Unlike visual or audio media, books are more of a "mind's on" approach, in the sense that one has to be fully engaged and actively reading in order to absorb and process the information contained within the text.
I can't say I generally still prefer sitting down reading a book when I can just watch a documentary based on the book or listen to an audiobook of the book at 2x speed.
Interestingly, the amount of attention needed to deploy more or less increases when the medium requires active rather than passive engagement.
But I won't say multitasking while also consuming information is impossible or always detrimental, unless this said information is a superficial overview or simplified version of more complex content.
It's fairly easy now to be informed either passively through audio-visual media or actively through traditional reading.
I tend to take them as a core and peripheral node of my personal knowledge acquisition system.
The peripheral part is basically infotainment, as in content that both entertains and informs but perhaps lacks the depth or rigor of more focused educational materials.
In today's interconnected world, we have unprecedented access to information through multiple channels and formats.
Books represent the traditional "mind's on" approach to learning. They require sustained attention and active processing - I must decode the text, visualize concepts, and make connections between ideas myself.
Cognitive effort always leads to deeper comprehension and retention, which is essential for developing critical thinking abilities.
In contrast, visual media like documentaries or videos provide much of this processing for us. The visualization is done and the connections are explicitly drawn, coupled with the narrative presented in a more digestible format.
Sure, this format requires less cognitive effort, but it doesn't necessarily activate the same depth of neural pathways as reading.
Now, this doesn't imply that one is "better" than the other. Such is the trade-off between convenience and depth that defines an aspect of our current relationship with information consumption.
Audio formats like podcasts and audiobooks occupy an interesting middle ground, in my view.
They require more active engagement than video but less than reading. I appreciate the effect of being a listener and creating mental images and connections without visual aids, while the narration guides this process more explicitly than text alone would.
Consuming an audiobook at 2x speed while commuting or exercising creates opportunities for learning that wouldn't otherwise exist.
One could say this form of "time-stacking" approach gives us the ability to incorporate knowledge acquisition into previously "dead" time.
Obviously, achieving efficiency tends to come with trade-offs.
Research suggests that divided attention impacts information retention and critical analysis.
Exposing ourselves to more content through multitasking, the depth of our understanding and ability to critically evaluate that information may be compromised in the process.
An echo of this can be found in how hard it's becoming for people to generally sustain attention without distraction.
A rather nuance approach is viewing these different media formats as complementary, the "core and peripheral node" concept mentioned earlier provides a useful framework:
Core nodes represent deep, focused learning. This could involve reading books or academic papers with full attention, taking notes, and engaging in deliberate practice. Activities that form the foundation of our knowledge base in areas where we seek expertise.
Peripheral nodes encompass the broader, more casual information intake - podcasts during commutes, documentary viewing, mild social media consumption, and other forms of "infotainment."
These expose us to new ideas, keep us updated on developments outside our core focus areas, and sometimes spark interest that later develops into core learning.
The quality of our knowledge largely still depends on how thoughtfully we engage with information across various media formats, on top of this digital age offering us an unprecedented access to information.
For me, a lack of structure in how we balance these different modes of consumption usually leads to information overload without corresponding wisdom or practical application.
Maybe, on the next level/iteration, all of these processing can be outsourced to artificial intelligence systems, but I hope not.
Because the act of processing information ourselves is what transforms mere data into knowledge.
The latter then can become integrated with our existing(or new) mental frameworks and perhaps, lived experience, also.
Thanks for reading!! Share your thoughts below on the comments.
