![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My friend K. texted me a link. The article is in English, altho the research was done in the Japanese language. It compares reading a couple sentences from two novels on a smart phone vs. on paper. The paper contains this phrase, which is off-putting:
“Although electronic devices have benefited mankind tremendously”
This phrase makes me ask a lot of questions about Nature’s editorial policy. This should have been an easy fix. Also, the rest of the sentence presumes something with a couple of footnotes, which when you click through on, you see that they are previous literature about reading other-than-on-paper, from 2005 and 2009. The 2005 article is about reading on a VDT. I’m not sure how that relates to reading on a cell phone, honestly.
In any event, let us continue to consider this article, which can be found here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-05605-0
The article takes as a given that reading comprehension is reduced on “electronic devices”, while not distinguishing between types of screens (see above footnotes). It then documents a reduction in “sigh generation”. While the researchers did take care to identify the distance between the eyes and the paper or screen, they did not give any indication that they controlled for other ergonomic factors of reading.
Look, that’s all fine! But a lot of the existing literature on “sigh generation” involves posture. So, you know, why is that missing? I mean, I _get_ that it is not “posture of readers”, it is sleeping position of infants (SIDS research, sorry, that was depressing, I know). But still! There’s a bunch of literature out there about posture and cell phone usage, and they even reference some of it in the article. Seems like a missed opportunity.
But never mind all that! They’re sexist fucks from Japan who have some kind of weird axe to grind that is probably anti-cell-phone novel, in much the same way that so much of our media is hung up on all kinds of things that Women and/or Kids These Days Do that the Men/Olds don’t really get and/or approve of. This is more of the same, and that’s fine! Culture in science, hardly surprising.
Check out these reading comprehension questions, tho. They apparently had the readers read _two sentences_ and then asked _these questions_;
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-022-05605-0/MediaObjects/41598_2022_5605_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Honestly, I don’t know what readers in Japan do when they are reading, and I don’t know what these science-y people think people do when they are reading, but this is NOT the list of questions I would have expected on a reading comprehension test. The model of the Boeing airplane? In two sentences from _Norwegian Wood_ by Harukami?!?
“Although electronic devices have benefited mankind tremendously”
This phrase makes me ask a lot of questions about Nature’s editorial policy. This should have been an easy fix. Also, the rest of the sentence presumes something with a couple of footnotes, which when you click through on, you see that they are previous literature about reading other-than-on-paper, from 2005 and 2009. The 2005 article is about reading on a VDT. I’m not sure how that relates to reading on a cell phone, honestly.
In any event, let us continue to consider this article, which can be found here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-05605-0
The article takes as a given that reading comprehension is reduced on “electronic devices”, while not distinguishing between types of screens (see above footnotes). It then documents a reduction in “sigh generation”. While the researchers did take care to identify the distance between the eyes and the paper or screen, they did not give any indication that they controlled for other ergonomic factors of reading.
Look, that’s all fine! But a lot of the existing literature on “sigh generation” involves posture. So, you know, why is that missing? I mean, I _get_ that it is not “posture of readers”, it is sleeping position of infants (SIDS research, sorry, that was depressing, I know). But still! There’s a bunch of literature out there about posture and cell phone usage, and they even reference some of it in the article. Seems like a missed opportunity.
But never mind all that! They’re sexist fucks from Japan who have some kind of weird axe to grind that is probably anti-cell-phone novel, in much the same way that so much of our media is hung up on all kinds of things that Women and/or Kids These Days Do that the Men/Olds don’t really get and/or approve of. This is more of the same, and that’s fine! Culture in science, hardly surprising.
Check out these reading comprehension questions, tho. They apparently had the readers read _two sentences_ and then asked _these questions_;
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-022-05605-0/MediaObjects/41598_2022_5605_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Honestly, I don’t know what readers in Japan do when they are reading, and I don’t know what these science-y people think people do when they are reading, but this is NOT the list of questions I would have expected on a reading comprehension test. The model of the Boeing airplane? In two sentences from _Norwegian Wood_ by Harukami?!?