I don't use imagination when I read. The connections are instinctual, and the layouts are often irrelevant (which I can say because I've never attempted to consider them and don't ever find myself missing out on the story).

I'd like to say I'm astounded when I hear other people visit other worlds when they read, but really that whole idea is so foreign to me, it might as well be a complete lie. I have no thread in which to pull on to begin to imagine it. I chalk it up to aphantasia, but my point is that not everyone processes and interacts with the world in the same way you might.

Depends on the book. Depends on the TikTok.

You can have passive experiences via either medium. TikTok is really optimized for that shallow level of engagement though and books trend in the opposite direction.

This happens with all forms of art, it's not unique to the written word. With movies and TV you're imagining the world outside the frame borders. With paintings you're imagining the whole scene or story depending on the piece.

So there's a point here that TikTok is competing for leisure time that in its absence has a better chance of being imaginative but I think that undersells the creativity of social media to a degree.

> perhaps others consume things like tiktok or instagram like I do books

> Five years from now I do not think I will fondly remember a post, but probably I'll think about the books I read

Exactly what I was thinking. I can still tell you about the first novel I read, first trilogy, favorite books, least favorite, and also each of those per genre. I can tell you what was going on in my life at the time.

The only thing I can say about social media posts are that I have a handful of vague memories of times when someone I knew or knew of would post something that made me realize they had a side I didn’t know of, and not in a good way.

I’m reminded of a quote I read recently, paraphrased: social media connects limbic systems, not prefrontal cortexes. I might take issue with the pure dichotomous nature of that statement, but I think it holds generally.

Number two but in book form is "beach reads" which can include your favorite trash romance or the latest "dad book" Vince Flynn / Clive Cussler / Tom Clancy thing. And given the huge popularity of the two genres folks are reaching for books to turn off plenty.

I agree that algorithmic feeds and even just having endless distractions in a hip pocket are terribly unhealthy. I thinks its wise to be very mindful with both and that they can quietly steal from other experiences that one might prefer in hindsight.

But I don't have a way to square that perspective with what the original commenter suggested about "psychological obliteration" and "addiction akin to gambling or heroin"

People won't even pay for most of these pocket distractions. They're clearly not consuming or addictive in the same way as those others things, where people often make explicit wantonly destructive choices in service to their addiction.

And realistically, that they're a different kind of risk with a different kind of impact may make them even more dangerous from a health-of-society perspective, because we don't have great cultural insight or hygeine practices to deal with them. If we want to change that, we need to recognize that they don't represent the same danger we're used to.

So I'm not dismissing that they're bad. I'm just dismissing the original commenters' deeply strained and distracting characterization.

Eh, sorry if this wasn't clear, but obliteration is intended to have a specific meaning in my post. I'll clarify here.

Obliteration is like when "you," your conception of "your self" as an entity in the world ceases to exist. Like your internal thoughts turning off, minutes turning into hours, lack of awareness of your surroundings. If you've ever been to a casino or seen someone with a bad drinking problem, that's kind of what I'm talking about. Alternately (!), if you've ever seen someone in a pro tennis match, grandmaster chess tournament, (or as other commenters are rightly pointing out -- reading a really good book!) it's kinda like that too.

However, those productive activities are different for the soul in a way that I have trouble articulating.

I emphatically am not intending it as just like "thing that's really really bad."

I don't think it's unmoored or disproportionate at all, actually. Look at someone who is really locked in on one of these apps. Or do a search for social media addiction, that stuff really does wreck people's lives and is bad for the soul. A wide body of psychological research supports this. I am sharing what I have noticed and trying to understand what the causal mechanism is.

Mm yes. Quite ironic. Yes. Italics. !=, programming.

I think the delivery might be sensational but I agree with the sentiment. Especially since you acknowledge that it isn't purely harmful. Normally I don't watch short form video but occasionally I do and I do feel it's a somewhat different state of mind. I would be worried about myself if I found it happening often.

I think it’s pretty clear the GP (and others) believe this is pseudopsychology bunk supported by neither any available evidence nor by professionals in the field.

It takes 1,000x less time and energy to come up with a pet theory de novo and sans any evidence than it takes to debunk. Without backing evidence provided for an idea, it should be as easy to dismiss out of hand as it was to create it in the first place.