/lit/ - Literature

>>20711711
What if you have aphantasia though

>>20711714
You aren't a human then

>film can't be as intellectual as literatur-

>>20711711
The advantages of books
>you ALWAYS need to read
>the more advanced books you read, the better you become at reading
>if you use reading methods like using your finger (your eyes are never perfectly lined without having something as a focus), you can easily double your reading speed and maybe even learn 4 times more while reading
>reading focuses your brain on the words/phrases/sentences/phrases and not on millions of different colored pixels (or pickles if you are a boomer judge)
>reading depends ONLY ON YOUR SPEED and therefore you can minmax your learning per minute. TV is just pushing fps at you with no meaningful learning
>books are DIFFERENT and can range from braindead to quantum physics. TV shows on the other hand or just glorified fps with no other value than sitting in front of it like a retard

Not all books are worth reading, but TV is just trash for learning.

>>20711733
Got to be bait

>>20711733
>>reading depends ONLY ON YOUR SPEED and therefore you can minmax your learning per minute
you can't though. if you speedread you lose retention

>>20711733
>>you ALWAYS need to read
Stopped reading right there and there is nothing you can do about it.

>>20711746
I read somewhere that most of the best regarded methods of speed reading have better retention.

As someone who's been reading for 35 years... You too read OP. Yes, we and you are better than TV watchers. Books grant understanding, advanced knowledge and critical reasoning skills, while TV forces blind acceptance and gives merely entry level information. You understand this, because in your post you've used knowledge about some of it. You are closer to us than to TV watchers.

>>20711772
that's been debunked

>>20711711
In general I'm against television, but the selection of images in the left-hand thought bubble is a bit worrisome. Anti-nuclear symbol & Einstein's tongue? Feels like the sort of person who would approve unironically of the "Where do you work out?" / The library" meme. Makes me want to don the woad and burn a few libraries, to be honest.

In (I think) the 1970s a biologist called Lyall Watson wrote some interesting books. His most famous was called "Supernature", another "Lifetide". In the latter he talks about an autistic girl who was an amazing artist, but had a verbal IQ of 20 or something. When her mother died she was sent to a special school, where it was decided she had to be cured. She was forbidden to draw, and made to read and write instead. Eventually she got slightly better at language but lost all her artistic ability. Watson thought this was perhaps not a wonderful thing:


Our entire educational effort seems to be dedicated to making others over in our image, turning out carbon copy people who faithfully reproduce all our mistakes. 'Better', we seem to be saying, 'a poor imitation of ourselves, than something different, something threatening.' An eminent child psychologist sums up Nadia's case by concluding that, if the loss of her gift is 'the price that must be paid for language, [...] we must, I think, be prepared to pay that price on Nadia's behalf.'

Must we? I am far from convinced. I value language very highly, but not above all else. I am greatly concerned about the way we treat the special ones, the strong ones who seem to be able to respond in some way to the underlying form of things, instead of getting stuck as we do on surface details. [...] They rise, like repressed archetypes, directly from the unconscious, reminding us of its potential. I believe they can all teach us something, if we let them. But we so seldom do.

>>20711711
Is there a word that describes the OP pic? Platitudinous?

>>20711747
In writing, you read.

>>20711711
A person who reads Harry Potter-like books should not think he is superior to someone that watches TV.

I haven’t watched anything new on television in years

>>20712056
Oh fuck noread bros we got too cocky

>>20712061
What books should i read?

>>20711711
>/tv/ - Television & Film gang.
Some of the pretentious faggy posts on /lit/ are actually interesting unlike on /tv/. I assume that's due to some of the posters having read at least one book.

>>20712698
Sagan om Isfolket. A Swedish 47 book series about wizards.

>>20711940

>>20713858
I likee moobies too

aww shit replied to the wrong mfker

I like movies and TV but I find books more relaxing.

/lit/ version

>>20711722
no THX 1138, I see. NGMI.

>>20711711
>I'm so much smarter
Yes
>this makes me special
Undoubtedly

>>20714029
based
fa/tv/irgins btfo

>>20711940
so has 'holocaust denial'. What's your point?

>>20711711
Video games mog both film and literature

>>20711722
A lot of those movies are based off books

>>20711733
The advantages of movies
>You ALWAYS need to hear and see
>The more advanced movies you watch, the better you become at hearing and seeing
>If you use watching methods like speeding up the video, you can easily double your watching speed and maybe even learn 4 times more while watching
>Movies focus your brain on a clearly defined scene instead of a set of linguistic abstractions
>Watching depends ONLY ON YOUR SPEED and therefore you can minmax your learning per minute. Reading is just pushing words at you with no meaningful learning
>Videos are DIFFERENT and can range from braindead to quantum physics. Books on the other hand or just glorified pamphlets with no other value than sitting in front of it like a retard

Bookfags BTFO'd

>>20711722
>>20713871
>The End instead of 4.0
Sad!

>>20713956
it should be illegal to have taste this awful

>/tv/
I could tell by the quality of your post.

>>20711711
>>OOH LOOK AT ME AND MY HUGE BRAIN, IM SO LE SMART, BECAUSE I LOOK AT WORDS AND THINK, GUESS IM SMARTER THAN A DOG! IM SPECIAAAL!
all that but unironically

>>20711975
thanks anon you made me think

>>20711722
Pic painfully unrelated. What garbage taste.

>>20711711
Anyone can watch a movie, but only retards like yourself can't read a book.

>>20711711
>we
he's an unfunny cartoonist that would gain more if people didn't think he read

>>20713858
Nice argument

*hide thread*
*sage*

>>20711711
I like reading

>>20711722
A bast majority of these films are kino. Let's just be /tv/ and /lit/ both.

>>20711711
What the fuck is the point of a thread like this? This really think this needed to be posted? Did this amuse even you long enough to see you through the time it took to post it?
Stop posting. Whether it's here, or Reddit, or Twitter, or anywhere. People deserve better than to have to see your shit.

>>20711711
Who made this gay ass image? That's not how conceptualizing ideas & drawing inspiration works

>>20711722
>Raging Bull
>Blade Runner 2049
>Tree of Life
MY SIDES, I KNEW THEE WELL

speaking completely from a data transmission perspective, audio and video has higher bandwidth.
you have to crawl before you walk though and it still doesn't mean everything produced is worth knowing.

>>20714587
4.0 sucked. Way less emotional, uplifting and philosophical

>>20716223
Sorry that you didn't get it anon.