#1 Posted by Killer_of_trolls (1852 posts) - - Show Bio

I never understood that.

How is reading a novel/short story different from watching a movie.

How is reading book different from viewing a documentary.

How is reading the newspaper different from watching news.

#2 Posted by YourNeighborhoodComicGeek (19489 posts) - - Show Bio

I honestly don't know. Same thing with being on the computer and TV. Everyone thinks playing on a computer is really bad when they let you watch TV all the time.

#3 Posted by Samimista (20182 posts) - - Show Bio

Intelligence is required to read specific material so you're able to analyze chunks of the story, figure out correlations and understand metaphors. It also requires critical thinking to dig deeper meaning into the story.

But, I do see where you're coming from. Sometimes there's differences between a movie and a novel and the movie may dumb down it's intelligence for the audience to understand. Plus all of what you named can be interpreted differently. The author of a novel could envision his story more differently than a director who's involved with making a movie based on that novel. We all have different perceptions that may allow us to view something differently than it was intended to be.

#4 Posted by Matchstick (565 posts) - - Show Bio

It's because there are very few, if any, well read morons.

#5 Edited by Killer_of_trolls (1852 posts) - - Show Bio

@Samimista: nope, most of that is irrelevant actually. The best reason is that you require more imagination when reading(drawing the scene in your head). That's all.

The fact that writers and directors differ and vary and in styles doesn't mean anything. On an academic level, analyzing a movie requires the same effort as a raw text.

A movie can have metaphors, be allegorical, be semi-achronical and all that jazz. Some people think films like The fountain or Slaughter House Five are random BS scenes put pasted together. When I see them, the story is obvious to me.

#6 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (27351 posts) - - Show Bio

Because to read something actually requires your brain to work ware as watching tv youe brain just goes in to stand by mode

#7 Edited by Killer_of_trolls (1852 posts) - - Show Bio

@YourNeighborhoodComicGeek: Electroning games, are interactive narratives. Therefore require more brain power than either reading or watching :)

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

Because to read something actually requires your brain to work ware as watching tv youe brain just goes in to stand by mode

Wrong, actually watching does require brain power, like noticing details on-screen, knowing certain messages, and artistic mumbo jumbo, understanding where certain plot twists connect...etc

As I said above, the only thing reading th story adds is imagining the scen in your head.

I think the notion is a holdover from older times. Being literate is important but I don't associate reading with intelligence. Someone could read a book to learn how to do something and still not be as good at it as a person watching a YouTube video detailing how to do it with examples and all of that.

My old video job had some interns come in and one of the hardasses (a nice guy, but blunt and a hardass) drilled some kid who didn't know how to operate a camera. He asked him how much experience he had and when the kid replied, "I did this in school," he said school is not experience.

I take reading to be the same way. Spending 3 whole days reading a book about how to do something isn't even 1/4 as useful imo as 3 hours of hands-on training about it. In almost any situation, I'd prefer someone with x amount of hands-on training than someone with an equal amount of book reading about the subject. To be honest, out of all learning methods, reading is probably the least useful way of learning something in a way that's actually going to be useful in application.

#8 Posted by Brazen_Intellect (1120 posts) - - Show Bio

The most intelligent among us tend to be the ones who spend the most time actively acquiring knowledge. There is only so much to be gained by mass media sources as they are continuing to rely on sensationalism over real news and knowledge of worth. Reading over watching is personally choosing to develop competence and decide on your own.

This is not to say that all readers are inherently more intelligent than the norm, but I would expect this to be the case far more often than not.

#9 Posted by Charlemagne (6970 posts) - - Show Bio

#10 Edited by TheThe (1709 posts) - - Show Bio

Intelligence and knowledge are two separated things. They can be linked, but are not the same. Reading is more often associated to knowlegde than intelligence. Basically, Knowledge is the amount of things known/learned by a human being. Intelligence is the capacity to properly understand/treat those informations and correctly use/apply them.

@Killer_of_trolls said:

I never understood that.

How is reading a novel/short story different from watching a movie.

How is reading book different from viewing a documentary.

How is reading the newspaper different from watching news.

The differences are the "gains" of the viewer/reader when he is using each medium.In a case without bias where the movie respects the novel it is based on, reading gives you the advantage of grammar, orthography and vocabulary with the correct spelling. Those abilities are not given by viewing a movie since words are "spoken". Written words in movies count as subtitles, and subtitles are already "readings".

Even though both medias make you analyze informations, readings stimulate more your brain because you have to "picture" things. In movies, the director has already "prepared" an image for you.The viewer "follows" the visual interpretation of someone else, while the reader creates "concrete" images in his head based on descriptions or abstracts definitions: his brains "works" more because it is questioning its own database.

A book only needs your eyes and hands to be read. A video needs technological stuff to be played. The "rewind/fastforward/replay and stop fonctions" are easier in a book than in a video: you lose less seconds of searching. Consequently, a reader has got more time to think and reevaluate what he didnt understand. Step by step, phrase by phrase : he can easily take all the time he wants to understang what the book is talking about, everytime and everywhere at his own speed of reading. A book being easier to manipulate than a video, it means you have more occasions to learn from it.

Books are older than videos in human history. There are way more books/novels/newspapers in the world than films/documentaries/tv news. For a same subject, you will usually find more written sources than filmed sources. Knowing that diversity of informations gives you a richness in details, books are likely to give more points of views on a subject than movies/tv news : your angles of thinking are improved. Last but no least, on any subject, the most advanced knowledge currently available is written in books and in specialized articles/magazines. In conclusion, reading is often associated with knowledge because it provides all of those skills. And it only gets better with time.

#11 Posted by Killer_of_trolls (1852 posts) - - Show Bio

@The Last Arashikage: The only conclusion from all that in relation to this thread. Reading will help you know more words. However from watching you can learn those words also by audio, just not there spelling.

@Brazen_Intellect said:

The most intelligent among us tend to be the ones who spend the most time actively acquiring knowledge. There is only so much to be gained by mass media sources as they are continuing to rely on sensationalism over real news and knowledge of worth. Reading over watching is personally choosing to develop competence and decide on your own.

This is not to say that all readers are inherently more intelligent than the norm, but I would expect this to be the case far more often than not.

I hate relying on speculation. Furthermore, I hate statistics for obvious reasons, mainly cause they are a shortcut over actual solid research.

#12 Edited by Killer_of_trolls (1852 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheThe: I don't agree with the idea that a book is easier to manipulate, cause I can easily reach from my pocket and watch a movie just as easily as reading a story on the same device. Second, not all movies are based on novels or anything else, and there are some cases that it's the other way around(like SW)

Other than that your answer is probably the best one yet, and lest me satisfied in relation to the OP question.

#13 Edited by Charlemagne (6970 posts) - - Show Bio

@Killer_of_trolls said:

@The Last Arashikage: The only conclusion from all that in relation to this thread. Reading will help you know more words. However from watching you can learn those words also by audio, just not there spelling.

It actually talks about reading as a cognitive exercise environment that allows you the ability to critically reflect vocabulary deferential (among other things like the Matthew Effect). Also, the idea that you can simply hear a word and therefor understand it is laughable. If you do not read then you are limiting your vocabulary, limiting your vocabulary means there are things you'll simply fail to comprehend. As you keep saying, you can just watch something on youtube and its the same, but if you dont have the vocabulary to understand what is being said then your entire argument falls apart. Reading the words you see how they are spelled, the grammar, the context, etc. Hearing it does what if you dont even know what the word itself means?

@Killer_of_trolls said:

Someone could read a book to learn how to do something and still not be as good at it as a person watching a YouTube video detailing how to do it with examples and all of that.

If that person reads all the time not only will they "understand/comprehend" the application of what they are trying to do, but they'll be able to "expand" on it. Or have ideas about it, be able to process the ramifications of said task. All the person watching the video is doing is regurgitating the example being performed. Not only that, if he doesnt read, that means his vocabulary is limited, if his vocabulary is limited that means the Youtube example has to be dumbed down enough for him to hear or see things he understands. The more you read the more extensive your vocabulary becomes. The more extensive your vocabulary becomes the larger your ability to comprehend becomes.

@Killer_of_trolls said:

My old video job had some interns come in and one of the hardasses (a nice guy, but blunt and a hardass) drilled some kid who didn't know how to operate a camera. He asked him how much experience he had and when the kid replied, "I did this in school," he said school is not experience.

Okay but lets say this "kid" was allowed to go home and read up on this camera. Its functions, its inner workings, etc. He'd be able to come back and not only operate the camera but tell the hardass why it works that way, why its different from camera A, how if you use it this way instead of that way it will work more effectively. It becomes a case of "Intelligent understanding vs Intelligent use." I not only understand how to use the camera but why. I'm smart enough to use a camera but not smart enough to explain it to someone else cause I lack the fundamental understanding of which could have been achieved by reading the manual.

@Killer_of_trolls said:

I take reading to be the same way. Spending 3 whole days reading a book about how to do something isn't even 1/4 as useful imo as 3 hours of hands-on training about it.

Maybe not in the short term, but in the long term nothing could be further from the truth. Say you have an old car and your dad shows you all about the engine. In time you'd be able to take that engine apart and put it back together without a thought. But, take the person and have them study about engines, read about them, in five years the hands on person will by an expert on that one engine where as the book reader will be designing them.

#14 Posted by TheThe (1709 posts) - - Show Bio

: Although i talked mainly about physical books, the global idea of my post stays the same otherwise.In your example, i think the time-reaction is better with a physical book. You open a book faster than you play a video on your smartphone. Also, suppose you are a noob with technology. You'll need less knowledge to understand how to open a physical book than how to play a video on your device .

It's also easier to manipulate because a book doesnt need a power battery:easier to manipulate all things considered. For your second point i know that, but i didnt want to do all the different cases( i would have written an essay unstead, lol). So i talked about the case where both medias were treating the same subject wisely and since movies are more often based on books than the other way around...

#15 Posted by Killer_of_trolls (1852 posts) - - Show Bio

@The Last Arashikage: you can't understan a word by hearing it, yet you understand it by reading it. How do you understand a word you never heard. It is the context that matters in terms of meaning, and makes you understand the word. You can learn vocabulary with-out reading, but you just won't know the spelling. I know an excellent carpenter who didn't read anything about the craft, he learned everything from his dad.

However, I don't disagree as-well. Because a person that designs engines will need complicated math/physics, that will eventually need readable study, Even with a lecture.

hmm, you know, I think talking about all this in a thread won't solve it with a short conversation. This obviously needs a shitload more explanation. Not to mention how much subjective any example can be.

#16 Posted by Killer_of_trolls (1852 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheThe: the noobnishness can also go with physical books. Some people can barely find a page/paragraph/sentence after reading too far ahead, and they wanna go back, and it takes them too long, while on a device they can just use the instant find with a word combination. well.. As I told the other guy. This thread might need more work than I expected to get an perfect answer, so idk maybe we'll stop here I heard enough from everyone already, cause I have this thread on AV as well.

#17 Posted by AtPhantom (14465 posts) - - Show Bio

Books generally contain a far more information than any movie could. No documentary can ever be more than a clip note version of what a book may offer you on a subject. By extension, if you're willing to actually read a book rather than just see a movie about it, you are presumably serious about delving into a subject and gaining more than a superficial knowledge on it. Ergo, more intellectual.

#18 Posted by TheThe (1709 posts) - - Show Bio

Table of contents/Indexes exist to reduce such risk, but i understand what you're saying and you're right indeed. But let me ask something before you stop the contributions to the thread : Do putting informations in a book requires less efforts and datas volume than putting the same amount of informations in a video ? Therefore, is a book more "complete" when treating a theme and are its datas more accessible to users(which will mean more facts of knowledge available ?). Sorry for the delay in my answers, i'm doing things here and there.

#19 Posted by nick_hero22 (6314 posts) - - Show Bio

Because it's takes intelligence to understand the context and reason behind what you read and grasp its centralized concepts and themes.

#20 Posted by Jezer (2845 posts) - - Show Bio

....C'mon now...is this a serious question?

I logged on just to ask this. ^This is a serious question.

#21 Posted by The_Horrible_Truth (24 posts) - - Show Bio

With reading, all the information is processed using more active cognitive skills. First, the eyes read the words, which are then  decoded from their metaphoric shapes of letters and sentences, assigned tense, syntax, grammer, and then they can help us visualise or conceptualise the scenario created by the author. All this happens in a conscious mind state. We can hear the words we're reading as internal dialogue if we want. Nothing is sublimated into our memory or our subconscious that wasn't actively processed through  our conscious minds.
 
With TV, there's much less going on upstairs. Because we are absorbing most of the information from the screen visually, a different set of processes are used. There's no intellectualisation of concepts, or assimilation of data, because the symbols and shapes we see, go straight to our subconscious. The subconscious uses images and symbols to process information. Whereas ur conscious mind uses a verbal dynamics to intellectualise words into their respective meanings or concept. 
 
The flickering of the TV's screen as it blasts us with a stream of images, induces a very passive, and receptive state in our minds. Dopamine and seratonin are released into our brains as we  emotionally identify with the characters we're presented with. We soak up everything like a sponge, without thinking.  The director uses all that symbolism that we don't even notice, to gain an emotional response to his plots from his audience. We are tricked into suspending our belief, while the director presents us with fictional scenes, loaded up with non verbal emotional cues to emphasise certain ideas. It's using trickery as a plot device.  But that's OK, we know it's only a Movie, and we totally trust the directors not to take this opportunity to slip psychological malware straight into our subconscious minds, don't we?
 
 Of course, watching the News on TV is different, isn't it?  That's fact, unbiased and presented in a balanced way. Allowing us the illusion we are forming ideas and opinions of our own. How can we be, when we're not being given all the relevant facts? Just a watered down version of an event, emotionally gelded, so we become incrementally de sensitised to the most brutal ideas of all, like War. TV grooms a population, like a skillful paedophile grooms a pretty child. And for pretty much the same purpose. To exploit and abuse us all, and leave us with just enough cognitive tickover, to manage the illusion of audience participation.