# Serious reading takes a hit from online scanning and skimming, researchers say



## ilamont (Jul 14, 2012)

From the Washington Post: *Serious reading takes a hit from online scanning and skimming, researchers say
*
_"To cognitive neuroscientists, Handscombe's experience is the subject of great fascination and growing alarm. Humans, they warn, seem to be developing digital brains with new circuits for skimming through the torrent of information online. This alternative way of reading is competing with traditional deep reading circuitry developed over several millennia."_

Interesting (and perhaps not surprising) but I wonder what it means for authors. Should our writing cater to this trend? Or is it inevitable that we will have to adapt, considering the "rewiring" that the researchers are pointing to?


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2014)

This report doesn't surprise me in the least. Many of the books that were written *before* TV, Internet, cell phones, iPads, video games, etc., would never sell if they were written today.

* * *

You asked, "Should our writing cater to this trend?"

I'm not trying to "cater" to anything. My writing is *naturally* clear, concise and to the point. My books will be easy reads that *anyone* can digest and perfect for today's busy, easily distracted humans.


----------



## psychotick (Jan 26, 2012)

Hi,

This isn't exactly new, and I wouldn't worry about it. All it really means is that the current generation is getting really good at browsing for content, and possibly developing shorter attention spans as a result. In terms of books and even short stories, browsing doesn't really work. It does affect really short pieces like news excerpts, which means if you write a two paragraph piece for your online newspaper, it has to be really catchy.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

> This report doesn't surprise me in the least. Many of the books that were written before TV, Internet, cell phones, iPads, video games, etc., would never sell if they were written today.


A lot of people still seem to enjoy buying and reading books that were published before TV, Internet, etc. (or are you saying they only sell now based on reputation? I think a lot of them stand on their own merits.)

I am a 'deep' reader because for most of my adult life I only read non-fiction books that were very technical in nature, or which were very dense with information. I had to learn to be a deep reader or I wouldn't be able to absorb what I need to. My wife mocks my slow reading speed when it comes to fiction. I honestly don't know how people read that fast, but I also noticed her comprehension is pretty poor too. I'm sure she read much more carefully at work when she has to edit technical documents and stuff like that, but when it comes to fiction she skims.

I can't do that. I read every word, one-at-a-time, at about the same speed I would read aloud, or perhaps slower!


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2014)

A.C. Scott said:


> A lot of people still seem to enjoy buying and reading books that were published before TV, Internet, etc.


You're preaching to the choir.  I read everything, and I read most of the classics by the time I was 21.


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

Joliedupre said:


> You're preaching to the choir.  I read everything, and I read most of the classics by the time I was 21.


Don't get me wrong, some of them are awful. I just read Dracula last year and it was *dreadful* (in a bad way ) The beginning when Jon was trapped in the castle was pretty good, but it went down hill fast!


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2014)

A.C. Scott said:


> Don't get me wrong, some of them are awful. I just read Dracula last year and it was *dreadful* (in a bad way ) The beginning when Jon was trapped in the castle was pretty good, but it went down hill fast!


No way, dude! I LOVED Bram's book. I read it when I was 16. The descriptions were so powerful it was like I could smell everything and taste everything. I _still_ remember that.


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

Our deep reading circuitry wasn't developed over millennia. Mass literacy is a relatively new phenomenon. Our ability to parse information quickly and assign utility levels or danger levels, etc., to it, has long been in place and didn't interfere with any deep reading circuitry we developed. 

Some cognitive neuroscientist needed a paper published or a "quoted in" credit and tosses out this BS. That's why there's, e.g., transactional analysis therapy and psychodynamic therapy (and their precursor but poorly named psychosexual therapy (Freud)). Someone needed a topic for a graduate or doctoral thesis and they dress something up as something it isn't. 

True story


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

Joliedupre said:


> No way, dude! I LOVED Bram's book. I read it when I was 16. The descriptions were so powerful it was like I could smell everything and taste everything. I _still_ remember that.


Yes, but it has one major flaw in my opinion; the parody about Victorian manners was taken too far. The characters can't ever just say anything, they have to drag it out for a half-hour, and it's incredibly tedious and annoying. The horror elements and the story are just fine though. I did finish it.

"My dear sweet madam Mina, if only I could summon the courage to fetch the dignity required to remember the strength it would take to ask your sweet beautiful face that question I would ask had I half the gentleman's nature required for the task. Oh, my dear dear Mina, the question I must ask of you now may damage your pure and virtuous nature but it must be so? Would you like eggs for breakfast."

 JUST [EXPLETIVE] GET TO THE POINT!


----------



## Bluebonnet (Dec 15, 2013)

If this habit of scanning and skimming is not widespread now, it surely will be in the near future, because kids are being brought up with exposure to more Internet media than physical books and other printed material. They get into the habit of jumping around. They read a little bit on their mobile devices, then they go over to their friends' twitter or Facebook, then they play video games, while trying to do a little of their homework at the same time. Many college students will not pay full attention during a classroom lecture because they feel they have to keep checking their social media accounts. Young people are not being taught to sit still and develop a long attention span. I'd say the only exception is young gamers, who can sit for hours focused on a game. (And don't even get me started on people having a long attention span for driving a car!  Way too many folks, young and old, are preoccupied with cellphone calls and texting while driving. They can't just sit still and drive.)

I can see a parallel with the "sound bite trend" in the news media. It's rare now to see long, in-depth news stories. You just get 10- to 20-second sound bites with a little video. Entertainment shows are suffering from the short attention span trend too. I was just reading an article this weekend about how TV viewers are unwilling now to sit through an old-fashioned late night talk show such as Letterman. They wait until the next day and watch short video clips of the highlights.

I have to do a lot of scanning and fast reading myself because of information overload. There is just too much information out there. I always feel left behind and feel that I must run very hard mentally.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2014)

A.C. Scott said:


> Yes, but it has one major flaw in my opinion; the parody about Victorian manners was taken too far. The characters can't ever just say anything, they have to drag it out for a half-hour, and it's incredibly tedious and annoying. The horror elements and the story are just fine though. I did finish it.
> 
> "My dear sweet madam Mina, if only I could summon the courage to fetch the dignity required to remember the strength it would take to ask your sweet beautiful face that question I would ask had I half the gentleman's nature required for the task. Oh, my dear dear Mina, the question I must ask of you now may damage your pure and virtuous nature but it must be so? Would you like eggs for breakfast."


Ha Ha!! I feel you!!


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

And yet series, a thing that immerses the reader/viewer, are increasingly popular. Seems as if, once these young whippersnappers sink into the fictive dream, they like to stay there a long time.


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

ilamont said:


> From the Washington Post: *Serious reading takes a hit from online scanning and skimming, researchers say
> *
> _"To cognitive neuroscientists, Handscombe's experience is the subject of great fascination and growing alarm. Humans, they warn, seem to be developing digital brains with new circuits for skimming through the torrent of information online. This alternative way of reading is competing with traditional deep reading circuitry developed over several millennia."_
> 
> Interesting (and perhaps not surprising) but I wonder what it means for authors. Should our writing cater to this trend? Or is it inevitable that we will have to adapt, considering the "rewiring" that the researchers are pointing to?


Several millennia? Seriously? Until long after the Reformation, books were read aloud ONLY in Europe. The reading experience was extremely different because people didn't silent read at all.

And there's a difference between skimming an article and reading a book. People can do both.


----------



## Tracy Falbe (Jul 4, 2010)

As a species, widespread literacy has only been around for a couple hundred years. To say we have been developing the wiring for deep reading for millenia is hard to believe.


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

Tracy Falbe said:


> As a species, widespread literacy has only been around for a couple hundred years. To say we have been developing the wiring for deep reading for millenia is hard to believe.


Yes, but scribes of one kind or another have been around for thousands of years. I think the argument is that our brains have been evolving the mechanisms for deep reading for a long time whether the majority of people have been using them or not. I'm not saying I agree, but I think that is the argument.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Joliedupre said:


> This report doesn't surprise me in the least. Many of the books that were written *before* TV, Internet, cell phones, iPads, video games, etc., would never sell if they were written today.
> 
> * * *
> 
> ...


I have no idea what you base that claim on, but many books written in the forties, fifties and sixties and currently re-released are selling very well. As are books from various "Out of Copyright" archives.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

We've heard this many times before.

Radio would keep people from reading, then the movies and still later TV would. Comics would make people too lazy to read real books. Then video games were the culprit… and so on, ad infinitum.

It's all nonsense. People who only read comics wouldn't read books if comics somehow disappeared. People who know the Three Musketeers only from the (several) movies will never read Alexandre Dumas' book.

And then again, they just might. One day.

All these media serve different functions and none of them are mutually exclusive.


----------



## LeeBee (Feb 19, 2014)

Every generation has those who claim that the current level of technology is going to irreparably harm society or humanity in general.


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

Andrew Ashling said:


> We've heard this many times before.
> 
> Radio would keep people from reading, then the movies and still later TV would. Comics would make people too lazy to read real books. Then video games were the culprit... and so on, ad infinitum.
> 
> ...


I don't think the sky is falling, but there is some truth to these claims. A person only has so much disposable time and all those other activities do compete with reading. The food industry calls it the "fixed stomach problem" (or something like that). How do you sell more food to people when they simply can't eat more?

Would people read more if TV and video games disappeared? Probably some, but I think the bigger problem is simply convincing kids that reading is a worthwhile option. Reading is less interactive, colorful, doesn't offer the same instant gratification, etc. I didn't read much as a kid, and there was no Internet for most of my childhood, so I can't blame it on my not reading back then.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

A.C. Scott said:


> Would people read more if TV and video games disappeared? Probably some, but I think the bigger problem is simply convincing kids that reading is a worthwhile option. Reading is less interactive, colorful, doesn't offer the same instant gratification, etc. I didn't read much as a kid, and there was no Internet for most of my childhood, so I can't blame it on my not reading back then.


Exactly my point.
I read a lot as a kid and a teenager. Up to four books a week. Movies, except maybe the very, very good ones, couldn't even begin to compare with reading.
There's a lot of nurture in this. My father reads a lot as well, so I grew up among books.
And I didn't need convincing. I doubt you can convince people to read more.
Good teachers, on the other hand, might be able to convey their love for a well-told story.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2014)

A.C. Scott said:


> I don't think the sky is falling, but there is some truth to these claims.


Yeah, that sums it up for me, especially since I'm not about to spend my valuable time bickering with a bunch of WC people.


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

Joliedupre said:


> Yeah, that sums it up for me, especially since I'm not about to spend my valuable time bickering with a bunch of WC people.


I'm sorry if you thought I was bickering, but I was just trying to clarify your point. I mean, the Song of Fire and Ice books are really long and involved, and yet a lot of people are waiting eagerly for him to finish the series. What about Harry Potter? I think people are willing to accept long detailed books as long as they strike a cord with the general population.


----------



## Sever Bronny (May 13, 2013)

Very interesting. I think we'll naturally adapt because we authors are also info junkies; our brains are already adapting to the fast pace of things. We are not separate from the process of evolution, but part of it.

For me, it's much easier to get bored, so I make sure that every bit of my writing can hold my own interest, and I really do think that's from a lifetime of surfing online and processing so much information quickly.

Generation A.D.D. has its authors too


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Christa Wick said:


> Our deep reading circuitry wasn't developed over millennia. Mass literacy is a relatively new phenomenon. Our ability to parse information quickly and assign utility levels or danger levels, etc., to it, has long been in place and didn't interfere with any deep reading circuitry we developed.


This. Up until the industrial revolution, only the very rich could afford to learn to read.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

I thought I posted here.  
I wouldn't put much stock in this article.
Only 2 people said they could not read a book.
Now I am a reader and there are several books I could not get into.  Does not mean I can't read a book only means I couldn't read that book.


----------



## sstroble (Dec 16, 2013)

ilamont said:


> From the Washington Post: *Serious reading takes a hit from online scanning and skimming, researchers say
> *
> _"To cognitive neuroscientists, Handscombe's experience is the subject of great fascination and growing alarm. Humans, they warn, seem to be developing digital brains with new circuits for skimming through the torrent of information online. This alternative way of reading is competing with traditional deep reading circuitry developed over several millennia."_
> 
> Interesting (and perhaps not surprising) but I wonder what it means for authors. Should our writing cater to this trend? Or is it inevitable that we will have to adapt, considering the "rewiring" that the researchers are pointing to?


Ever since college, I've had to skim books to pass classes or do the job I was working (most of that was long before personal computers, the web, etc.). Sometimes it's a just a matter of not having enough time.


----------



## olefish (Jan 24, 2012)

But the sky is falling. 

It's one thing to skim and scan for entertainment purposes.  It's quite another to skim and scan your way to learning something you really need to know to earn a living.


----------



## Bluebonnet (Dec 15, 2013)

It would be helpful if we had some hard data on how readers read e-books. Do they read stories in bits and pieces on mobile devices, like reading a chapter while waiting in the doctor's office, riding the train to work, situations like that? Or do they sit down someplace comfortable with a Kindle/other device and read for a couple of hours?

If a large percentage of readers are doing the quick bits-and-pieces type of reading, how would we approach that as authors? Write shorter chapters? Create simpler plots? Make our writing style more fast-paced? Write more short stories? I guess we would have to write in a way that would encourage the reader who only reads for a few minutes at a time to come back and read the rest of the story.


----------



## A.C. Scott (Mar 25, 2014)

I'm positive Amazon has that information somewhere, but what they choose to do with it.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Bluebonnet I will answer how I read.
Sometimes I read a chapter and come back later to finish it.  Other times I will spend 2-3 hours curled up with a book.
Now if you cater to the skimmers you will miss out on a big category of readers.
It is not the people in that article that take chances on new authors.  
The voracious readers are the ones taking chances.  A voracious reader will read pretty much everything an author they like writes.  These readers are your bread and butter.
If you write for those that only skim,  it will be obvious in your writing.
Write for the readers and you may go far.  Write for what you read in a newspaper article and you will probably end up in the Amazon million club.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

cinisajoy said:


> Bluebonnet I will answer how I read.
> Sometimes I read a chapter and come back later to finish it. Other times I will spend 2-3 hours curled up with a book.
> Now if you cater to the skimmers you will miss out on a big category of readers.
> It is not the people in that article that take chances on new authors.
> ...


Have I told you lately how much I like you, you beautiful human being, you?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Have I told you lately how much I like you, you beautiful human being, you?


Why thank you kind sir.


----------



## sandarr (Mar 8, 2014)

After reading the article, I see some flaws with this logic. First the research is done by a University cognitive neuroscientist, who wrote a book. This means they have more at stake than just going over the collected data. Second the other University people who contributed have grants and issues of that nature to think about in making this a problem.

As a parent of 3 adult children who do read, I feel a lot of this depends on the person. I read to my children, as they aged they had the school library and I took them to the public library weekly. Today they read continuously. Children that do not grow up with access to books or reading, but instead television and games might not read books as adults. This is just my opinion.


----------



## B&amp;H (Apr 6, 2014)

what is amazing about this, despite this fact multiple readers still exist who will find even a single typo in a 120,000 word - 500,000 odd characters manuscript.

So its a shame they don't skim over our typos


----------



## Sever Bronny (May 13, 2013)

Josef Black said:


> what is amazing about this, despite this fact multiple readers still exist who will find even a single typo in a 120,000 word - 500,000 odd characters manuscript.
> 
> So its a shame they don't skim over our typos


Haha amen to that!


----------



## Carol M (Dec 31, 2012)

Thank you for posting. Fascinating article. It answers many of my questions about the way and why my students don't read.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

A researcher needs to skim through articles and books to find the worthwhile bits that you can then slow read. This has been the case since long before the invention of the internet. On the other hand, the internet was invented long before neuroscience, which is a discipline still struggling to be taken seriously, but it makes for good copy in non-scientific publications, because its proponents love to make grandiose and unsubstantiated claims based on little more than anecdotal research.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

Joliedupre said:


> You asked, "Should our writing cater to this trend?"
> 
> I'm not trying to "cater" to anything. My writing is *naturally* clear, concise and to the point. My books will be easy reads that *anyone* can digest and perfect for today's busy, easily distracted humans.


I couldn't have put this better myself. If you're 'catering,' you're not really creating, just following a pre-set format.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

AnnChristy said:


> .... it is simply fashion. During the growth of common reading... People might live their whole lives in one area and not travel. The descriptions of taste, smell, anticipation and all those things that create what many now see as excess verbiage are simply ways to get the same thing across to someone who hasn't traveled to an exotic location, smelled an alpine flower or courted a highborn person. They needed it.
> 
> Now, all you need to do is give the briefest sketch and I (or any reader) can marry that up with a thousand images from every media form we've even imbibed and get the same feeling it used to take a thousand words for.
> 
> Fashion is changing, readers are more exposed and come with a far larger personal dictionary of experiences, but the way the words are put together to make a story must still transport the reader, make them bargain for one more chapter before bed and read in the car before going into the office to be effective.


Yes, this.

Also, as Ms Prawnypants pointed out a few years ago in a post I have stapled to my wall, today's reading fashion is more about the characters than ever. People read more for relief from loneliness. From not being a part of something. A sense of being needed. Relief from a world full of injustice. Something that makes us believe in humanity, friendship, and love.

Because ironically, we are less personally connected than we were 100 years ago.


----------

