I have never understood why people claim reading is a more worthy use of time than watching tv. Love island probably teaches people more about the human condition than fifty shades does, so pick your poison
Because it's not actually about "optimizing time," it's about a feeling. A lot of people find themselves in a pattern where they binge-watch a show they don't really even like to fill time. Likewise with social media, at some point you're not sure why you're even doing it. Likewise for people who cut back on video games.
It's the behavior, not the medium, that gives this uneasy feeling all of your time is going to a thing that you didn't mean to spend it on.
On the other hand, if you find yourself sucked into a book for a weekend, odds are it's because you can't put it down and will regret nothing. Nobody binge-reads bad books.
most books that have been published in the past 100 years will disappear because they aren't worth the e-/paper they're written on. What makes reading more valuable for your brain is that it requires active engagement. films might be valuable too (I love films such as sci-fi, crime and comedy) - but binging 6 hrs on movies/shows every days is sure not as valuable as reading 6 hrs every day.
It becomes even more damaging when the screen is your only window into the world. e.g. we work in front of a screen all day, then on the way home metro/train or whatever hold a phone to check up on social-media, then after dinner switch on the TV. No wonder so many (young!) people are isolated. (young is especially shocking. I'm old and it's normal for me to be alone. Guess men are terribly at socializing. But seeing so many kids end up lonely and isolated is pretty sad)
> binging 6 hrs on movies/shows every days is sure not as valuable as reading 6 hrs every day.
Citation needed
All reading is not inherently valuable, in the same way all television is not. I don't get any more socialisation from reading a book, and indeed unlike e.g. watching TV with housemates/family it's an entirely isolated non-social activity.
Now, if we're talking solely about _children_ then i will give the act of reading additional value due to reading comprehension being a key skill that they need to improve! But mine isn't getting any better at this point, certainly not by reading the same old trash I always do.
"TV bad, Books good" is just a weird generalisation that sticks in my craw and I've never seen a believable piece of evidence for it
Most of my sons screen time is spent socializing. He rarely watches TV, but he spends a lot of time in multiplayer games where he is simultaneously on discord and building friendships. Yes, he needs face to face socialization too, and he gets plenty of that at school and various other activities, but the point being that screen time can be very passive or it can be active and involve lots of social contact.
When I was younger, I spent quite a lot of "active screen time" with IRC. Back then, it felt like I am connected to other people. In retrospect, it would have been far better for me if I used that time to socialize with real people IRL.
If I could go back in time, I would force myself to go out and meet real people, instead of simulated friendships in a chatroom...
Having also spent lots of time on IRC, most IRC channels are very different from voice chats with a circle of close friends. Even an IRC channel with close friends is very different,because it's a much more async communication with bursts of more live interaction Vs. the continued direct interaction of a voice chat during shared gaming.
Personally what he's doing would be hopelessly exhausting to me - I'm quite introvert and the level of social interaction he's engaging in is way above my tolerance level in terms of intensity.
Oh yeah, I can trust my assesment that real life contacts (lets call it a network) would have been more useful in the long run. I "wasted" about 10 years of my life spending time in front of a computer, as a sort of escape from the fact that I am an outsider by trade. I would have benefited a lot more if I tried to break that habit much much earlier.
For TV, a large number of people are paid enormous amounts of money and put huge efforts into the best result a bland corporate team can produce to increase ad sales by encouraging consumerism. "Love Island" does NOT exist to teach people about the human condition, its only goal is to increase hair spray sales, any other positive effect is simply a happy accident. Even "non profit" TV like PBS mostly exist to entertain the egos and virtue signalling of a small number of major monetary donors.
On the other hand, books are usually written by one person so they have a much stronger and more focused voice, and that strong voice usually has an interesting axe to grind.
Or rephrased, if its not interesting or is overly bland, no one reads the book. Admittedly being the most successful at appealing to the groupthink of a sub-population willing to pay for a book is not a Utopian civilization level result, but it is still better than peddling consumerism, and most authors seem to want to get their story out more than they want wealth. Book authors much like pro athletes are a power law distribution where most starve but a microscopic minority get very famous and very rich, so if money were a primary goal they would have gone into finance or software development instead of writing books.
One exists to addict you into consuming ever more bland megacorporate products, the other exists to sell the best ideas, either inherently best, or at least best at meeting existing groupthink demands.
The voice of the product is like the difference between the billionth corporate marketed mcdonalds burger vs a (celebrity?) chef multi course meal.
An excellent analogy would be watching TV would be like following the Walmart twitter account, whereas reading a book would be like reading Paul Graham's blog posts.
But I agree with your point. You can watch PBS mindlessly. I used to geek out on the obscure, ephemeral nature of all the educational films they used to show. It was a guilty pleasure.
At this point I consider both reading and TV, and especially movies because they don't encourage bingeing, more worthwhile than internet use of any kind - mainly because they require sustained concentration and don't encourage the tab-jumping, notification-checking, infinite-scrolling content addiction that I feel myself falling into when I'm on the internet. There's something to be said for sustained focus on one piece of content, even if that content is Love Island.
It's the behavior, not the medium, that gives this uneasy feeling all of your time is going to a thing that you didn't mean to spend it on.
On the other hand, if you find yourself sucked into a book for a weekend, odds are it's because you can't put it down and will regret nothing. Nobody binge-reads bad books.