[DyslexicAtheist]

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)

[Ntrails]

> 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

[vidarh]

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.

[mlang23]

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...

[vidarh]

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.

[icebraining]

Yeah, but your current judgment of what would have been better is tainted by the fact that you spent a lot of time on IRC, so can you really trust it?

[mlang23]

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.