Scientific American Article: Screen vs. Paper

[bbpo8]

It looks as if the same article (or a similar one) by the same author was published by Yahoo back in April. They gave Scientific American as its source. Very interesting - as are the comments beneath the article.

http://news.yahoo.com/reading-brain-...113000205.html

[Anthem]

Paywall!

[frahse]

When you are young, the size, format, light do not matter.

Now days I usually read on a desktop monitor while sitting on the equivalent of a desk stool. I am quite comfortable.

True the desk chair isn't a stool but I seldom use the back and it has no arms though I did put a small cushion with a cut out on the seat because of an recent injury.

The desk chair is one that cost $17 at WalMart, so you can see it is pretty minimal.

Compared to a canoe or a mountain bike, the seat is very comfy.

[bbpo8]

@Anthem, are you running into a Paywall in the Yahoo news article cited above? I tried it several times and was able to get through each time. I seemed to be logged in on my (free) Yahoo account the first time, but even after I logged out I was still able to get in.

Sometimes you can get around a paywall by accessing an article through a link, e.g. on Google News. Sorry for the frustration!

[bobcdy]

Although reading a single page of an e-ink reader is almost identical to reading a paper book equivalent, for me there's a difference in my ability to reread something encountered several/many pages before (unless I've bookmarked it): with a paper book I can quickly leaf through a few or many pages until the wanted passage is located and reread. I find it not so easy to do this with my nook st ereader; finding a specific earlier section seems to take much longer.

[Lbooker]

Most consumers are not objective. Whether they consume colas or e-readers, objective scientific studies show that most consumers are subjective, and once they have formed an opinion about a product, you can show them scientific proofs that they are wrong and they will dismiss them.
I have read many scientific articles over the years about the influence of screen technologies on the brain : movie theater screens are neutral for the brain, whereas back-lit screens lower brain activity, especially in the left side (the seat of reason and objectivity), and make the brain more emotional. Marshall McLuhan and Herbert Krugman proved it in the 1960's. Advertisers, Public Relations, politicians use this knowledge to better manipulate the unsuspecting TV audiences. E-ink screens are far better than back-lit screens for the brain, but it has been repeatedly proven that paper books, especially because pages are in 3 dimensions, take advantage of our spatial memory, thus helping us better remember what we read. The screen that refreshes when turning pages also confuses the brain and diminishes the memorization of the last read lines.

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by Lbooker

Most consumers are not objective. Whether they consume colas or e-readers, objective scientific studies show that most consumers are subjective, and once they have formed an opinion about a product, you can show them scientific proofs that they are wrong and they will dismiss them.

I think it takes a large amount of proof to overcome an opinion. Once you have an opinion about something, you will reject the first few things that come along and contradict it. Eventually, however, you'll be aware that the contrary position seems to have more weight. At that point, you will be much more objective in evaluating your opinion. But personality plays a large part in how much contrary evidence is required to reevaluate and whether you will then change or hold the opinion you previously held.

As a rebellious person, it takes an overwhelming amount of proof to get me to go along with the mainstream on anything. My natural bent is to take the road least travelled.

But I couldn't really understand anything you wrote because I read it on a backlit computer monitor.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sregener

....

But I couldn't really understand anything you wrote because I read it on a backlit computer monitor.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Lbooker

Most consumers are not objective. Whether they consume colas or e-readers, objective scientific studies show that most consumers are subjective, and once they have formed an opinion about a product, you can show them scientific proofs that they are wrong and they will dismiss them.

There currently is no science on adults who grew up routinely e-reading on high quality modern devices, so there are no good scientific proofs in this area to dismiss.

There is a moderate amount of science on people who have recently adopted e-reading, or who are e-reading naive. A fair chunk of it is rather methodologically poor, and it seems to me that the vast majority of it is also on tablet screens, not e-ink.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Lbooker

Most consumers are not objective. Whether they consume colas or e-readers, objective scientific studies show that most consumers are subjective, and once they have formed an opinion about a product, you can show them scientific proofs that they are wrong and they will dismiss them.
I have read many scientific articles over the years about the influence of screen technologies on the brain : movie theater screens are neutral for the brain, whereas back-lit screens lower brain activity, especially in the left side (the seat of reason and objectivity), and make the brain more emotional. Marshall McLuhan and Herbert Krugman proved it in the 1960's. Advertisers, Public Relations, politicians use this knowledge to better manipulate the unsuspecting TV audiences. E-ink screens are far better than back-lit screens for the brain, but it has been repeatedly proven that paper books, especially because pages are in 3 dimensions, take advantage of our spatial memory, thus helping us better remember what we read. The screen that refreshes when turning pages also confuses the brain and diminishes the memorization of the last read lines.

Please provide links to the studies which show this (the bolded bit in particular).

[Lbooker]

I am tired of trying to help lazy/illiterate/subjective people. I already provided two names. Try and do your own research, we will see if you can spend hours successfully working against your unscientific/misinformed biases.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Lbooker

I am tired of trying to help lazy/illiterate/subjective people. I already provided two names. Try and do your own research, we will see if you can spend hours successfully working against your unscientific/misinformed biases.

You're the one that made the claim, I'm just looking for backup, otherwise I'll assume it's just your imagination.

Carry on.

And FYI, I studied that movie subliminal krap probably before you were born. My study of psychology began in the mid 60's around the time of the 'names' you mentioned.
Nor is is what I asked about. Please learn to read.

P.P.S. I always find it very interesting (psychologically) that when asked for scientific backup for claims the claimant makes a personal attack on the one asking for the support.

[Lbooker]

You see a personal attack, where I see my lucid contempt for the intellect of 99.99 % of humanity.
If you want a (mild) personal attack, here is one : for someone whose "study of psychology began in the mid 60's", your knowledge of current research in the field appears mediocre. Your attitude towards the science sounds subjective, i.e. unscientific.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Lbooker

Most consumers are not objective. Whether they consume colas or e-readers, objective scientific studies show that most consumers are subjective, and once they have formed an opinion about a product, you can show them scientific proofs that they are wrong and they will dismiss them.

And a lot of people that flaunt studies fail to recognize that, often, it's simply a matter of "my experience / preference trumps science". It's not always about right or wrong opinions - what I prefer is what I prefer, period. Of course it's subjective.

Why are we shoving "scientific proofs" in their faces in the first place?

It gets nutty when someone tries to force someone else to provide an objective reason for their subjective preference. I think much of the irrational defense (the part where the person defending their opinion goes off the rails in their statements that their way is better) would be greatly reduced if we'd stop putting them on the defense in the first place.

It's annoying. Perhaps I'm better equipped to deal with it because I'm so insanely stubborn, or maybe it's because I focus on "being happy" more than "being right", but all I generally do is shrug. My life may end up being shorter but at least I will have spent a lot less of it arguing with people.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Lbooker

You see a personal attack, where I see my lucid contempt for the intellect of 99.99 % of humanity.
If you want a (mild) personal attack, here is one : for someone whose "study of psychology began in the mid 60's", your knowledge of current research in the field appears mediocre. Your attitude towards the science sounds subjective, i.e. unscientific.

All I can say to that is that you have no clue about a number of things, one being me, another being science and a third being human interaction. Oh and four, you still haven't provided any proof of claims as I requested. So your knowledge of the current topic of discussion appears to be non-existant.

I'd suggest you start with re-reading the article linked in post #1.
(or the yahoo link in post #16)