Probably. Maybe.
So the most emailed article on the NYTimes deserves some discussion. (Give it a gander) I'm not sure how to interpret this piece. I can come at it from both sides. I read a book about every week and a half, but I also spend about 4 hours a day putzing around on the internet. I get tons of info from the web, but I think that generally I can chalk the time spent reading it to a predisposition for addiction rather than a choice. (I almost failed my junior year of high school because I got addicted to Counter-Strike. If that was my heroin, checking Digg 5 times a day must be my methadone... It certainly implies some measure of self-control, right?) Too, the stuff I read online doesn't seem to stick as well as book readin'. It's sort of in one ear, out the other. Except no one is talking to me, and I'm sitting alone staring into a bright light.
If I could step back from the computer, I would. Books are a better escape, but far less accessible. It takes a concerted effort to read a book, especially after spending time online. Hell, I have a hard time reading the newspaper in print. I can't seem to switch from article to article fast enough, and I get bored. Talk about concentration issues.
Articles like this one are great for stroking the ego. Take this for example, "it is unrealistic to expect all children to read 'To Kill a Mockingbird' or 'Pride and Prejudice' for fun". I might agree, but I've definitely read both of those books for fun (I definitely didn't read them when they were assigned for class though). It's a tough world out there; having the ability to read books for pleasure must give me some sort of competitive advantage, right? I sure hope so.
I mention all of this because youthful reading, to me, is preparation for creating art. It forces you to think and thought begets art. How your art manifests itself is a conscious choice. If you don't think about what you are trying to create before inspiration hits you, you're left with a racing heart and no way of expressing it.
Check out this NY Times article.
I think this is an outstanding approach towards public health, although it is a little scary that humans demonstrate such herd-like behavior. It's kind of a win-win with the Ghanaians washing their hands more and these über-corporations getting some well-needed positive P.R. If we know people are cows, why not treat them as such?
I'm impressed that Dr. Curtis was able to use the corporate machine so well. It isn't often that activists can get past their derision for "the system" in order to manipulate and take advantage of it.
Would this exist if I were reading a book?
Probably. Maybe.
So the most emailed article on the NYTimes deserves some discussion. (Give it a gander) I'm not sure how to interpret this piece. I can come at it from both sides. I read a book about every week and a half, but I also spend about 4 hours a day putzing around on the internet. I get tons of info from the web, but I think that generally I can chalk the time spent reading it to a predisposition for addiction rather than a choice. (I almost failed my junior year of high school because I got addicted to Counter-Strike. If that was my heroin, checking Digg 5 times a day must be my methadone... It certainly implies some measure of self-control, right?) Too, the stuff I read online doesn't seem to stick as well as book readin'. It's sort of in one ear, out the other. Except no one is talking to me, and I'm sitting alone staring into a bright light.
If I could step back from the computer, I would. Books are a better escape, but far less accessible. It takes a concerted effort to read a book, especially after spending time online. Hell, I have a hard time reading the newspaper in print. I can't seem to switch from article to article fast enough, and I get bored. Talk about concentration issues.
Articles like this one are great for stroking the ego. Take this for example, "it is unrealistic to expect all children to read 'To Kill a Mockingbird' or 'Pride and Prejudice' for fun". I might agree, but I've definitely read both of those books for fun (I definitely didn't read them when they were assigned for class though). It's a tough world out there; having the ability to read books for pleasure must give me some sort of competitive advantage, right? I sure hope so.
I mention all of this because youthful reading, to me, is preparation for creating art. It forces you to think and thought begets art. How your art manifests itself is a conscious choice. If you don't think about what you are trying to create before inspiration hits you, you're left with a racing heart and no way of expressing it.