Comment by jdw64
7 days ago
Realistically speaking, I also think of this as a kind of evolutionary process. It is about obtaining necessary information within the flood of information. I do think the amount of reading is important, but I also wonder whether unconditionally suppressing dopamine is the right approach. Wouldn't we become more vulnerable if we were raised in a sterile environment?
I think the middle ground is important.
How do books equal sterile environment?
It is not that books are a sterile environment. Rather, I think the very attempt to isolate someone in an internet environment is itself a kind of sterile environment. To be honest, I think it is now difficult to get all information from books alone. I like reading too, but reading ultimately has a point where it becomes fixed at a particular moment. Do books from the 2010s align with theories from the 2020s? I don't think so. There is no need to know every trending theory, but conversely, I question whether we should be immersed only in books. Since the way we obtain information has fundamentally changed, I wonder whether reading must necessarily remain a hobby
[dead]
I think the advantage of books is clear. A book has a logical beginning, development, turn, and conclusion all contained within one volume. In other words, you can learn that format itself, the method of logical exposition. But upon reflection, that is just a form, not the very essence of logical speaking. I certainly agree that books have formal advantages, but I don't think those are unique to books. Rather, the biggest drawback of books is that their form is fixed at a particular point in time. Critical thinking is not developed through books alone, and frankly, not all books are that good in terms of content either.