I feel like a major source of skim-reading comes from how much content there is on the internet. A coping mechanism for filtering through the firehose of information.
I feel like a major source of skim-reading comes from how much content there is on the internet. A coping mechanism for filtering through the firehose of information.
I’m similar. I only skim most articles that I find on tildes or reddit, etc but if reading something for work I will read thoroughly (usually multiple times).
I’m similar. I only skim most articles that I find on tildes or reddit, etc but if reading something for work I will read thoroughly (usually multiple times).
Honestly, the quality is probably the biggest part. I remember reading an article here a week or so ago about all the fluff in articles now, how everything has to be dramatic and part of a...
Honestly, the quality is probably the biggest part. I remember reading an article here a week or so ago about all the fluff in articles now, how everything has to be dramatic and part of a narrative or highly characterized, and it's so true. Lots of articles are unnecessarily long because they feel the need to dramatize everything, like a high schooler attempting to meet a word count.
I'm here for information, not a Wikipedia page or an editorial, and I'd appreciate it if the fluff was kept to a minimum, especially when the fluff begins to blur the line between an opinion piece (editorials) and everything else. Some interpretation is absolutely necessary (especially when decoding dog whistles for the general public or explaining industry terminology), but providing unnecessary background info can skew our views of a particular person/thing (for example, mentioning someone's political leaning when politics is completely irrelevant to the article).
Edit: I'm looking for the article now, will update if I find it.
Edit 2: I tried, but I can't seem to find it. If we could see posts we've voted (like on reddit) I could probably find it, but for now I'm throwing in the towel.
This is such an obnoxiously common practice; I can't count how many times I've read a multi-page NYT article and garnered nothing more than what I already knew from the headline; I don't need a...
This is such an obnoxiously common practice; I can't count how many times I've read a multi-page NYT article and garnered nothing more than what I already knew from the headline; I don't need a review of the narrative every single piece of news falls into; That's what links are for.
The problem, as the article says, is that skim-reading becomes a habit and even moulds our physical brain. If a child learns skim-reading as their primary way of scanning textual content on the...
The problem, as the article says, is that skim-reading becomes a habit and even moulds our physical brain. If a child learns skim-reading as their primary way of scanning textual content on the internet, they'll keep that method for scanning all textual content - including more dense and useful text, such as books.
Katzir’s research has found that the negative effects of screen reading can appear as early as fourth and fifth grade - with implications not only for comprehension, but also on the growth of empathy.
That sounds like a great argument for keeping children off the internet.
If a child learns skim-reading as their primary way of scanning textual content on the internet, they'll keep that method for scanning all textual content - including more dense and useful text, such as books.
That sounds like a great argument for keeping children off the internet.
It is. The more research and studies I read about this (on the internet!), the more this recommendation comes through loud and clear: children's screen-time should be limited, and what they do...
It is. The more research and studies I read about this (on the internet!), the more this recommendation comes through loud and clear: children's screen-time should be limited, and what they do with those screens should be monitored and even guided.
They're not my opinions: I'm merely passing on recommendations from studies I've read. And, I believe most of these recommendations applied to younger children, rather than to teenagers.
so you might not disagree with any of this
They're not my opinions: I'm merely passing on recommendations from studies I've read. And, I believe most of these recommendations applied to younger children, rather than to teenagers.
As they say, practice makes perfect. If you want to improve a skill, you need to practise it. Sit down with a book, with no environmental distractions, and read a chapter. Or find a collection of...
As they say, practice makes perfect. If you want to improve a skill, you need to practise it. Sit down with a book, with no environmental distractions, and read a chapter. Or find a collection of short stories and read one story in one sitting. Practise long-haul concentrated reading.
I imagine the no distractions part is important, good point. The article seems to be saying that by skimming we're not giving our brains enough time to get into slower processes. Based on what we...
I imagine the no distractions part is important, good point. The article seems to be saying that by skimming we're not giving our brains enough time to get into slower processes. Based on what we know about distractions and "multi-tasking," I'm guessing that it's also pretty tough for our brains to get there if we're checking our email every 10 minutes...
TL/DR I kid, of course. I'm interested in the difference between reading on a Kindle compared to a paperback. I'd always assumed it was the proliferation of very small texts combined with awkward...
TL/DR
I kid, of course. I'm interested in the difference between reading on a Kindle compared to a paperback. I'd always assumed it was the proliferation of very small texts combined with awkward scrolled reading that caused comprehension issues.
I tend to send any long-form material to my kindle via the document service or Instapaper and read them in batches which has always felt much more "book like". Perhaps that isn't the advantage I'd envisioned.
I personally haven't felt a huge difference between physical books and my Kindle except that the latter is MUCH more convenient for reading. Even being able to read in the dark makes it worth using.
I personally haven't felt a huge difference between physical books and my Kindle except that the latter is MUCH more convenient for reading. Even being able to read in the dark makes it worth using.
The part about having a physical book that you can flip through to review things and have a sense "thereness" makes intuitive sense to me. In college I absolutely hated ebooks; something about...
The part about having a physical book that you can flip through to review things and have a sense "thereness" makes intuitive sense to me. In college I absolutely hated ebooks; something about them when I tried to read them made me feel as if I wasn't taking things in as deeply. I was never taught this, but my strategy for reading dull textbook chapters was to be as present as I could be, relating as many new concepts as possible to ones I'd read previously. Sometimes that just meant pausing at the end of a section to think, but very often that meant skipping back a few pages or chapters to review something.
It sounds like the resesrch is mostly at the stage of identifying any processes that are changing, but I'd be very interested if there are active ways of avoiding skimming and regaining a reading style that digs deeper. I suppose we all originally learned it by practicing, so "read more books" is probably adequate, but I can't remember being taught any active strategies for reading critically, at least not ones that stuck around after I took whatever standardized I learned them for.
I don't know, I feel like skim reading has always been kind of common. Thinking back to highschool English classes, the number of people who actually read the books is pretty small. Most people...
I don't know, I feel like skim reading has always been kind of common. Thinking back to highschool English classes, the number of people who actually read the books is pretty small. Most people used spark notes or skimmed the books. If people are engaged in a book, they'll pay attention to it.
This is so real. Not everything can be summarized in a headline, tweet or paragraph. At the same time, I wouldn't actually be too worried about this. My local paper has online reading times of...
the potential inability of large numbers of students to read with a level of critical analysis sufficient to comprehend the complexity of thought and argument found in more demanding texts, whether in literature and science in college, or in wills, contracts and the deliberately confusing public referendum questions citizens encounter in the voting booth.
This is so real. Not everything can be summarized in a headline, tweet or paragraph.
At the same time, I wouldn't actually be too worried about this. My local paper has online reading times of about 90 seconds when articles on average are around 3500-4000 characters (525-600 words). That sounds about right for most people who don't close a page actually reading the text.
Considering the normal prior to skim reading was illiteracy (not even slightly joking or exaggerating) this is a win. Of course, the onus is now on the writers to appeal to a reading audience...
Considering the normal prior to skim reading was illiteracy (not even slightly joking or exaggerating) this is a win.
Of course, the onus is now on the writers to appeal to a reading audience which is more than a 1% of landed, time-rich elite.
I feel like a major source of skim-reading comes from how much content there is on the internet. A coping mechanism for filtering through the firehose of information.
I’m similar. I only skim most articles that I find on tildes or reddit, etc but if reading something for work I will read thoroughly (usually multiple times).
The problem is that a lot of people have trouble focusing on a book or something for a longer period of time
Honestly, the quality is probably the biggest part. I remember reading an article here a week or so ago about all the fluff in articles now, how everything has to be dramatic and part of a narrative or highly characterized, and it's so true. Lots of articles are unnecessarily long because they feel the need to dramatize everything, like a high schooler attempting to meet a word count.
I'm here for information, not a Wikipedia page or an editorial, and I'd appreciate it if the fluff was kept to a minimum, especially when the fluff begins to blur the line between an opinion piece (editorials) and everything else. Some interpretation is absolutely necessary (especially when decoding dog whistles for the general public or explaining industry terminology), but providing unnecessary background info can skew our views of a particular person/thing (for example, mentioning someone's political leaning when politics is completely irrelevant to the article).
Edit: I'm looking for the article now, will update if I find it.
Edit 2: I tried, but I can't seem to find it. If we could see posts we've voted (like on reddit) I could probably find it, but for now I'm throwing in the towel.
This is such an obnoxiously common practice; I can't count how many times I've read a multi-page NYT article and garnered nothing more than what I already knew from the headline; I don't need a review of the narrative every single piece of news falls into; That's what links are for.
The problem, as the article says, is that skim-reading becomes a habit and even moulds our physical brain. If a child learns skim-reading as their primary way of scanning textual content on the internet, they'll keep that method for scanning all textual content - including more dense and useful text, such as books.
That sounds like a great argument for keeping children off the internet.
It is. The more research and studies I read about this (on the internet!), the more this recommendation comes through loud and clear: children's screen-time should be limited, and what they do with those screens should be monitored and even guided.
They're not my opinions: I'm merely passing on recommendations from studies I've read. And, I believe most of these recommendations applied to younger children, rather than to teenagers.
That sounds like a great chance to re-invent the dense reading UI environment upon the Internet.
As they say, practice makes perfect. If you want to improve a skill, you need to practise it. Sit down with a book, with no environmental distractions, and read a chapter. Or find a collection of short stories and read one story in one sitting. Practise long-haul concentrated reading.
(Says this amateur with no expertise whatsoever!)
I imagine the no distractions part is important, good point. The article seems to be saying that by skimming we're not giving our brains enough time to get into slower processes. Based on what we know about distractions and "multi-tasking," I'm guessing that it's also pretty tough for our brains to get there if we're checking our email every 10 minutes...
This topic appears to be in vogue at the moment. Maryanne Wolf suggests reading more books.
TL/DR
I kid, of course. I'm interested in the difference between reading on a Kindle compared to a paperback. I'd always assumed it was the proliferation of very small texts combined with awkward scrolled reading that caused comprehension issues.
I tend to send any long-form material to my kindle via the document service or Instapaper and read them in batches which has always felt much more "book like". Perhaps that isn't the advantage I'd envisioned.
I personally haven't felt a huge difference between physical books and my Kindle except that the latter is MUCH more convenient for reading. Even being able to read in the dark makes it worth using.
The part about having a physical book that you can flip through to review things and have a sense "thereness" makes intuitive sense to me. In college I absolutely hated ebooks; something about them when I tried to read them made me feel as if I wasn't taking things in as deeply. I was never taught this, but my strategy for reading dull textbook chapters was to be as present as I could be, relating as many new concepts as possible to ones I'd read previously. Sometimes that just meant pausing at the end of a section to think, but very often that meant skipping back a few pages or chapters to review something.
It sounds like the resesrch is mostly at the stage of identifying any processes that are changing, but I'd be very interested if there are active ways of avoiding skimming and regaining a reading style that digs deeper. I suppose we all originally learned it by practicing, so "read more books" is probably adequate, but I can't remember being taught any active strategies for reading critically, at least not ones that stuck around after I took whatever standardized I learned them for.
I don't know, I feel like skim reading has always been kind of common. Thinking back to highschool English classes, the number of people who actually read the books is pretty small. Most people used spark notes or skimmed the books. If people are engaged in a book, they'll pay attention to it.
This is so real. Not everything can be summarized in a headline, tweet or paragraph.
At the same time, I wouldn't actually be too worried about this. My local paper has online reading times of about 90 seconds when articles on average are around 3500-4000 characters (525-600 words). That sounds about right for most people who don't close a page actually reading the text.
Considering the normal prior to skim reading was illiteracy (not even slightly joking or exaggerating) this is a win.
Of course, the onus is now on the writers to appeal to a reading audience which is more than a 1% of landed, time-rich elite.