Sorry Jimmy. Reading is alive and well among the

Power Elite of America's heartland...see what I mean?--->>>

Yo Elephant Dude............Peggy arrived today.............
Posted by duke on 8/2/2001, 9:06 pm

with all her playmates!! (Note: these are cigars! HB)
Thanks a ton........as soon as it cools off, I'll
be reading and a smokin!!

m (ike, he lives in Omaha, NB, about 100°F!)

And the reply:::

Good deal....
Posted by Republicigar on 8/3/2001, 10:48 am , in reply to "Yo Elephant Dude............Peggy arrived today............."

...hope you enjoy the "weird" smokes I threw in for fun.
I love Noonan's writing. She's so easy to read. I'm missing her weekly column right now while she finishes another book about Reagan. She's supposed to be back in September with the book release in October.

Enjoy!

Steve (He heads a Department for the IL Legislature in Springfield)
|-|-|-|-|-|->
This exchange between two very modern individuals, shows the lie
in thinking "books" are dead....
Seems to me that there was a cover of TIME magazine some time ago about "God is Dead" but that proved to be a lie, also.

I'll agree about speed and eficiency, but not about the worth of reading a book.....

HB

HB,

As teachers we are familar with individual learning styles and the subsequent science that has grown up around this: cognitive mapping and matching. As a former instructional developer (among my bag of master's degree tricks), I get the impression from his posts that JH is not a symbolic learner (words on pages for example) but more the aural-visual type that learns best (and is most comfortable) with multi-media that embodies these techniques (less symbolic, more reality based) for informational transfer; hence his posts that seem to be anti-reading in his beliefs. And because he is firm and outspoken in his beliefs, he espouses them for everyone else. Entirely normal.

In my own particular case that even though I was a avid reader for fun reading or light information such as trade magazines, for serious textbook learning it was not my style, so much so that my professors in my master's program advised me not to waste my money on textbooks but instead pay serious attention and take copious notes during classes. My style is more aural with a secondary visual emphasis. My master's program mentors at the UF, Dr's Ron Bass and Bill Terrel were both experts in ID and cognitive mapping and matching and mapped all students in the program. We were then taught as much as possible in the style that best suited each of us.

This science of learning styles was a direct result of the advances that came in education as a result of WWII when we had to train great numbers of people in a

Continued....My Zone Alarm firewall program kicked in as I was finishing the above post.
"...train great numbers of people very efficiently in a short period of time. A complete system, a 9 step instrustional development model (known in the military as the 90-90-90 system, 90% of the people get 90% of the material, 90% of the time)was the result of this and cognitive mapping and matching was a later offshoot of this learning system. I utilized this system in my teaching career, both in designing instructional modules for other teachers and with my own students and I can attest that it works, and works well.
To readdress the original reason for this current thread and the long, previous one regarding fiction reading: Jim, don't buy the book but go see the movie instead.

I don't denounce books in total. I denounce the "hobby" of book reading, which I assume to be mostly fiction. I do have a large library of non-ficiton books, but I don't consider them to be "read books" as in the type one just sits down and reads, cover-to-cover. They are more "referred to" from time to time.

Regarding their inefficiency, most people cannot read and comprehend fast enough to compete with the rate of transfer of information of multi-media. A picture generally IS worth a thousand words. Add the words, and you've got what a book is, plus.

I have read the long and rather interesting thread on this subject.

However, I don't get why it should be either or - fiction OR electronic media. In many ways you cannot compare them and I see the necessity for both.

I love reading books (fiction as well as non fiction). I wouldn't like to live in a world without books. They have given me great pleasure. Sure, laughing out loud from reading something funny may not be very efficient, neither is crying from reading something really sad. But in a subtle way it tells us a lot about human emotion and our own response in various situations. I would claim that the best fiction will tell you as much about human behaviour as a book on psychology.

People need fiction. From early ages people have been telling each other stories. Fairy tales are often cruel (forget the Disney version) and used to entertain but also to explain certain values and the rules of society. They have bound people together. Good books do the same. Why do most of the Western World basically have the same values? (Don't steal, don't kill, don't cheat on your spouse, one wife etc). It isn't because of the Internet but very often because of fiction (I do regard the Bible as fiction, sorry if it offends somebody out there). Many books of fiction have influenced how we respond in different situations.

Also, reading fiction will help you to get more nuance in your language - it won't just be the lingo used by different trades. Nuance and the ability to express yourself precisely will actually make communication more efficient.

Another thing is that a book will force you to use your brain and create your own pictures and stretch your imagination. Ask any brain expert - all will tell you that this is good and will help you in real life.

Now, I agree with you that you can't beat real life experience. If all you do is to read books operas instead of living your own life you are in trouble. But you have plenty of time for both. Sometimes books will help you get a broader view on what you experience, sometimes what you experience will help you understand what you read.

As for watching one hour of Discovery Channel rather than reading fiction: There are lots of inaccuracies on the Discovery Channel. The information found in any television program is as filtered and selected and biased as anything you will read in a newspaper.

And not always will a picture say more than a thousand words, and not always will it be more of the truth. Again, you select a point of view and other things are left out. I have seen people here on this board trying to discredit the DR by showing pictures of the litter on the beaches. Is that the truth? It was at the place and time. But the picture will not tell you whether this is usual, it will not tell you whether the litter was removed from the beach shortly after (most likely it was), it will not tell you whether all the beaches are like this. See what I mean?

As for the Internet: I wouldn't like to live without it. I enjoy it and its efficiency and the easy access to information. But there is lots of bad information out there, lies, slander etc. You have to be careful what to trust.

Regards,
Susanne

That there is room for both. Efficiency, 90-90-90, whatever, is not written in stone.
Books, newspapers-the "written" word- are an important component in Western Culture. This should not be denied.

Nor should the tremendous advances that technology have given us in areas such as multi-media, be denied.

But, to paraphrase Erasmus, to take one over the other seems to be a manifest error.

HB

True, but I would not be one to look down on Dominicans because book reading isn't a favorite form of entertainment or because newspapers are not their choice for getting the news.

Before there was print, stories were told by mouth (and theatre). Then came radio. Then came TV, Movies, and other forms of multi-media. All that has changed is the method of delivery.

I wonder why the people in the USA spend more hours with multi-media forms of information flow (TV, Movies, Internet, and more) than on the old print form (books, Newspaper, etc.)? Are they all wrong or are they just taking the natural progression into what is easier (more efficient, less time consuming, ...).

Print is not dead, but books and newspapers for news and entertainment are optional and I don't support either as particularly important when we have TV, radio, movies, internet, etc.

And there is little stimulus in the society to push reading-multi-media or otherwise.
Schitt, I really don't care a hoot at my age. They can stay that way. It just seems a shame to miss out on what the rest of the world has to offer-in any medium...THEY CAN'T READ AND WON'T EVEN LEARN.
Nearly forty years ago, I told my parents that this place was fifty to seventy years in back of the United States. In so many ways, not all bad, this is still true.
In school, a report just out says, they haven't learned a thing, not even with the National Exams so highly ridiculed and controversial.

I guess I was just too well brought up on Saturday Evening Post, Time and Reader's Digest. To say nothing of the Charleston Daily Mail or the Gazette; or the Long Island Newsday and the NYT! I can't imagine a house/home without something to read..

HB, sad

And let me add, as long as the DR population is spoon-fed with movies, TV, radio and other multi-media, there will be no incentive to learn how to read. And it would be unfair of me not to include a lot of the rest of the world in this, too.
Our forefathers had a firm belief in the basics of education, the 3 "R's" for example: reading, (w)riting and (a)rithmatic. And without a solid basis in these areas, all the multi-media in the world will not educate our children.