Why reading works
On "The Matrix", information density, and the value in guiding young people to appreciate words on the bound and printed page
A New York Times article calls attention to the declining number of full-length books being assigned in some American high schools. As such cultural-zeitgeist articles in the Times often do, it has ignited many an online critique. Among those, it isn’t hard to find familiar lamentations about adolescent attention spans that have been truncated by social media exposure.
■ Lurking just beneath the surface of the countless commentaries made about social media and young people and attention spans is a significant trade-off that has been with us since the beginning of recorded language. The human brain can absorb truly amazing amounts of information, but only if the cognitive process works: With increased concentration, one can access materials with higher information density.
■ But only so much information can ever pass without focused attention on the part of the learner: There is no Matrix-style way to download information, no learning by osmosis, no way to comprehend macroeconomics or nuclear physics or organic chemistry through “snackable” video clips.
■ It’s unlikely we will ever uncover any method of information transfer that is faster than the written word. A small number of things are best explained by a video or a well-conceived graph (see the works of Edward Tufte for a compelling case on the difference between good and bad graphics).
■ For most content, thought, the fastest and most reliable way to learn it is to read it (on a printed page, not a screen). There is a coherence of thought required by the writing process that does as much to improve this transfer process on the production end as the act of reading increases speed on the consumption end. Writing done slowly and carefully makes it possible for others to read quickly.
■ High-speed, high-volume reading takes concentration. This relationship between concentration and information density is basically impossible to hack: People who cannot commit their concentration will not be able to make up the difference in information transfer by spending ever more time with low-focus forms of information.
■ The key is to persuade all learners -- all people, really -- that there is huge self-interest to be gained from learning the skills needed for focused concentration. Spend time obtaining the skills and you’ll save enormous time later. But time is exactly what the “attention economy” wants people to treat as cheap.
■ Furthermore, the people trying to capture attention in order to make money have enormous incentives to make their content as addictive as possible, getting “consumers” to produce as much revenue-generating screen time as possible. This may not be evil, per se, but it is indisputably anti-social. It’s bad for society if people are willingly (or at least passively) distracted to the point they fail to develop skills that let them place more value on their time and gain more from it, rather than giving it away to those who monetize their addictive screen behaviors.
