immediately lashing out at the "uncivil, and rude" and now "humorless" US.

Then I was dismayed by the dancing around your main theme that ereading was deterimental to "critical thinking". This was most pronounced by your "new" thread People who "read" on computer screens and Kindles have rewired brains? This thread was introduced with the warning to "read slowly"

This thread post was backed up by a "fictional future discovery" by neuroscientists. One of your "fictional future neuroscientists" even stated this:

"Knowing that pathways in the brain can be enhanced may be significant in the long run in coming up with new treatments for certain neurological problems, such as lack of critical analysis skills, where these pathways become degraded among longterm screen-readers."

I think you might get along better here if you took the time to get to know us (if it helps, you might want to try reading slowly).

I personally would appreciate a toning down of the patronizing language. We are a great bunch here, even the ones from the US.

[danbloom]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

....and then you-- who admit that you don't use mobile reading devices, never will use a mobile reading device, come in here to [preach] [your word] how it is so fundamentally different from "real" reading that there should be a new word for it-- might be considered condescending? Perish the thought!

Ardeegee, I never ever said once that I do not use mobile devices -- I do! -- and I never once said I never will use a mobile reading device -- show me where i ever said that? -- SEE? The loss of critical thinking. You have not read my posts clearly. What i said somehwere is that I do not own a computer and never have. that is all I said. I love the Kindle, i love the nook, I love my friend's iPhones and PDAs, i just don't own any of those devices. That is very far from saying I came here saying I don't use mobile devices and never will........ that is what I mean by the loss of civility here. You judge me without reading my comments clearly.

So you mis-read my posts and then you say I am condescending, but it does not make sense, if I never said the things you accuse me of saying. Does it? Show me where I said what YOU think I said. It's all in your mind. SMILE

But you are right, ardeegee, I was not aware this was a members-only club, restriced to like-minded people. Excuuuuuuuuuse me!

[danbloom]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

Dan, Dan, I can not speak for everyone on this international forum, but I was initially just dismayed by the repeated posting of new threads by danbloom on the same subject clogging up the front page. Then I was dismayed and bewildered by you immediately lashing out at the "uncivil, and rude" and now "humorless" US.

Then I was dismayed by the dancing around your main theme that ereading was deterimental to "critical thinking". This was most pronounced by your "new" thread People who "read" on computer screens and Kindles have rewired brains? This thread was introduced with the warning to "read slowly"

This thread post was backed up by a "fictional future discovery" by neuroscientists. One of your "fictional future neuroscientists" even stated this:



I think you might get along better here if you took the time to get to know us (if it helps, you might want to try reading slowly).

I personally would appreciate a toning down of the patronizing language. We are a great bunch here, even the ones from the US.

Accepted. Well said. I do want to get to know everyone here better and I know and am sure you are all a great bunch here. That's is how I first approached this forum, led here by a great guy named Steve Jordan, so I thought I was in a civil place. So I was quite surprised by the animosity here. Ouch. This is not the America I used to know. SIGH.....

But clogging up the front page? Look up clogging, Donn.

[danbloom]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

...I personally would appreciate a toning down of the patronizing language. We are a great bunch here, even the ones from the US.

Donn, Donn, could you show me where I once used patronizing language here? You read me wrong. Maybe it's the medium of the Net, where language is written and read in different ways from normal speech or face to face conversations. I can assure you Donn that I am NOT a patronizing person, never have been and never will be, it's just not my nature to be that way. BUT I realize that online some people might take some of my words the wrong way, especially since they were convinced from the git go that I was a bad guy from the other side of the tracks -- he loves papers books! Watch your back! -- and therefore not to be trusted and therefore to read all my remarks in your own online mindset translation of patronizing-talk.

I don't blame anyone here. I know you are a great bunch. I know I am part of the great bunch. But it's the nature of this beast -- the GREAT ONLINESPHERE -- that makes friendly banter sometimes impossible when people come to the forum with pre-conceived notions about newcomers from the other side of the tracks.....

[Donnageddon]

Originally Posted by danbloom

Accepted. ... I thought I was in a civil place. So I was quite surprised by the animosity here. Ouch. This is not the America I used to know. SIGH.....

But clogging up the front page? Look up clogging, Donn.

Sigh. You must not have read slowly enough, danbloom. This is certainly not the America you used to know, being an international forum and all. Perhaps you are just not using your critical thinking on the subject.

I took your advice and looked up "clogging". It s a good word. And I certainly used it appropriately.

Main Entry: 2clog
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): clogged; clog·ging
Date: 14th century

transitive verb 1 a : to impede with a clog : hinder b : to halt or retard the progress, operation, or growth of : encumber <restraints that have been clogging the market — T. W. Arnold>

and about this -

I was not aware this was a members-only club, restriced to like-minded people.

You are still not aware of that, danbloom. It is all in your mind.

[danbloom]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

Sigh..

Okay, Donn, I am going to take your advice and read more slowly from now on. I appreciate your comments and.... friends for life! No problem. You seem like a nice guy, so I will take your words with that in mind from now on. And I promise to read more slowly, take my meds on schedule and unclog the drain when necessary. Done deal!

Let's move on to the issues at hand. By the way, Donn, do I come across as a bit of a crank here? Could be. Just wondering because just today some highfalutin writer at TIME magazine told me I was full of sh*t and a crank to boot, regarding my ideas about pbooks and ebooks, and the never the twain shall meet refrain that some people accuse me of using as a mantra. Which of course is not true: the twain has met, pbooks have met ebooks and all is well. At least that's how I see it.

But is it wrong -- or even threatening? -- to just think about a new word maybe for reading on screens, not in a negative or perjorative way, but just in a different way. And vive la difference, no?

[Donnageddon]

Originally Posted by danbloom

do I come across as a bit of a crank here? Could be. Just wondering because just today some highfalutin writer at TIME magazine told me I was full of sh*t and a crank to boot, regarding my ideas about pbooks and ebooks, and the never the twain shall meet refrain that some people accuse me of using as a mantra. Which of course is not true: the twain has met, pbooks have met ebooks and all is well. At least that's how I see it.

Do you mean crank as in: "an annoyingly eccentric person; also : one who is overly enthusiastic about a particular subject or activity"?

Perhaps, but then this forum is filled with cranks.

But you are a bit of a "name-dropper" (ie, "some highfalutin writer at TIME magazine told me") Not an attractive trait, for a crank.

But is it wrong -- or even threatening? -- to just think about a new word maybe for reading on screens, not in a negative or perjorative way, but just in a different way. And vive la difference, no?

Not wrong or threatening, as far as I am concerned. Silly, and smacks of attempting to marginalize an activity as innocent as reading.

Combined with your preconceived notion that ereading is detrimental to critical thinking, I find it less than sincere, and just an attempt to differentiate paper reading from reading from a reading device in order to claim such an imagined difference is damaging.

Come to think of it, I think the Time's writer had a point.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by danbloom

Ardeegee, I never ever said once that I do not use mobile devices -- I do! -- and I never once said I never will use a mobile reading device -- show me where i ever said that?

I'll be glad to, Dan. In this interview:

http://www.36pr.com/2009/02/27/6-on-...-on-screening/

You say "I will never read a book on an e-reader. Not me."

You judge me without reading my comments clearly.

Oh, not only do I read your comments here clearly, after you openly invited us in another thread to google for "Dan Bloom" and "bindle" I've read quite a few comments you've made on other web sites quite clearly, too ("Dan Bloom Taiwan" even comes up in google's suggestion box when you start typing.)

[danbloom]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

But you are a bit of a "name-dropper" (ie, "some highfalutin writer at TIME magazine told me") Not an attractive trait, for a crank..

But Donn, Donn, having learned from earlier commenters that it's not good to drop names in posts, because it goes against the grain of some Wiki name dropping rule (1 to 8), so i purposefully did not mention his name. Now I get criticized for just saying the name of the magazine? Can't win for losing, sir! So next time I should say what: someone said the other day to me..... or is someone too specific? You will find fault, Donn, with whatever i say here. It's the nature of the beast. I'm outta here....