Were we talking about the difficulties of understanding what one reads...?

I was reflecting on the length of the article... just to stay on theme, I read it all without skipping a single word, but deep down they did it on purpose, just to test our endurance.

the theme is extremely interesting (thanks Frank!)

"the brain is not designed to read". Who knows?... Who knows what the brain is designed for.

Socrates also distrusted reading (since he distrusted writing).

But we know something about him, and about what he thought, thanks to writing (thanks Plato!)

in principle I agree with what is stated in the article you pointed out. However, I think something else (much more down-to-earth) and I admit it is a conviction of mine that I wouldn't know how to justify: the brain is not designed to look at a screen.

whether it is a PC, but also a black and white TV, or the small screen of an 80s video game... the screen has this diabolical power (literally in the etymological sense dia-bolico) to attract me, seduce me, and in too many cases to separate me from the surrounding reality.

it's an idea I've formed.

So... it doesn't surprise me much if a screen also manages to separate me from the desire to "go deep" into what I am reading

If someone were a subscriber and had lost it, to go deeper...

http://www.lescienze.it/archivio/articoli/2013/12/31/news/carta_contro_pixel-1940937/

reading something is always a 'bringing into' myself of contents (emotions, notions, news) that someone else has previously 'brought out' by writing (or on a clay tablet, on papyrus, or on a forum like this). But writing has also been viewed with suspicion by those who see it as a dangerous externalization of memory... and then the spread of printing: the ease of accessing a text and always having it available that makes memory lazier...

these are things I found two years ago in this article

http://www.corriere.it/cultura/12_gennaio_24/lecture_8fdc0244-469c-11e1-90ee-63dee1b6b376.shtml

i had found it very interesting.

Frank wrote:

Was there talk about the difficulties of understanding what one reads...?

http://www.ilpost.it/2014/04/07/leggere-online/

Are there differences between online reading and print reading?

"The brain is plastic throughout its entire life, it constantly adapts," explains Wolf, who is one of the world's leading experts on the study of writing and was struck last year by the discovery of how her own brain seemed to have adapted as well.

After a day spent on the web reading hundreds of emails, she sat down to read "The Glass Bead Game" by Hermann Hesse, and "I am not joking: I couldn't do it. It was torture to manage to finish the first page; I couldn't force myself to slow down: I would select useful words, organizing my eye movements to gather as much information as possible in the shortest time possible. I was ashamed of myself."

The brain is not designed for reading. There are no genes for reading like there are for language or vision. But driven by the emergence of Egyptian hieroglyphs, the Phoenician alphabet, Chinese paper and, finally, Gutenberg's printing press, the brain has adapted to reading.

Before the internet, it read mainly in linear ways: one page was followed by another, and so on...

I think that, in reality, anyone who spends an entire day reading "other things" cannot then ask their brain to read... more later. And this regardless of what. In other words, everything has a limit and, above all, all brains have their limits: some sooner and some later. That is the point.

Wolf, surely, the next day and especially after a good night's sleep that reset her brain—after all, even that needs it, right?—picked up the book from earlier that morning and read it, understanding everything.

In short: everything is fine, the important thing is to take it in the right doses.

danielescarpetti wrote:

I think that, in reality, anyone who spends an entire day reading "other things" cannot then ask their brain to read... more. And this regardless of what it is. In other words, everything has a limit and, above all, everyone's brains have their limits: some sooner and some later. This is the point.

Wolf, surely, the next day and especially after a good night's sleep that reset his brain - he needs that too after all, right? - picked up the book from earlier that morning and read it, understanding everything.

In short: everything is fine, the important thing is to take it in the right doses.

I agree, but the proposed example was probably only meant to reinforce the underlying concept, namely the fact that if someone continuously changes their reading mode, they probably move away from traditional reading to the point where they then (perhaps) need a reverse process to reacquire said ability

I don't think that's the case, Frank!

The pleasure, or desire or lack thereof, to read is something you either have or you don't. It depends on many factors, not least a certain type of family upbringing, first and foremost - but not just family-based.

Alarmist articles are periodically released regarding the use of new technologies and their potential impact on our habits. The discussion about reading is included among these.

For those passionate about reading, the Internet is an additional opportunity that offers the possibility to roam by browsing and is certainly not an alternative to great literary texts. Conversely, for those who are not passionate about reading, the Internet can have the merit of offering material that does not require a heavy and constant commitment and, in itself, this is not negative at all.

In short, it certainly won't be the Internet that distances enthusiasts from books and texts: the crisis of readers - especially in our parts - has much more distant and deep-rooted motivations concerning, above all, the average basic cultural level.

I'm briefly intruding into the discussion... it might be Daniele, but I read something else in the article. It doesn't demonize the Internet at all; it simply says that it induces a type of reading different from the "traditional" one. It doesn't deny the usefulness of the internet at all; on the contrary, it speaks of new abilities to acquire or that are acquirable... is it possible you skipped a few lines, given the length and pedantry of the article?

Barbara wrote:

I'm briefly intruding into the discussion... it might be Daniele, but I read something else in the article. It doesn't demonize the Internet at all; the article simply says that it induces a type of reading different from the "traditional" one. It doesn't deny the usefulness of the internet at all; on the contrary, it speaks of new abilities to be acquired or acquirable... is it possible you skipped a few lines, given the length and pedantry of the article?

Yes, you are right Barbara, I haven't read it entirely but, not so much because of the length and pedantry, but due to fatigue.

That said, I used the term Internet to summarize a type of reading that, according to the theses presented here, could make us unaccustomed to the more classic print reading.

I think that one does not nullify the other for those who are accustomed to reading. To continue to claim that the habit of reading on the web, as Wolf says, can lead to fatigue and a lack of habit in reading print, I don't find it right for the reasons I have already stated.

I often have the impression that there is an attempt to demonize certain novelties brought by technology for essentially incomprehensible reasons.

For example, and to broaden the discussion: is a literary or essayistic text better read on the web or on paper? The answer, in my opinion, is: it depends on which point of view you take. If we see it as an important step towards not annihilating trees—you can't imagine how much paper is wasted in a publishing house—and in terms of space, electronic books are certainly better. If we see it as the disappearance of beautiful libraries full of books, or the inability to simply caress a book—and let it gather dust—well, then the situation is certainly not better.

Finally, I think this: the only thing that truly matters—or should matter—is reading. Reading what one prefers, but... reading!

Shareable discourse Daniele, but probably very well suited to topics of this nature:

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/1790-via-gli-spartiti-si-usa-il-tablet

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/999-niente-e-book-siamo-studenti-alluniversita-domina-la-carta/?hl=kindle

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/693-kindle-per-leggere-spartiti-e-partiture

In this specific case, the article places emphasis on another level, namely the comparison of reading methods. As for the fact that reading is useful, necessary, and independent of the medium... I doubt that is beyond doubt

I don't know how many people know, but on April 23rd, World Book and Copyright Day is celebrated. The #UNESCO General Conference pays tribute to books and authors, encouraging everyone, and particularly young people, to discover the pleasure of reading and show a renewed respect for the irreplaceable contribution of those people who have promoted the social and cultural progress of humanity.

The event on the CNI UNESCO site -

http://www.unesco.it/cni/index.php/news/289-giornata-mondiale-del-libro-2014

Here is how to solve "all" the problems

http://www.letturaveloce.net/

I am a bit suspicious:

"your brain is capable of reading at this speed, but school has taught you wrong habits. 4 Free Videos reveal how to triple your speed in 2 minutes."

I say that perhaps reading is one thing, understanding is another

Always regarding the difficulties of reading, I report

http://www.alfabeta2.it/2014/05/15/difficolta-leggere/

From the new book by Giorgio Agamben, IL FUOCO E IL RACCONTO,
in bookstores from tomorrow for Edizioni NotteTempo