📣 New essay distilling one strand of some ongoing work✨
I argue that books lack a functioning model of how people learn—instead, they're (accidentally, invisibly) built around a model that's plainly false. Plus some early models for what to do about it.
Conversation
4
3
Hmm... I rather disagree with the underlying hypothesis that there is something inherently wrong with the medium that is the book. I fall in the more traditionalist camp that we must engage with books in multiple modalities.
1
4
Building on that, is it a book's responsibility to communicate in all those modalities? I argue no. With the invention of modern technology, we may see a restructuring of what we call a book to address those modalities which would be great (sight, hearing, dialogue, etc.)
1
4
One quote I fundamentally disagree with is, "Books are static. ... [P]rose can’t behave or respond to those thoughts as they unfold in each reader’s head. The reader must plan and steer their own feedback loops."
1
1
The reason for this disagreement is that though prose is static as a symbol on paper, the sign that it represents can morph or change throughout a person's life. I have read countless works that have entirely different sentiments in later parts of my life due to conceptual shifts
2
6
You’re right; the claim is too strong flatly stated. But just on a relative basis, I believe the relationship you’re describing can be made far more vivid and fluid using a richer medium.
Hey , first I want to say brilliant article. Second, thank you for your work on - that has helped me so much throughout my academic career. Third, apologies if I sounded too direct; in fact, I concur with you in some areas.
1
1
If we consider dyslexics, they are fighting the tool - a book - as it is presented rather than gaining the utility of the tool. For them, and others who have neurological complications, books absolutely fail.
Wouldn't it be amazing to have books like this that engage everything?
1
1
Show replies