books are an outdated and highly overrated and overestimated form of presenting information and are no more legit than articles on the internet
> read this book, it'll change your life
> useless info you can easily find online presented with 1000% more padding and 1000% less straight and to the point
literally anyone can write a book, but they are hailed as fail proof sources of information, despite the high chance of everything in it to be straight bullshit
Prove me wrong, /lit/tards
> books give you all the perspective on the world you need
> i prefer books to people
From these commonly heard arguments we can infer that:
> a) bookworms think they're special for consuming a medium
> b) they're no better than gamers, basement dwellers and other media addicts, netting the same result of isolating themselves from social interaction by consuming their time with media, even though they often criticize these other media addicts
> c) if they actually talked to some people in different walks of life they would gain more perspective on what actually goes down in the world
>they are hailed as fail proof sources of information
How do you mean? Only some books are and only by some people.
>>7423953
People tend to take things more seriously if they're written in a book despite this not really being a reason it would be more legit than anything else
>>7423960
I am literally trying to discuss books, as a concept
So, why are books more legit than other media, and why are book nerds more legit than other nerds, you nerd?
>>7423960
>Yemeni Yam farm forum
lol thats a good one.
>>7423955
I agree and I also hate snobs. I like both comic books and literature. I am not one of the people you are describing.
>>7423938
Is the implication here that an internet article goes through as much editing and pre-approval processes as an actual printed book?
>>7423964
> book
> editing and pre-approval
What i'm saying is that not only because it's a book does it necessarily go through such a process, and even if it does, some real bullshit gets published because some publishers don't care about facts, but it is taken as truth because of this illusion of:
> it got published so it must be true
>>7423976
> it got published so it must be true
I honestly can't say I've ever met anyone of adult age who seriously holds such a viewpoint.
I'm not quite sure what type of snowman you're trying to build here, but the coal buttons aren't lining up right.
>novels
>sources of info
lol
>>7423990
True.
I understand where OP is coming from with his anger,
but he evidently knows little to nothing about what he is criticising, which is unfortunate.
>>7423976
>The Lord of the Rings is a book, therefore Elves exist!
What are you trying to argue, OP?
>>7423955
No? The nature of a book as a medium is different from that of an article because it allows more scope for reasoning.
Yes, you can summarise most concepts into an article, and yes, you can get "the point" of the topic from an article, but an article doesn't allow for deep understanding like a book. What you call "padding" is reasoning; axiomatically developing an argument, illustrating with examples, and expounding upon those. How can you evaluate the truth of the final idea, if you don't understand what led to that?
>>7423998
Im talking about books like those shitty economy theory books you see in airpot bookstores and self help shit, you know?
Fucking informative books
Non-fiction
>>7423993
Where'd you get that pic?
>>7424013
I don't know about you, but i don't consider shitty anecdotes from the author's life that are only tangentially related to the concept of the book to be reasoning
>>7423962
You're an idiot, and I don't know why I'm responding. I suppose it says more about me than about you.
First of all, stop saying ''books'' as if all books are the same.
Here is why SOME books, read ACADEMIC or WELL SOURCED books are more valuable than most regular sources of information.
>I am making a statement based on data that I've acquired. Here is my analysis of these facts. If you want to check them for yourself, here is where I got it from [1]
[1] Author, Book Title, Publish date, Place of Publishing, Page number - note (for more information on this particular statement, see Author, Book Title, Page and Author, Book Title, Page)
Another book appears!
>I have read Johnson's book, and in light of other evidence I disagree with him, because [1]
[1] repeat
Whereas most other shit is hearsay, not well sourced, reliant on sophistry or pseudo science, etc.
Also, in general, it's easier to point to books than it is to ''I heard some guy say''.
>>7424030
And you have a specific example in mind to back this accusation up, yes?
reading a book is slower than watching a video and it's thus easier to follow the writer's ideas. It also helps you speak and express yourself using precise words that match your ideas. Finally, reading help with your concentration and general comprehension of any written form, be it a political discussion or a way of speech.
There's no point in bashing any form of media for the sake of it.
>>7424035
I read a book called "the efficiency trap" and the main point could have been conveyed through a 5 min youtube video. Everything else was waffle.
>>7424045
maybe you should start with the greeks
oh wait john green probably made a video about athens go watch that instead
>>7424030
Out of curiosity, how many non-fiction books have you read? Which specific books inspired you to make this thread?
>>7424045
>the efficiency trap
I haven't read the book, but amazon and goodreads comments are criticising it for "stilted rhetoric", which implies the existence of well-reasoned books. Don't you think it's ridiculous to dismiss an entire medium because of you read one work, let alone one that isn't widely acclaimed as representative of the capabilities of the medium?
>>7424049
Dude fuck john green
>>7424034
> a book referencing another book
With books being a physical medium, it is highly likely that you won't have the cited source at hand and will just have to accept it at face value.
How do you know the referenced book is not complete bullshit?
If you want real information to form your opinion, why don't you just read original research pieces, instead of compilations by possible idiots who just might entirely miss the point?
All i'm saying is, we should question books more, and not trust them just because they are books.
Next time you make a thread to rage about something you don't like be more precise from the beginning about what you don't like
>>7424034
>it's easier to point to books than it is to ''I heard some guy say''
>this no-name recent college graduate said in his book...
>this respected medical doctor said in his blogpost...
it's about who said it, not where it was said. you can also give the title and author of the article just like you can with books.
>>7424018
Since you dont sound like a big consumer of non-fiction, here is what I do to get good sources.
1. Acquire subject. I prefer manly autistic subjects.
2. Acquire source matierial: Wikipedia will have source material but also use pop-history. Oxford Bibliographies is a great sources for the same material.
3. Pick book. Unless noted as a groundbreaking study, try to get the most up-to-date book possible.
4. Quickly look for loud sources of criticism from scholarly journals/read scholarly reviews of said work (or abstracts of such) to make sure you are not wasting your time on a yahoo or outdated material (IE make sure you arent reading Diamond when you have Fukuyama's most recent stuff)
5. Read book.
>>7424123
This is a good process
Although i still think books are very inefficient, i think this is how they should be approached.
>>7424129
>inefficient
Wikipedia is great but it suffers significantly from the fact that an unknown unvetted wiki contributor distilled a book to what they think is important. The source material used in wikipedia is questionable too. If an actual archaeologist who is digging at Hiserlik writes a 400 page book on his findings that Troy/Ilium actually had a huge outlying population in 2014 and the wiki article is using Michael Woods "Search for the Trojan War" from the early 80s as its primary source material, you would be far better off reading the first and skipping potential bias in wiki commons.
>>7424142
I acTually think wikipedia is just about the worst source you can use.
Direct observation being the best imo.
But direct research papers are pretty good too. I think it's all about how close you can get to the original source of the info, without it being influenced by author upon author and their opinions and interpretations.
Its an art form that no one needs to defend. You don't like books, I'm not asking you why, so fuck off.
Why are you guys humoring this philistine? If he doesn't like reading, then he should fuck off.
Ignore and sage.
>>7424164
you're not challenging our opinions you're just asking us to defend it against your insults
>>7424019
I can't remember.
If you would like the name of the girl, it is Momoko Tsugunaga.
>>7424164
Not me, I like when people say stuff like this.
Snobbery needs to be fought at all times because it destroys more than it creates.
That aside, literature free of snobbery is worth any time I could be doing nothing at all and I don't regret the many hours I have spent on it.
>>7423938
I feel like the mythology of books is one that you can better apply to the fostering of a life philosophy. Its pretty pathetic if you watch a movie and you say "this movie changed my life. This is my scripture". By comparison, you could tell people that Don Quixote or Crime and Punishment is your bible and they will commend you for it.
>>7424844
I think you misunderstand the original poster.
They know this is how it is,
but they are asking why it is.
Why is a bound text superior to a digital one?
>>7424803
she looks like she's eating a tennis ball. that made me hungry for a tennis ball. i'm going to buy onna them pringle cans full of tennis balls. tennis ball.
>>7424852
Evidently Baskin and Robbins failed to sell a product, but Dunlop sales increased twofold.
>>7424851
I am only elaborating, not arguing. But personally I am grateful for this status quo, because we already know our overindulgence of technology and of the modality of industrial/postindustrial society in our individual lives has collectively stunted our mental development. Also I do not find it unfounded, necessarily, because books generally have more information in them than movies and take more commitment to complete. In fact finishing a book is considered something to take pride in now and you can announce it to your friends. Nowadays, if you read on any kind of regular basis, even if a lot of it is pulp, you will be granted the esteem of an intellectual in circles of laymen. Pretty pathetic desu.
>>7424881
And theatre?
What is the difference between theatre and film,
in your opinion?
>>7424889
I don't know. I don't watch theatre but you could definitely get away with saying Shakespeare or Wagner changed your life.
>>7424910
But the question is "Why theatre and not film?"
Why X and not Y?
Spot on op finally somebody says it like it is. And what's up with people still painting and drawing shit!? Uh HELLO, we got iphones now, we can take pictures now, put your paintbrushes away lol!! Who stares at a painting of Mona Lisa when you can just take a picture of a woman sitting and smiling, ITS 2015 PROVE ME WRONG!!!!
>>7424932
why are you asking a college dropout such profound questions?is the real question
>>7424945
Because institutions don't define you?
