Are physical books seriously better than ebooks in terms of memory recalling? I've seen multiple articles that talk about how ebooks are less likely to be remembered by the reader, but when I look at the source or the reasons, they are not explained nor justified very well . What do you think about it? I have bad memory so this debate concerns me deeply.
>>54243870
>I have bad memory so this debate concerns me deeply
Buy a 250 go ssd and plug it up your ass, get 16 go of ram stick it deep inside, finally get a 2 To external hdd and plug it into your urethra
>>54243870
that doesn't seem to make much sense. you might make an argument about how actually acquiring a physical copy and keeping it on your shelf helps to keep it in your mind or something like that.
far fetched as fuck. content is the same so there shouldn't be a difference.
>>54243870
Thats just a meme. My reading comprehension is no different between an e-ink or a paper book. I would go with an eink reader simply because it's guaranteed to be easy to read (stupid paperbacks and their tiny font)
>>54243946
I always wonder what a respectable member of society who casually comes by to lurk would feel after reading such a comment.
>>54243946
can't really call it an external hdd if he puts it into his urethra now can you?
think before you post, Anon.
>>54243870
maybe slightly better memory for the physical book due to the unique look and feel of each book, but not much.
>>54244049
Depend if it uses mini usb stuffs it may do...
Also bump for more thread's answers
>>54243870
Yes. Of course it won't make a difference for everybody, but if it's a toss-up in your case just play it safe.
t. guy that can't focus with ebooks
>>54243870
I have to admit that I tend to forget contents of digital books - I've read 50 / 50 and I still read 50 / 50 paper and ebook and on pc.
The thing is the physical book Idk how this will sound but you pretty much remember at around where in the book an information is located and you map the book in your head and you navigate the book in your head as if you stored it photographically.
With ebook it's just the idea of the book with no map.
>>54243870
>I'll just memorize some textbooks
Good luck, Pajeet
>>54244048
>Respecable member of society
>casually lurk
>4chan
Choose one
Kek
>>54243870
Given that it takes more effort and movement to read them (folding pages, holding that huge shit) and the entire switch to something else (your brain is used to get tons of useless crap from screens) it seems likely.
Though personally I didn't notice a difference.
>>54244048
stfu nigger
>>54245243
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.
>>54245435
Methheads be like
>>54243870
There are mixed results, that usually comes down to the way that the words are projected.
Back lit led/lcd e-readers typically have problems. E-ink without backlight is registered the same way as normal books, if memory serves.
As for backlit e-ink, I can't recall.
>>54245597
thanks
>>54244195
>>54244967
>>54244058
If I had to guess I'd say it's some combo of what these anons are saying.
Tactile input, varying fonts, paper, kerning, fading, and spatial recall. The more unique sensory inputs you can attribute to something the more likely you are to be able to anchor it and recall it later. Instead of merely more black and white repeated characters you have other attributes that get tied in and could help differentiate each book, page, or reference.
Some folks are visual learners, others tactile, and some can pick it up just by reading. The only thing, that I can see, you could hurt by buying the physical copies of a book is your wallet.
I use both, and anecdotally find my recall better when using a physical book, but I think very spatially and your methods may vary.
>>54243870
Touch is one of our key senses.
You'll remember someone better if you touch them. It's an intimate nature that's embedded in us. Same is true with books. Only an idiot wouldn't see the tactile benefit of holding a text wherein you know immediately where and how far you've read.
I'm not against ebooks, mind, but to act like the printed word has no advantages of its own is just stupidity.
>>54243870
"Reading on paperback will make you have better recall" is just a fucking lie book publishers tell you so they can keep making money.
>>54243870
E-readers now are only for an ultra specific niche market
>>54245874
>You'll remember someone better if you touch them.
This is so true. I touch your mom every night and I remember her perfectly.
>>54243870
I'd rather have a book instead of an e-book, I'm not sure why. Not because of memory recalling though. E-books are better for reading in the dark though.
>>54244012
>>54243870
>>54244042
it's not about paper eink screens, its about actual computer screens
same reason movies screened on film are more pleasant to the eye than digital projection
analog media is better for you than digital media. eink screens miraculously fix this though. someday there'll be a magic digital film product as well
>>54246820
I'm remembering myself to this comment.
>>54247806
This seems like a load of bullshit, but in my experience it's absolutely true.
Only exception is drive-in cinema. I've seen plenty of movies at the drive-in, and I can't remember a fucking thing about any of them. I have no idea why this is.
>>54243870
I think it comes down to the act of reading and enjoying, kicking back and reading whatever.
you cant replicate that with an e-reader
Theres something about the touch and look of prinited pages in a book and it always there, its not just 1 and 0s of digital data that it going to be deleted at the press of a key
>>54247806
Back this claim up with peer reviewed studies.
This entire thread is just proof that /g/ doesn't know how to appreciate proper literature. Reading anything for pleasure what so ever absolutely required a physical book. Anyone who thinks otherwise had never read a book in their life.
>>54248119
No true Scotsman...
>>54243870
Imo physical copy has better formatting than e-ink readers. For one do e-ink even have colours? I haven't seen one.
I have some mild form of photographic memory so for me it's really important to look at a page and look at the format of the information like headers(colour, size, position), examples, charts etc. Whereas on an e-reader everything comes in as a constant flow of homogeneous text which makes it a pain for me to memorize anything.
But for reading sci-fi or something casual e-ink is easier just because I can read it faster and I don't have to fiddle with leafing through pages.
i dunno about that anon. i read a book on my computer years ago and i still remember it.
I found this article:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/19/readers-absorb-less-kindles-paper-study-plot-ereader-digitisation
but I can't find the study it's based on.
>A new study which found that readers using a Kindle were "significantly" worse than paperback readers at recalling when events occurred in a mystery story
>[t]he performance was largely similar, except when it came to the timing of events in the story. "The Kindle readers performed significantly worse on the plot reconstruction measure, ie, when they were asked to place 14 events in the correct order."
>The researchers suggest that "the haptic and tactile feedback of a Kindle does not provide the same support for mental reconstruction of a story as a print pocket book does".
(which is what other anons have alluded to)
However,
>Mangen also pointed to a paper published last year, which gave 72 Norwegian 10th-graders texts to read in print, or in PDF on a computer screen, followed by comprehension tests. She and her fellow researchers found that "students who read texts in print scored significantly better on the reading comprehension test than students who read the texts digitally".
Full text here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256563189_Reading_linear_texts_on_paper_versus_computer_screen_Effects_on_reading_comprehension
>>54248441
Wow, I'm really surprised the kindle readers did so much worse. I would have expected as much on an LCD screen, but not e-ink.
>>54247835
You don't need experience, you just need to understand your own body. Our senses are analogue devices. Analogue stimulus will always suit it better, period.
Dead tree reader here BTW..
>>54243870
absolutely. also make sure to buy each new edition as they are released, in order to ensure you're getting the best education possible.
>>54243870
>What do you think about it?
It's a bunch of bullshit with a huge logic leap
Basically, just an empty pseudo scientific claim
My shitty ipad can barely ebook ffs fuxk apple fuck ipads
What does /g/ think of this list?
http://blog.codinghorror.com/recommended-reading-for-developers/http:
>>54248441
>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256563189_Reading_linear_texts_on_paper_versus_computer_screen_Effects_on_reading_comprehension
That's a good study. It does however play into out there are issues with control within the testing method that should be minimized in further studies and more detail needs to be explored.
>>54247806
Can anecdotally confirm. Taking online classes right now and sometimes I have to print out the reading because I have so much trouble on an LCD. Even my Amazon® Kindle Fire® by Amazon® in association with Ubuntu® and Cannonical® gives me trouble with extended reading sessions.
Use paper or eink
ITT: smug paperback hipsters trying to feel special
>>54243870
>Are physical books seriously better than ebooks in terms of memory recalling?
No. Change-hating fags will just come up with and latch onto any excuse they can find to justify preferring old and cludgy tech.
>>54243870
This is purely anecdotal but I normally buy a physical book then pirate the digital version since those it can be a pain in the dick to lug more then one of those giant O'reilly books around so I take one physical and a few digital so I don't get bored. I've found I retain stuff from the physical book better for some reason.
It might just be me and maybe kids whose first "book" is on an ereader won't have the same problems as us dinosaurs.
>>54249444
The thing I would like to find out is if it is the case that lcd displays are the culprit, is it the light behind, or the frequency of the light? Is it the scrolling, is it the opposition (looking forward instead of down)? Is it the resolution, etc?
>>54249882
I prefer to question the status quo if something threatens to change it. Not because I want change, but because I want to know if the change conclusively for the better. If physical copies turn out to actually be better to learn from than ebooks, whether on screens or ereaders, then the change is for the worse. If it turns out ereaders are on equal terms (which I would be more leaning towards), I see no reason not to go digital, at the same time it can remain a personal preference. If ereaders are better than physical copies in every way, those who don't change are stuck in their ways.
>>54244012
>That doesn't make much sense.
The mind itself doesn't really make much sense. Philosophy gets a bad rep because a lot of hipsters who call themselves philosophers are either obsessed with deep sounding frivolity (like existentialism, nihilism) or they're obsessed with old philosophy (like Cartesian skepticism which was rightly replaced with the scientific method).
However, one area where philosophy is still relevant is the philosophy of mind. Most neuroscientists disagree about fundamental properties of consciousness. Functionalism, the idea that the mind is merely a function of the brain, seems to many to imply panpsychism, the idea that mind is a primordial, fungible, aspect of the universe. To use a popular example: If minds can be a property of the moving parts in the human brain, why can't it be a property of computers? Or, to make things apparently absurd, why couldn't it be a property of a complex enough system of plumbing?
I'm not saying this is true, or that I believe it. The point is nobody knows, which means you don't either. If the way the mind, including memory, works "makes sense" to you now, you haven't thought about it hard enough.
All that being said, it is at least conceivable that our memories are not entirely products of our brains. It was once thought mood was entirely a product of our brains, but now studies show gut flora play a huge role. Similarly, memories being stored in matter outside of our own brains would be indistinguishable from that matter triggering those memories. And it's not clear which one is more appealing in terms of Occam's razor. In one case it seems simpler to say 'the memories and all semantic links are stored entirely in the brain', but in the other it seems to add complications when you extend that argument all the way and say 'no, the mind can only be a product of this kind of matter, because this kind of matter is somehow special'.
It may seem like fantastical thinking, but it's a very real problem.
t. HarperCollins
>>54243870
The physical action of reading the book makes recollection easier, because there is an action tied to the memory. The same shit happens when you physically write down information yourself. You are more likely to remember information you wrote down with a pen and paper then you would if were to receive a note with this same information from someone else.
