Please Stop Reading Paper Books

[Anonymous No.15571854]

Ebooks are superior to paper books. You retain just as much. The cost of books is inexcusable. You have almost every book ever written available to you instantly.

[Anonymous No.15571859]

But I like paper books more.

[Anonymous No.15571864]

But I don't have an e-reader

[Anonymous No.15571866]

>>15571854
I buy all my books second hand

[Anonymous No.15571871]

there is no source there
fuck you

[Anonymous No.15571874]

Imagine giving your money to publishers when you can just download the text for free. Cucks.

[Anonymous No.15571876]

>>15571854
a lot of books arent scanned.

[Anonymous No.15571880]

>>15571854
Please source.

[Anonymous No.15571900]

>>15571876
All literature worth reading is available.

[Anonymous No.15571908]

>>15571854
Physical books are superior to ebooks. You retain much more. They're faster and not as cumbersome. They all automatically have 300ppi and color and immediately offer a superior experience to the greatest ereader ever made. They're made in first-world countries. You don't need some depreciating Made-In-China electronic device just to read a book. The cost of books is not an excuse. You're paying for an ereader, and electronics depreciate quickly. Books are kept for life anyway, and contain such valuable information while benefiting and enriching your life that to take issue with the nominal price for a used book is irrational.

[Anonymous No.15571920]

>>15571854
Oh man I want to see her get wrecked someone plz link

[Anonymous No.15571922]

>>15571871
yes there was. it was a pornhub link. learn to use a computer.

[Anonymous No.15571924]

Nah.
With ebooks we'll end up with Amazon controlling the whole market and essentially choosing what people get to read.

>inb4 "muh piracy"
Free internet won't exist in 20 years.

[Anonymous No.15571948]

>>15571922
Nod rly

[Anonymous No.15571958]

>>15571854
>have e-reader
>downloads vidya and films to drive
>EMP hits
>OHFUCK.jpg

[Anonymous No.15571979]

>>15571948
Makes you think

[Anonymous No.15572326]

Free books, dictionary on the spot, portable, what else could you ask for? It's only a matter of time until some /g/-boy makes a non-amazon'd kindle with all of its functionalities.

[Anonymous No.15572408]

>>15571908
The hero we need

[Anonymous No.15572420]

>>15571908
Cope. All of this was debunked in the other thread.

[Anonymous No.15572431]

>>15571854
This is a 10/10 in England

[Anonymous No.15572436]

>>15572420
No, it wasn't. You're sour grapes.

[Anonymous No.15572447]

>>15572436
Yes, it was.

[Anonymous No.15572474]

>>15571854
No. Piss off. E-readers are tiny pieces of shit.

[Anonymous No.15572481]

>>15572447
I don't care that you think that way. I know that your wrong and so would anyone else who reads the thread. Seek attention elsewhere you gross troll.

[Anonymous No.15572496]

Her head so small

[Anonymous No.15572500]

where can I find this pornography?

[Anonymous No.15572506]

>>15571854
>not setting, printing and binding books at home after pirating the text
how does it feel to know you'll never be a 15th century typesetter

[Anonymous No.15572564]

>>15571854
Enjoy DRM

[Anonymous No.15572575]

>>15571854
I read both because I'm not a fucking retard that places value in taking sides in arbitrary preferences.

[Anonymous No.15572583]

>>15571908
>You retain much more.
0 evidence for this

[Anonymous No.15572590]

>>15572564
It's called pirating, my boomer friend.

[Anonymous No.15572603]

>>15572481
Not him, but the physical book anons didn't make a very good case for themselves in the other thread.

[Anonymous No.15572607]

>>15572506
You're probably spending more than you would purchasing a used copy if you bother to use the thick, opaque cream smooth stock paper that the used copy will have etc... The inexpensive $5/500 pages from Staples is not what you're supposed to print books onto.

[Anonymous No.15572610]

>>15572564
>he doesn't know

[Anonymous No.15572624]

>>15572603
>Not him

[Anonymous No.15572645]

>>15571908
>not as cumbersome
Nigga what? I can fit a whole goddamn library in my pocket

[Anonymous No.15572648]

>>15571924
this is my greatest fear desu... Why I still have and buy some physical books

[Anonymous No.15572655]

>>15571979

[Anonymous No.15572656]

>>15572645
Cumbersome refers to navigation.

[Anonymous No.15572658]

>>15572645
I don't have ADHD so one book at a time is enough for me, and a physical book is definitely less cumbersome to use than any reader.

[Anonymous No.15572680]

>>15572656
>>15572658
E-readers are quick now. Takes like, a millisecond to turn a page. No flash either.

[Anonymous No.15572684]

>>15572656
>navigation
Do you guys not routinely search ebooks for quotes, references, etc?

[Anonymous No.15572692]

>>15572656
You can access the contents and index from any page -- no flipping back and forth. Way less cumbersome than a physical book

[Anonymous No.15572697]

>>15571958

If an EMP hits I'll still have my copy of One Second After and I sure as fuck won't care about my books at that moment in time.

[Anonymous No.15572704]

>>15571854
I-it feels like I don't own it when I buy an ebook, though.

Red pill me on ereaders? I haven't used one since Kindle Paperwhite. That thing was pretty comfy and retained some of the feel of a traditional book. Do the modern Kindles just feel like I'm reading off an iPad?

Also, pirated copies tend to be shitty / pixelated, and I like supporting the authors when I can.

[Anonymous No.15572716]

>>15572680
>>15572692
Anyone can watch a review on Youtube of the newest ereaders and see that they're still slow and have that e-ink display refresh flash. Navigation doesn't only refer to speed of turning a page, moron.

[Anonymous No.15572730]

Idk why people keep talking about ereaders I just use the kindle app on my ipad which should work with any tablet or even a large phone

[Anonymous No.15572732]

>>15572704
Just get one, anon. They've reached the point now where not only do they perfectly emulate real books, but surpass them in every way. I'd recommend a Kobo Libra H2O.

[Anonymous No.15572734]

>>15572684
/lit/ is technologically illiterate and yet they loathe technology.
It must be an American thing.

[Anonymous No.15572749]

>>15572716
I can find any word from any page in the press of a button. E-books are superior when it comes to navigability compared to physical books

[Anonymous No.15572751]

>>15572732
What was that feel just now? How did I become so old, fuck. Unironically, I hope reincarnation is real. I'll check it out. I have a small library of Amazon purchases.

[Anonymous No.15572752]

>>15572732
>Emulate real books
Thats just the worst of both worlds, if you’re gonna read digital just use black screen with white text

[Anonymous No.15572753]

>>15571854
Have fun reading all those ebooks after we get hit by another solar flare in a decade or two.

[Anonymous No.15572761]

>>15572753
Oh, anon! *giggles* I know you've been stressed at work lately, but you shouldn't worry about such things.

[Anonymous No.15572763]

I prefer nonfic physical and fiction ebook

[Anonymous No.15572768]

>>15572749
God forbid anyone have the patience or attention span required to search for specific passages on their own.

[Anonymous No.15572773]

Remembering the tactile thickness of how far I am into a book and the spatial distribution of the idea on the two page interface unironically aids my memory recall of information in a far superior way to ereaders/phone reading
I still read on my phone/tablet though, but usually with very casual books or fiction, nothing serious

also >>15571854
looks like she fucks black guys and then complains to the barista about her starbucks order

[Anonymous No.15572775]

>>15572763
>>15572768
Bad bait

[Anonymous No.15572784]

>>15572768
No one's forcing you to using e-readers' superior features. They're there if you want them.

[Anonymous No.15572785]

>>15572773
I read on my phone alot but because if someone walks into my office and i’m on my phone its fine but if I was on my tablet or sitting with a book it would be weird

[Anonymous No.15572790]

>>15572749
>I can find any word from any page in the press of a button
or you can just remember where it was, or use a paper book and not need to because you can see two full pages at a time.

[Anonymous No.15572796]

>>15571880
>>15571920
>>15572500
Hannah Brooks, it took me not time at all to find this information you sorrowful pieces of shit

[Anonymous No.15572801]

>>15572768
I really only need to search up character details, but I spend a lot of time googling. It often bugs me when I forget how old a character is. I'm also really autistic about descriptions. For example, I recently read the word galoshes, and I knew it to mean gumboots, but I had to make sure I had a perfect conception of what the character was wearing. Likewise if a random street or river is mentioned, I'll literally google it and go into streetview. It takes me a long time to read most books. Who else here autistic as fuck?

[Anonymous No.15572806]

>>15572656
I can literally skim through a 600MB textbook in 2-3 seconds on my phone.

[Anonymous No.15572811]

>>15572790
You can do all of that on an e-reader too.

[Anonymous No.15572821]

>>15572801
I'm pretty similar. E-readers have inbuilt dictionaries though which saves me a lot of time.

[Anonymous No.15572831]

>>15572811
>two full pages
Stop posting.
>>15572806
or you can actually read it

[Anonymous No.15572832]

>>15572811
except this approach can very often fail when the idea or passage being remembered doesn't have any real unique word or phrase to work with

[Anonymous No.15572840]

>>15571854
>Please Stop Reading Paper Books
Fuck off, schlomo, don't tell people what to do

>>15571874
>>15571908
>>15571924
This

Also, nothing will ever replace the authentic feel of touching the paper, its smell and rustling sound when you flip the pages. Ebooks are only useful when you travel and nothing more

[Anonymous No.15572843]

>>15572831
>>two full pages
Fuck off, gramps

[Anonymous No.15572848]

>>15572821
It isn't faster than a physical dictionary.

[Anonymous No.15572874]

Quantitatively/in terms of utility, e-books are superior in every single way. Phsyical books can only compete by making qualitative arguments - smell, feel etc.

[Anonymous No.15572881]

>>15572843
The largest ereaders, which are also $500+, cannot even display two full pages from a novel, and cannot display one full 8.5x11 page from a textbook. They're useless.

[Anonymous No.15572888]

More obscure works, and certain editions can be hard to find free digital copies. I try my best to not buy shit I can easily find online

[Anonymous No.15572893]

>>15572848
How? I can a tap a word and get the defintion immediately, from multiple dictionaries, in multiple languages

[Anonymous No.15572916]

>>15572881
I just showed you one, anon.

[Anonymous No.15572930]

>>15572801
>>15572821
You forget details because you're subconsciously less engaged. You don't feel the need to retain as much information knowing you can look it up in a few seconds. I used to read pdfs all the time. I noticed I wasn't retaining as much information as I was when I was reading physical copies. I think David Skrbina mentions this in his intro to Technological Slavery. Taking physical notes while reading and co-relating them in post also helps with memory.

[Anonymous No.15572939]

>>15572881
>cannot peform this very specific function I've autistically focused on becuase all my other arguments were btfo
>useless

[Anonymous No.15572940]

>>15572874
Your definition of utility is idiotic when the entire experience of a physical book is superior in its retention and navigation. The utilitarian choice is the fastest and most retentitive, and that is a physical book.
>>15572916
Unless it's larger than 13, no you did not.

[Anonymous No.15572946]

>>15572930
My retention has increased ever since I started using an ereader. It's great.
>I used to read pdfs all the time
On an ereader?

[Anonymous No.15572952]

>>15572881
Who the fuck buys a $500 ereader?
Either use a tablet that basically functions like a computer whenever you need it
Or, just buy the $50 kindle
These ereader fags are reminding me of the old apple fanboys from the 00’s with all the inane shit they try to push as advantages
It just displays text

[Anonymous No.15572957]

>>15572940
It's 13.3 inches. Now what?

[Anonymous No.15572978]

>>15572940
>superior in its retention and navigation
None of this is true though? You just made it up. Retention could fall either way, but ebooks quite obviously have superior navigation.

[Anonymous No.15572979]

>>15572930
It's just the idea of these devices like ereaders offering "tools" that nobody needs. They exist due to laziness. They don't solve a problem. They're for lazy idiots, and they will make you into a lazy idiot if you use them. Imagine being incapable of using a dictionary. It's insane how these people defend that. I cannot stand the stupidity.

[Anonymous No.15572987]

>>15572940
Physical books aren’t utilitarian at all though. It’s much harder to track down a physical copy of almost anything than to find them online.
To say nothing of how much quicker you can get books when you decide you want to read them
I don’t even torrent (although everybody probably should) but my library lending app had made it incredibly easy to find and download books instantly

[Anonymous No.15572995]

>>15572843
Is this even out yet? I couldn't find any dual-page ereaders from a quick search

[Anonymous No.15573004]

>>15572979
Life marches on, grandpa. Once upon a time your precious books were just a convenience for lazy idiots. Go back to scrolls, or tablets if think otherwise.

[Anonymous No.15573010]

>>15572946
On tablet & pc. PDFs don't work on e-readers pretty sure.

[Anonymous No.15573017]

>>15572995
It's been out for a while now.

[Anonymous No.15573018]

>>15572979
These reasons are bad, they’re actually worse and less convincing than “i like the FEEL of used books somebody used while they were taking a dump”
>Retain information better
Smh

[Anonymous No.15573019]

>>15572979
>They exist due to laziness. They don't solve a problem.
Ah yes, I always lug a 5 pound Chinese dictionary when reading on the subway.

You're a fag, go kill yourself you waste of oxygen.

[Anonymous No.15573032]

>>15573010
Well that explains it. Ereaders are a completely different beast

[Anonymous No.15573035]

>>15572957
You would need about 27" 1440p for two full textbook pages. I don't recall the requirement for a novel but it's definitely above 13.3". Enjoy spending $500+ for an inferior depreciating electronic device.
>>15572978
You are useless. You can only view 1/2 to 1 page at a time. Retention is shown through pedagogical study, I don't make things up. Maybe you should research yourself instead of continuously spamming "no it's not".

[Anonymous No.15573041]

>>15571854
but then i wouldn’t be able to post in the /shelf/ and /stack/ threads :(

[Anonymous No.15573057]

>>15573018
The scientific community disagrees with you.
>>15573019
anyone who learns mandarin should be eliminated.

[Anonymous No.15573062]

>>15573032
>completely different beast
Maybe I'm wrong here but I've seen them up close and there isn't much of a difference except maybe how backlit they are.

[Anonymous No.15573065]

>>15573035
Lmao. Keep moving those goalposts. You've got nothing.
>Enjoy spending $500+
Pocket change compared to buying physical books (also it's $400).

[Anonymous No.15573080]

>>15573035
>Retention is shown through pedagogical study,
Show me the source/s. Studies specifically about ereader retention

[Anonymous No.15573091]

>>15573062
Yes, you're wrong. E-ink screens and standard screens are completely different

[Anonymous No.15573094]

I've tried ebooks but maybe I'm autistic or something but I just have to build a personal relationship to a book in order to retain a lot, individual books become close friends that I like to visit from time to time by grabbing them out of my bookshelf. For some reason I can't build that kind of connection with ebooks.

[Anonymous No.15573095]

>>15571948
*whispers* did you find the link?

[Anonymous No.15573104]

>>15571854
old books smell good tho

[Anonymous No.15573136]

Audiobook boys are too busy reading right now to argue with you plebeians

[Anonymous No.15573142]

>>15573080
>must be about ereaders specifically
The screen it's on doesn't matter, it's the ease of access that causes dwindling attention span. Read David Skrbina's intro to Technological Slavery he quotes a few studies there.

[Anonymous No.15573149]

>>15573065
>Keep moving those goalposts
You thought by "above 13" i mean't 0.3"? 13" ereaders don't even exist, they're all 13.3". You're a joke. I'm not wasting my time on such a clown.

[Anonymous No.15573172]

>>15573142
>some panpsychist Ted fanboy thinks erraders are bad
Is this the best you've got?

[Anonymous No.15573178]

>>15573149
Cope. Go ahead and move them again, dumb cunt

[Anonymous No.15573195]

>>15573172
He quotes academic studies retard. Not that it matters because you're not going to read any of it either way. Nobody on this board ever reads anything. All just self aggrandizing pseuds.

[Anonymous No.15573212]

>>15573080
see >>15573142 + feel, placement of text, smell, stains and wrinkles, anything unique about that specific book will increase retention, let alone the lack of flashing screens and a UI to distract you, and pressing a button just to turn a page which will reduce your concentration. I don't think that the morons here even know what retention means or the variables which effect it. It's all sour grapes losers who cannot afford books.

[Anonymous No.15573229]

>>15573212
Still no sources

[Anonymous No.15573235]

>>15573172
>eretards ask for sources because they're lazy and need spoonfed everything, can't even use a dictionary
>someone provides a source
>attack them
toxic and stupid

[Anonymous No.15573248]

>>15573212
>smell, stains and wrinkles
These are all gross
Idk where you everyone is pulling the better retention information from, it sounds like bullshit

[Anonymous No.15573249]

>>15573235
He asked for studies. Phsyical faggots can't even read, apparently.

[Anonymous No.15573255]

>>15573229
I'm not going back through pubmed for you. I researched on my own. I don't care about you. I enlightened myself.

[Anonymous No.15573264]

>>15573212
HOLY fucking cope. Just take the L already, dude. E-books are better in every way besides "feelz".

[Anonymous No.15573271]

anyone who actually doesn't get that the real thing is better is a troll or mentally challenged and should be ignored.

[Anonymous No.15573277]

>>15573255
I've read retention and enrichment studies; none of them touch on ereaders.

[Anonymous No.15573289]

E-books are better. They'll be looked back on like the scroll one day.

[Anonymous No.15573294]

>>15571979
give link

[Anonymous No.15573312]

>>15571854
Why do you care what people do? You should be begging people to buy books and ebooks so that publishers don't stop making them from all the piracy.

[Anonymous No.15573387]

I read epubs and pdfs of books on my computer and my phone, I have never used an ereader.

[Anonymous No.15573399]

>>15573264
>doesn't refute any of that
You lost.
>>15573277
All of it very clearly extrapolates to "ereaders". The entire point is to understand how we retain information and the variables which effect that. There isn't anything novel about an "ereader" AKA a tablet with an e-ink display. We can take note of characteristics, positive and negative for retention, and conclude that they entirely lack positive retention characteristics. They're wholly generic, full of distractions, are cumbersome to navigate, and decrease your memory while increasing laziness via tools. Your stupidity doesn't change that, and I'm not responding to your next timewasting post.

[Anonymous No.15573403]

>>15573249
>>15573229
These cover everything from screen usage to ease of access.
>Christakis et al. (2004), and Kubcy and Csikszcntmihalyi (2002). Regarding the possible
connection between television lmd autism, sec Waldman et a.l. (2006). Autism in fact seems to
be more prevalent than commonly thought; recent estimlltes suggest thllt about one of every 150
children (0.7%) has some form of this disorder, significantly higher than previous estimates (see Rice,
2007).

>J Ahoujaoude et al. (2006)

>Nakazawa et at. (2002)

> Carr (2008)

>Dynarski et al. (2007)

There are more but I won't bother because you won't look up any of them.

[Anonymous No.15573514]

>>15573403
>autism
Lol, what? We’re talking about information for average readers

[Anonymous No.15573539]

>>15573514
>obviously didn't read
Also the most relevant ones are Ahoujaoude, Nakazawa, and Dynarski. But you're not going to read any of those either because you lack the attention span.

[Anonymous No.15573572]

>>15573539
He's basically a bot.

[Anonymous No.15573611]

>>15573572
Thats what these people do. They cry "SOURCE SOURCE" because they picked it up off some other pseud. In their mind "source?" means "bad man who disagrees will stop."

[Anonymous No.15573664]

fuck ebooks. they shouldn't even be called books

[Anonymous No.15573691]

>>15573235
>eretards
Based. Fuck ebooks.

[Anonymous No.15573713]

>>15571854
just watched some of her videos, pretty good

[Anonymous No.15573730]

>>15573611
Only one person was asking for sources
I knew it was bullshit ahead of time

[Anonymous No.15573776]

>>15573730
>Only one person was asking for sources
When I said "these people" I was referring to the pseuds who pull this shit all the time. There's one like every thread. I usually don't bother with them.

[Anonymous No.15573816]

>>15573611
I feel bad that you even bothered. "Source?" doesn't make sense anyway. They can easily search on pubmed just as you and I do, and you never look at a "source", but the body of evidence. I'm not suddenly someones personal research assistant because they spam "source?". If you need to be spoonfed every minute then clearly you don't know enough to enter the conversation and shouldn't waste peoples time who actually bother to try and enlighten you. I think that these people are toxic morons.

[Anonymous No.15573834]

>>15571854
>You retain just as much.
Months ago I saw an article saying people retain more reading (physical) books than ebooks.

[Anonymous No.15573853]

>>15573834
You do. The OP is just a satire of >>15571908 from an old thread.

[Anonymous No.15573917]

>>15571854
I've never seen a cup of coffee as tragic as this.
>bomb legs
>thin lips
>extended chin
>poor makeup skills
>Karen haircut with extra bangs
>tiny man-eyes

[Anonymous No.15574033]

>>15573713
Whats her name?

>>15573917
She seems scouse to me for some reason. Teeth are too good tho

[Anonymous No.15574041]

>>15571854
The cost of paper books is pretty minimal compared to the cost of say, weekly groceries. If buying books is really an issue you can always check the library first or look for a good deal on used volumes.

There are many people who simply prefer printed books for their inherent properties. Some people might like the look of a page compared to a backlit screen, and other people might enjoy collecting books in their house as personal property, rather than merely paying to access their book collection on an e-reader. Paper books are also easier to take notes in (please don't annotate the margins of a Kindle).

[Anonymous No.15574102]

>>15573917
you haven't seen her riding though
>>15574033
Hannah Brooks

[Anonymous No.15574280]

>>15574102
thanks

[Anonymous No.15574497]

>>15572704
Buy physical books that you want to possess and reference/re-read for years.
Buy physical textbooks if you care about your GPA.

Buy an ereader for shit you don't care about aesthetically that you just want to read once. Take it with you when you travel.

[Anonymous No.15574653]

>>15572734
im from hungrary and it is not american you retard americans love technology for no reason they are dumb

[Anonymous No.15574667]

>>15571866
Gigachad confirmed

[Anonymous No.15574779]

>>15571908
>They're faster and not as cumbersome.
This is plain wrong. A book is heavier by far and you need to hold pages open and turn them and maybe even use a bookmark.
>They're made in first-world countries.
Do you honestly apply this to your own life?
>The cost of books is not an excuse.
True, it's just a fact some people have bills to pay. The idea you need an excuse to save whatever money you can is stupid.
>irrational.
Wrong again, it's perfectly rational to save money always and in all ways. It's irrational to spend money for novelties

[Anonymous No.15574977]

Everyone posting against real books just can't afford them because they're NEET losers, that's literally the only reason they use ebooks. seeing them mention garbage like "i can travel easily with my entire library" is so laughable. Where are you traveling to, NEET, to the bathroom?
>>15574779
Cumbersome =/= weight.
>Do you honestly apply this to your own life?
I do.
>it's just a fact some people have bills to pay
Yes, a NEET must tend to his onahole bills.
>Wrong again,
Nobody asked for your half-baked stupid opinion masquerading as some sage.
>it's perfectly rational to save money always and in all ways.
No, it isn't. You don't understand even the time value of money. Most people waste their valuable time when saving money. There's absolutely no way i'm bothering to argue with some moron on here about that, though. Waste another persons time.

[Anonymous No.15574984]

Why are you guys so stupid? Literally you don't know the basics of things that you are shitting on, nothing that a quick google search won't fix.

[Anonymous No.15575037]

>>15574977
>Cumbersome =/= weight.
I can read my books one handed or even no handed, can you say the same?
>Yes, a NEET must tend to his onahole bills.
I can afford more lube than you.
>stupid opinion masquerading as some sage.
No u
>You don't understand even the time value of money.
Tell me about your opinion about my ignorance again, i'll try and care.
>There's absolutely no way i'm bothering to argue
You put so much effort in though.

[Anonymous No.15575044]

>>15574779
>Wrong again, it's perfectly rational to save money always and in all ways. It's irrational to spend money for novelties
Then how about instead of posting here you go drive Uber inbetween your shifts at the Call Center you worthless, soulless golem golem

[Anonymous No.15575052]

>>15575044
>Then how about
you stop samefagging?

[Anonymous No.15575067]

>>15573403
None of this mentions ereaders you dumb nigger

[Anonymous No.15575073]

>>15575052
Why are you replying to yourself?

[Anonymous No.15575089]

>>15575073
prove it

[Anonymous No.15575128]

>>15571854
>You have almost every book ever written available to you instantly.
Imagine being so wrong. Not even 20% of boks are avaible, except if you are reading fiction. see>>15571866

[Anonymous No.15575132]

Exhibit >>15575067: lack of retention eretard

[s10241875 No.15575152]

>>15571854
>Please Stop Reading Paper Books

*reading the tablet*
Hmm, no.
*continue to read the tablet*

[Anonymous No.15575179]

You'd be an absolute fool to not at least incorporate an e-reader/e-ink device into your reading repertoire. The convenience they offer far outways any potential losses in retention (a spurious claim to begin with).

[Anonymous No.15575216]

>>15575179
>a spurious claim
discarded

[Anonymous No.15575245]

>>15571854
You will never know the joy of letting someone you love borrow a book from your bookshelf after they get excited by a title. You will never know the satisfaction of recommending a book to someone and giving them your copy to read.
ebooks are soulless consumer garbage.

[Anonymous No.15575247]

>>15575216
>discarded
Yes, that's what one tends to do with spurious claims.

[Anonymous No.15575250]

>>15575179
I only use ereaders to speed read worthless books so as to make sure I dont actually retain any useless information from it, just so that I can say I've read it (e.g. the bible)

[Anonymous No.15575262]

>>15575245
downloading something for free instead of buying it makes you a consoomerist...

[Anonymous No.15575291]

>>15575245
Stop killing the trees man.
Stop milking the squid for it's dank ink you pervert.

[Anonymous No.15575330]

>>15575245
>spurious claim
>backed by both neurologists and psychologists

[Anonymous No.15575355]

>>15575330
was meant for >>15575179

[Anonymous No.15575363]

>>15575330
I've looked through the various sources provided in the thread and none of them back the claim that physical books result in better information retention than e-books on an e-reader.

[Anonymous No.15575386]

>>15575363
>I hit ctrl+f and couldn't find "e-reader" so it's invalid

[Anonymous No.15575401]

>>15575386
sauce

[Anonymous No.15575415]

>>15575363
is this trolling at this point?
i refuse to believe this may eretards are actually incapable of reading

[Anonymous No.15575420]

>>15575386
Never claimed it was invalid, just spurious. As it stands, the claim doesn't have any direct empirical evidence to back it up.

[Anonymous No.15575430]

>>15575415
>>15575386
Are you samefagging? How many people am I talking with here?

[Anonymous No.15575446]

>>15575430
>>15575073
would you take your meds you schizo retard, or just go to >>>/x/ and post about gangstalkers on 4channel

[Anonymous No.15575452]

>>15575446
>>15575073 isn't me.

[Anonymous No.15575454]

>>15575430

[Anonymous No.15575464]

>>15575452
fine, then (you)
>>15575430
>>15575052
whoever you are you need to start taking your anti psychotics

[Anonymous No.15575499]

>>15575464
Take yours

[Anonymous No.15575500]

>>15575420
You don't understand what the word spurious means, and you haven't read the studies. You heard some faggot use the word spurious when speaking about some general academics and so incorporated it into your vocabulary to use whenever presented with studies that go against your pre-conceived worldview.

[Anonymous No.15575510]

>>15575464

[Anonymous No.15575516]

>>15575500
>and you haven't read the studies.
Post sauce to studies

[Anonymous No.15575524]

>>15575499
nice try, but I can't fool myself

[Anonymous No.15575525]

>>15575516
I already have you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.15575536]

>>15575500
Well I'm ESL, so perhaps I don't. Either way, my point stands. The claim has no direct empirical evidence behind it.

[Anonymous No.15575538]

>>15573294
>>15573095
pornhub + /view_video.php?viewkey=ph5a44943d595b2

[Anonymous No.15575558]

>>15575525
Regarding e-readers specifically?
Mine isn't even lit up the way a tablet is, very un-intensive on the eyes and no need for a light to read.

[Anonymous No.15575566]

>>15571854

If you haven't read it on paper, it doesn't count.

[Anonymous No.15575570]

>>15575536
>asks for studies
>studies provided
>doesn't read said studies
>duur the claim has no empirical evidence behind it

[Anonymous No.15575597]

>>15575570
I've read the studies. Again, they don't address e-readers at all. My point stands.

[Anonymous No.15575602]

>>15575558
The sensitivity on the eyes have nothing to do with it. As stated before it's ease of access. Memory recollection from operant conditioning is a key factor.

[Anonymous No.15575605]

>>15575247
>>15575179
Your claim that they're spurious is based in ignorance, therefore I discard it.
>>15575558
You morons spam the same thing over and over again no matter how many times it is explained previously.

[Anonymous No.15575609]

>>15575602
Refer to >>15575386 and repeat until it gets into your thick skull.

[Anonymous No.15575617]

>>15575609
was meant for >>15575602

[Anonymous No.15575625]

>>15575602
>ease of access
E-readers are more cumbersome than physical books, so this can't be true.

[Anonymous No.15575633]

>>15575609
was meant for >>15575597 what the fuck is going on had to punch in the post number manually

[Anonymous No.15575649]

>>15575609
>>15575617
You dont get. I accept the pedagogical theory, but there's just no empirical proof that e-readers have the qualities you think they have.

[Anonymous No.15575653]

>>15575558
>>15575597
holy shit, again? READ THE THREAD YOU STUPID eFAGGOT
>>15573399
>>15573403
>>15572930

>>15575625
>maybe if i misconstrue it, i'm suddenly right :)
you're a rat

[Anonymous No.15575660]

>>15575625
Ease of access in the sense that one can easily scour the book for needed information.

[Anonymous No.15575687]

>>15575653
You know I'm right. E-books are cumbersome and difficult to navigate. They make you work for their information and are more engaging and enriching. The pedagogical theory backs this up.

[Anonymous No.15575697]

>>15575660
>easily scour the book for needed information.
Not true. E-books are cumbersome and difficult to navigate.

[Anonymous No.15575698]

>>15573035
>Enjoy spending $500+ for an inferior depreciating electronic device.
Mine was 50 nigger. It's practically unbreakable too. I've had it over half a decade now and i read twice as many books as i did before.

[Anonymous No.15575715]

>>15575697
>E-books are cumbersome and difficult to navigate.
Stop being retarded you luddite.

[Anonymous No.15575717]

>>15575558
Living embodiment of

>Do you have a source on that?

>Source?

>A source. I need a source.

>Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.

>No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.

>You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.

>Do you have a degree in that field?

>A college degree? In that field?

>Then your arguments are invalid.

>No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.

>Correlation does not equal causation.

>CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.

>You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.

>Nope, still haven't.

[Anonymous No.15575734]

>>15575717
Dude, you're the one going on about "pedagogical theory" and "neurologists". E-book fans are just using their intuition, and they're right.

[Anonymous No.15575762]

>>15575734
>provide me studies that prove me wrong
>you're wrong because you provided studies
Double bind. Next step is gaslighting/mental health accusations.

[Anonymous No.15575773]

>>15575762
>Next step is gaslighting/mental health accusations
This is what you were doing.

[Anonymous No.15575789]

>>15575773
>This is what you were doing.
Post proof faggot. Haven't accused you of being anything but a moron.

[Anonymous No.15575795]

>>15575762
Hey man, you started it

[Anonymous No.15575798]

>>15571854
>source_in_webm_title.webm
Fuck you, OP.

[Anonymous No.15575800]

>>15575773
>>15575789
quit samefagging

[Anonymous No.15575808]

>>15571900
This is a Philosophy board, chud.

[Anonymous No.15575813]

>>15575800

[Anonymous No.15575816]

>>15575698
Why do you ereader losers reply to a post and misconstrue it? That was referring to the expensive 13.3" ereaders.

[Anonymous No.15575847]

>>15571854
Those are all good points, however, there's one thing you haven't considered: I LIKE books, so...

[Anonymous No.15577982]

>>15574977
I can tell just by the way you write that you're a fucking asshole, and people tolerate you.

[Anonymous No.15577994]

>>15577982
I got this impression too. Glad he was btfo in this thread.

[Anonymous No.15579238]

>>15571854
>You retain just as much.
empirically false

[Anonymous No.15579278]

>>15572840
>nothing will ever replace the authentic feel of touching the paper, its smell and rustling sound when you flip the pages
nigga sounding like you about to have sex with that thing lmao

[Anonymous No.15579540]

>>15577982
>>15577994
literally crying

[Anonymous No.15579619]

>>15577994
>>15577982
This is pathetic sour grapes behavior. You(as in you, one person replying to himself) cannot refute the points because they're rooted in scientific study. You, being an attention-seeking loser with a lot of time and zero income, have no choice but to download ebooks, and it bothers you to think that you're wasting youe time reading them instead of the real thing, and you obviously want attention, so you repeatedly ignore everything and simply spam one of the following
>cope
>btfo
>source
every single reply you've given is one of those. You may as well be a bot. Your vernacular is so narrow that you appear as an automated tool instantly spamming a few pea-brained responses. We could say anything at all, even agree with you, and you'd reply with one of the above anyway. A rational, reasonable person would just read the body of evidence and learn as everyone here who reads physical books has. You want attention, and you're sour grapes.

[Anonymous No.15579650]

>>15571900
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.15579688]

>>15571900
Little is available. I can't believe people say this. How does anyone focus for hours with their monitor or a tablet? What a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.15579771]

>>15571854
>The cost of books is inexcusable
I spend £1 a book at charity shops. Whenever they open up again I will continue to do so, but until that happens I have amassed enough books to keep me busy.

[Anonymous No.15579813]

Ebooks are better. The scientific literature is pretty clear on this.

[Anonymous No.15579860]

>>15571854
I use and enjoy both formats, but prefer ebooks (read on an ereader) for the increased engagement/stimulation they produce. Page-turn buttons, interactive UIs, inbuilt dictionaries, inbuilt highlighting and note-taking systems; not too mention the multitasking that all these tools facilitate -- physical books just feel passive and 1-dimensional in comparison.

[Anonymous No.15579891]

>>15572704
Buy a Kobo faggot

[Anonymous No.15580010]

>fell asleep reading this thread last night
>end up researching this myself this morning because this thread is ridiculous
>literally every study i read concludes that paper books are significantly better for retention
why are people debating it ITT when nothing supports the ebook group in the first place? there is nothing to debate...books aren't even expensive...

[Anonymous No.15580018]

>>15580010
>books aren't even expensive
https://brill.com/view/title/7618

400 bucks for a single book, I prefer reading on paper but a lot of the books I read are super expensive and there is no way I'm going to pay that much for them.

[Anonymous No.15580092]

>>15580018
just print it out for $5, probably closer to $10 if you want to use good paper for books, and then you have that $400 medieval metallurgy book and all of the retention benefits...

[Anonymous No.15580105]

>>15571908
This white boy ait, he can keep dem nutz

[Anonymous No.15580227]

>>15580092
Printing and binding a 900+ page book is too much effort for me, I'd rather just read it a couple of times while writing down notes.

[Anonymous No.15580279]

>>15580010
Becuase none of the studies address e-readers.

[Anonymous No.15580319]

>>15580010
>nothing supports the ebook group in the first place?
You don't need a scientific study to prove that ebooks are cheaper and more convenient than physical books.

[Anonymous No.15580329]

>>15580279
yes they do. you don't have visiospatial awareness with tablets & monitors, and with books you do which significantly improves retention. all of these studies say that.

[Anonymous No.15580373]

>>15580279
A researcher named Anne Mangen researches that specifically and has shown with each study that paper is better. what are you talking about?
https://www.academia.edu/7868162/Mangen_A._et_al._2014_._Mystery_story_reading_in_pocket_print_book_and_on_Kindle_possible_impact_on_chronological_events_memory._Conference_paper_presentation_IGEL_The_International_Society_for_the_Empirical_Study_of_Literature_and_Media_Turin_Italy_July_21-25

[Anonymous No.15580473]

>>15571908
>You don't need some depreciating Made-In-China electronic device just to read a book.

most of the paper in books is made in china dumb fuck

[Anonymous No.15580888]

>>15575762
>He thinks it's people asking for studies to prove them wrong
>It's actually people asking for studies and data to prove him right, with all his pedagogical theory bullshit
Really makes you think. Burden of proof lies on those making the claims.

[Anonymous No.15581395]

>>15580888
The thread is filled with studies. What is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.15581530]

>>15571854
Short hair is so fucking gross

[Anonymous No.15581934]

>>15581395
It's literally this >>15575386. Eretards don't have the attention span to read through academic studies. First reply claiming it didn't apply to e-readers came 3h after the studies got posted. Even if he'd started reading as soon as it was posted he wouldn't have had the time to read all of them. One of them is even only accessible to students, but this was never mentioned by anyone because they didn't even bother looking any of them up.

[Anonymous No.15581956]

>>15571854
based. I read all my books on trantor.is

[Anonymous No.15582087]

>>15571854
I prefer ebooks because I can use them with text-to-speech software which is quite nice, however you have to admit paper books smell nicer.

[Anonymous No.15583212]

I've yet to see anyone mention the paralysis of choice when downloading ebooks. Having many inconsequential choices is not conducive to productivity.

[Anonymous No.15583262]

>>15583212
That sounds like BS to me. Have you never been to a library?

[Anonymous No.15583314]

>>15583262
Designers have this problem in modern design software. Infinite inconsequential choices is conducive to wasting time, constantly reevaluating your choice. I often see such scenarios here: someone who downloaded many ebooks and cannot decide which to read; which is the "best" choice? This is effectively analysis paralysis. It thrives with increasing inconsequential choices.

[Anonymous No.15583328]

>>15583314
I'm saying this is nothing new, it's not a unique property of ebooks. Loads of people have huge personal collections of paper books that they haven't read. And walking into a bookstore or library will confront you with tens of thousands of books to choose from, if not more.

[Anonymous No.15584409]

>>15583328
It distinguishes them from books. You cannot instantly have 1,000 books. You can rent a few from the library, or pay for them, and you only have so much to spend. These are limited. You have some kind of investment. With ebooks, you can download as many as you want and spend the next week thinking about which to read, making a thread asking what to read, and change your mind over and over again. With books, you make your decision and you have an incentive to follow through as you've paid for them or chose them as your few books to rent form the library. I understand people exist with libraries in their home, but these people did not suddenly have that. They slowly accumulated it.

[Anonymous No.15584443]

>>15584409
>You cannot instantly have 1,000 books
You can walk into a library and 'instantly' have several thousand books to choose from. You can't take them all home with you, but I don't see how that's meaningfully different from having thousands of books available to you 'instantly' on your hard drive and having to choose one to read.

In either case, you are selecting one book from thousands to read.

[Anonymous No.15584466]

>>15572753
>he hasn't kept his house in a farday cage
ngmi

[Anonymous No.15584485]

>>15571854
What's a good ereader that I can read PDFs on and that has no glownigger software on it? Preferably cheap.

[Anonymous No.15584516]

>>15584443
It's not the same. Zero investment exists with ebooks. You at least need to visit the library and go through the effort of it. Ebooks are effortlessly obtained. Sure, I downloaded this book, but I can just download another, and another, and never make a decision. If I rent a few books from the library, well now I'd better read at least one because I went through the trouble of visiting for an hour and I don't want to waste more time etc... Consequences exist to push you forward. A meaningful difference exists.

[Anonymous No.15584537]

>>15584516
It takes me effort to peruse through collections of ebooks to select one I want to read. Whether those ebooks are located on my hard drive or some remote hard drive makes little difference to me.

[Anonymous No.15584628]

>>15584537
They're obviously not an identical process. It requires very little effort for ebooks. You sit in your chair and visit libgen. With books, you need to spend money, potentially wait for the delivery, or visit a library in which you have a clear limit. The amount of effort required is far higher than with ebooks, and this is conducive to productivity as you are pushed forward with the threat of proper consequences. Ebooks require so little effort, zero consequences exist, and therefore your incentive doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.15584637]

I read more having an ereader. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.15584643]

>>15584628
>It requires very little effort for ebooks. You sit in your chair and visit libgen.
That's how I view a list of books (assuming I have search terms in mind.) The process of actually choosing one of the books to read is the same.

[Anonymous No.15584648]

>>15584628
>therefore your incentive doesn't exist.
Seems like a peronsal problem

[Anonymous No.15584704]

>>15580373
>To conclude, most of the measures we used to assess the text comprehension did not show any differences between print- and e-book.

[Anonymous No.15584746]

>>15584643
You still need to invest something and you are restrained.
>>15584648
I regularly see this issue here and /sci/.

[Anonymous No.15585027]

>>15572801
literally me
what's your twitter anon?

[Anonymous No.15585079]

>>15571854
I’d rather have a library