Why do people say reading makes you smart but TV makes you dumb?

Why do people say reading makes you smart but TV makes you dumb? What kind of person reads a book and thinks they've been bestowed with magical knowledge and raised their IQ? You can learn just as much from watching as you can reading.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It’s called tv programming for a reason. It pushes propaganda to you. With books people choose their propaganda.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >what is changing the channel

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I‘ve got goyslop or, uh, goyslop

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The airwaves are public property so there is no freedom of speech on them. The fcc acts as an enforcer for the government for this purpose.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Depends. When I talk about reading I mean non-fiction stuff, I assume if people wanted to waste time they'd just watch TV. When I watch TV or youtube it is educational stuff, I listen to audiobooks and I read non-fiction. My mom watches moronic sitcoms and reads trendy wordslop PoC novels

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Fiction is also educational

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not when written by the browns

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Low quality bait, etc etc

    On the off chance this isn't bait, reading is inherently way more information-dense than even the most "literary" or "highbrow" TV show could ever be.

    Very few mediums have such high information density, add onto that the fact most novels have a single author, who imbues the book (intentionally or otherwise) with his own life, his singular voice and history, is something you will not be able to find anywhere else unless in a dilute form.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >no one could ever lie in a book

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Then if you're smart you'll read books that aren't lies.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You can learn just as much from watching as you can reading.
      You cannot. You probably haven't thought about the differences in media and how they affect the consumers/participants of those media because you're a TV watcher, but if you read McLuhan and Walter Ong you might be more perceptive and wary of the differences. A lot of it is about participation: TV watchers are passive recipients whereas book readers have to be more active. It's also about complexity, as says, books have a far higher information density. It's also about technology: one might assume that TV would be more "technologically advanced" but for the purposes of information distribution you quickly realise it's actually quite cumbersome to re-access a piece of knowledge via a documentary, meanwhile books have numbered pages that can be noted in and re-accessed in under a minute if you have a personal library. You can of course learn from TV, but books are generally superior and from their prestige and use across recent human history have the far greater wealth of knowledge.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because most people don't know what true intelligence is, and associate it with "booksmarts". 90% of fictional characters meant to be viewed by the audience as "smart" are caricatures of super-genius inventors who can do complex math in their heads, quote all kinds of factoids, and wear big nerdy glasses or lab coats. It's a trivial representation of someone whose crammed a bunch of knowledge into their heads for the purpose of appearing smart to normal people. One of the main things these fictional geniuses do as part of their one-note personalities is read lots of books, so people associate it with being smart. Contrary to TV, which even normies frequently acknowledge as a large propaganda machine (yet they still consume it). Basically it all boils down to what people associate with different forms of media, but for the most part the medium by which you obtain information is inconsequential compared to the type of information you're consuming.
      With all that being said, and

      >You can learn just as much from watching as you can reading.
      You cannot. You probably haven't thought about the differences in media and how they affect the consumers/participants of those media because you're a TV watcher, but if you read McLuhan and Walter Ong you might be more perceptive and wary of the differences. A lot of it is about participation: TV watchers are passive recipients whereas book readers have to be more active. It's also about complexity, as says, books have a far higher information density. It's also about technology: one might assume that TV would be more "technologically advanced" but for the purposes of information distribution you quickly realise it's actually quite cumbersome to re-access a piece of knowledge via a documentary, meanwhile books have numbered pages that can be noted in and re-accessed in under a minute if you have a personal library. You can of course learn from TV, but books are generally superior and from their prestige and use across recent human history have the far greater wealth of knowledge.

      said it best. If there is a difference it lies in the fact that reading is something you do actively, where TV is something you do passively. You can turn off your brain to watch a show, but you can't do that with a book. With a book your mind is what's adding color and association to the scene. Everything is happening in your mind. Some books don't even describe what their characters look like in detail, they let your brain fill in the blanks for what isn't directly stated. You literally need to use your brain more when reading anything, even if what you're reading is complete garbage. With TV everything is drawn our for you. It requires little imagination and no thought on your behalf. If you tune out it keep going, TV naturally encourages a slow progression of using your brain less and less while watching something, even something that's supposed to be intellectually simulating. Books require you to be fully conscious of what you are reading, and the second you zone out the story stops. TV being a medium which competes significantly more for attention means it's constantly having to resort to more egregious methods to grab the viewers attention. This is the same for other visual media like Tiktok and Youtube. They're all competing for your attention, using different advertising techniques to appeal to you monkey brain rather than anything intellectual. This is the reason why attention spans have been dropping so severely over the last few decades. Modern TV and movies grabs you by the throat and yells "Hey! Pay attention to me!" The closest books come to this is artwork on the front cover and commentary on the back cover. Even then books inherently require their reader to do their own research to tell "is this a good book to read?" inherently they require more investment, time, thought, and brainpower.

      TL;DR yes, it's ridiculous people associate books with intelligence and TV with mindlessness, but it's rooted in truth.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    anon is pretty arrogant for you to think you can draw conclusions on silly little observations without knowing frick all.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    TV is totally passive. The entire mind is engrossed in the sequence of images/dialogues and one must push pause every 15 seconds in order to retain critical independence of the medium.

    Reading is practically a spiritual activity unique to humans. It involves the mind becoming infected by an external force. It is more than invasion: it is infection by existence of the readers very own voice of a mind which may be 1,000 years dead or 10,000 miles remote.

    When you read, the reading voice of your mind is the voice of your thoughts. You become possessed utterly in the act of focused reading. It is not merely passive, it is self-annihilation. I don't have to suggest you push pause every 15 seconds. Every fibre of your being revolts and you already wish to do this, and even the most focused readers pause to think more than a moviegoer. So it is totallly passive but totally active and engaged. It is a way for you to become someone else, or at least to adopt and think someone else's thoughts. Sounds scary in theory, but think about how wonderful it sounds in practice to think the thoughts of Tolstoy or Aristotle. Reading is of another plane, a higher realm, a purer form. As are paintings, sculptures and all handmade realizations of the Abstract in Pure.

    Filmed images of reality arranged to form an illusion is utter trash. It is the realm of advertisement and pornography, and it is a realm of demonic deception, whereas true art is angelic revelation.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      reddit for you

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    TV can be just as enriching as reading, and reading can be just as degrading to the mind as TV. Although, on the whole, reading requires imagination and more active engagement than viewing TV, so reading is generally better as exercising the mind and expanding the vocabulary and imagination.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    tv makes you smart reading makes you a shut-in

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    When you are reading a novel you get a window into different characters thought processes
    Movies and visual art remain on the surface. That surface can be beautiful, suggestive, and profound in its own way but it doesn't quite make you think in the same way reading a novel does

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    tv rots your brain. this is well known and widely documented.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You can't really throw a book in the background like you would a movie, that's why I dislike audiobooks.

    My mom often just has a movie playing in the background, she doesn't watch it or anything it's just there.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Beyond what the other anons are saying it comes down to how it involves the consumer.
    Reading isn't a passive activity, it requires focus and engagement from the reader.
    It prevents your brain from deteriorating while you age, improves memory function and cognition; hell it helps build new neural networks. I'd have to read further into it but it apparently helps in building structures related to empathy—I doubt that considering the folk that post on this site, not that anyone here actually reads.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Reading is an active hobby while watching tv is a passive hobby.

Comments are closed.