A few days ago someone here posted a link to some study that showed that ereading is worse than normal reading
for those who have an ereader, do you think you're retaining less than if you were reading paper?
thinking of buying an ereader because I'm a minimum wage wagecuck and that would save money
i can't see why you would retain less at all, the screen looks just like a page of a book and there's no distractions or notifications or anything. i actually think i understand it more when i read on an ereader because of how easy it is to define and translate unknown words.
With ereader i read MUCH FASTER but in the end remember less.
I can't comment about it being worse in terms of retention, but an ereader is just not as good as a real book, so don't buy one thinking you'll leave paper behind for good.
I don't regret buying one because a lot of what I want to read is either expensive or rare and there's no way I'm reading hundreds of pages on a conventional LCD. However if I had the choice between buying a book for $5 or reading it on an ereader for free I'll still pay for the real thing.
Sounds like a study that a large book publisher would fund. That's the thing about science; the money comes from someone, and that someone usually wants results in a specific direction. I have two ereaders and lots of books and there isn't much difference.
As always, retention issues can (probably) be offset by taking notes or consciously trying to memorize important takeaways/summaries.
The main reason is that a physical book has many subtle indicators to help retain info. You can associate a specific memory with the feel of a book at a certain point: how it felt it in your hands as you were holding it up or holding down the pages. As a result, you have another link to that memory besides the knowledge within the memory itself. And it can be used to get a better remembrance of when something happened in a book when you're not too sure of when it occurred sequentially.
When it comes to learning things, it's likely that we're better at learning and retaining information when it's fully felt by many of our senses. Since eReaders limit most info to being just visually distinctive, it hurts retention. Consider the learning capability of a child, very active by nature; consider the learning capability of a toddler, who's just as active but also (usually by instinct) puts their mouth on so many new things.
>thinking of buying an ereader because I'm a minimum wage wagecuck and that would save money
This is why I got one. (I pirate most of my eBooks like a faggot)
>how easy it is to define and translate unknown words
Love this feature.
Sometimes when I'm reading on my kindle I seem to skip a few words every now and then and have to go back and read the sentence again, this happens MUCH less when I'm reading an actual book, no idea why.
Meh, I wouldn't disagree, but electronic books cost roughly as much as physical books.
Plus, you get similar results in note-taking research: notes are better retained when done by hand than by typing them up. And in that case, I'd imagine there's MUCH more money in the laptop/tablet business than there is in paper/utensil companies, so if the researchers were in anybody's pockets, it'd be them. (They could just as well be in the universities' pockets, who likely don't want to shift their curricula to digital formats. But...you kind of have to imagine that they'd be fueled by money, and there's a lot of money to be made in getting into new formats)
300dpi isn't worse than paper. baskerville looks fantastic on the new paperwhite. retention is excellent. practicality is beyond paper. it's like paper but with lookup functions. it's neat and it can store everything you'd immediately need or want.
its true that ereaders have fewer visual clues and ways to hook senses into memory. that's why progress índicators, and diligent reading are required.don't gorge on electronic books.
I remember reading that study, from what i recall it was based on the idea that with a real book youre more able and thus more likely to flip to older pages to refresh your memory and understanding of an event that had roots in previous pages or reminding yourself of a character.
In all honesty it depends on you. If you dont often flip back and forth and generally tend to retain things off the bat then go for it, i really love my kindle, and in more complicated works you can highlight or leave notes on previous pages to flip back on demand. So when i notice something obscure but potentially important ill leave a book mark or highlight and flip to it when needed
B-ok.org or any of the million other free ebook sites. If the authors alive ill buy the book generally, but fuck amazon if they think im paying 10$ for a 10kb download of a book written 100 years ago
I have an ebook reader since 2009 and I hate it with a passion. Those who say "it is like a real book, it ha bookmarks, highlights and everything!" have never read a real book in their lives. I only use it when I have no way of accessing a physical version.
>Complaining about something without supporting my point with an argument : the post
Would recommend an ereader for the soul reason that you can read it in the dark
I find ereaders to be much better than books, yes.
*sole (not trying to be a dick)
Ereaders are good. If you have problems with retention, write a summary of each chapter as you go or after you finish your reading session.
OP here I want to buy the kindle iwth the intention of pirating books
I'm not paying for digital things
Go ahead m8, i'm a big fan of physical books, but sometimes it's just not possible to get the one i'm looking for (i.e. too expensive or simply can find it). Also, you have the possibility to have as many books as you want with you wherever you go. On the other side, digital versions are shit, they cannot match the user experience that paper brings to the reader, but you have to achieve a concensus about it.
Does anyone have that study title or link?
if i remember correctly the study didn't include e-ink devices and the 'kindle' mentioned in it was a kindle fire
So that implies they were distracted by the internet as to why they didn't retain information as well?
I think so, I think it mentioned music, facebook ,etc. contributed as well, but of course these are things that don't exist on a proper e-reader..
I'm having a hard time trying to find the actual paper. All I get are a bunch of guardian/huffingtonpost articles instead.
I think I can get your point.
You're the kind of person that has tons of ebooks on your PC or smartphone but can't really concentrate for a long time because the screen would cause you eye strain and you'd lose momentum, right?
Then just buy a decent e reader and forget about what people say. Physical books are great, no one's gonna argue against it, but depending on your lifestyle the e reader will just solve all the problems you're facing right now.
If you can't afford physical books, if there's no space for you to store all of them after you finish reading them, if you live in a country where getting access to books written in different languages is hard or expensive, all of that isn't going to be a problem anymore, and if that's what's keeping you from reading the things you wanna read then you're going to read a lot more once these problems won't stay on your way.
The kindle in particular has many features that are very useful for most people. And just because you bought a kindle it won't mean that all physical books will suddenly stop existing, you can always buy the books you want. But you certainly won't have to pay for a printed version of a book that was written 500 years ago and now is on public domain when everyone can have it for free online.
If you can ignore all these advantages and give credit to a study that in practice is probably trying to keep you from having for free the things they're trying to sell to you instead of paying them for that, or if the people telling you that it isn't worth it because they have a lifestyle that enables them to store many books on a personal library and buy/have access to many printed books, then just don't buy an e reader and keep facing all the problems you're trying to solve just like you did up to now.
These were my two cents.
E-readers are lesser than paper but when I grab my Kindle, I instantly have access to 950 novels/plays. I like reading multiple books at once. I've only paid for about 10 of them.
I can't dispute the two studies about retention. I don't think I have less but then I haven't tested myself somehow. The only thing I can say is that the two studies used 50 and 25 people, which is not a large sample population.
Can someone explain me the difference between a normal tablet and ereader?
Its bullshit.
A sincere message to everyone who uses an ereader: if you do not see the value of reading (and having) a book you do not belong to this board. In case you are poor like OP the electronic alternative is somewhat justified but you should try to buy books instead, they are usually not expensive.
t.bookstore owner
Pretty much this.
I prefer physical books by far, but they are a luxury for serial readers. 8-30€ per book, sometimes 4€ if you are lucky to find it used. Many oldclassic books can be found for absolutely free. They can also be comfortably read in bed. I still buy physical books, but my e-reader has become a treasured tool of mine.
backlight vs side light. screen vs e-ink. apps vs very limited capabilities non-reading capabilities.
>true scotsman
>implying i don't have too many paper books already
Wah, now there's nobody to envy my paper collection.
I agree with his message but would like to add that you should only buy your books from me.
The text has a physical location in books. When remembering for a scene or phrase, you have vague memory of what page and where on the page you read it, giving you more coherent memory of the text itself.
Why do people buy an ereader instead of a tablet? Are they really so much better to read? Tablets are so much more flexible and offer a plethora of apps and functions unavailable on ereaders. The only benefit of ereaders I can think of is that they look more like paper. My tablet has glossy screen but it hasn't been a problem for me at all, not a bit.
The apps and functions distract some people from reading. They also are much better to read on.
I see, sucks to be easily distracted. Luckily I'm not one of those people. I need a tablet (or desktop computer) to read some things (e.g. Latin and Greek thesaurus), but I would like to try out an ereader though.
it is great to read books that you don't have any interest and you don't want to buy a book
I read Lord of the rings and I use it for university
Additionally to , there's also the matter of the battery. My Kindle lasts excessively longer than any tablet, which I find especially convenient during camping trips. Also generally makes a lot less fuss and distraction having to worry about the battery constantly.
I do admit though, I use a tablet occasionally for those few rarities that I only find in PDF form and doesn't convert well to my ereader (for example, nine of eleven volumes of Copleston's 'A History of Philosophy' most notably comes to mind).
I bough a kindle because most of the books I want to read are not getting published in my country and to order them, in the quantities that I read in, would cost me an arm and leg.
If they are getting published they get translated and why would anyone read a translation if I can read the original for free on kindle?
Also I got a large physical library already and I still buy books