|
| ▲ | NewJazz 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| This is too simplistic. There are simply many many issues and topics that can't be adequately explained in a few minutes. E.g. complicated weather interactions like El nino / la nina, or economic concepts like externalities. And furthermore, even if you can compress your information into a short period, the audience might not beable to successfully absorb the information at that rate. There have been studies done on this finding short form content to be less effective for education. |
| |
| ▲ | ColdStream 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sorry, my original comment may have some off as defending short form content in the context of social media, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. What I mean is, there are times where folks tend to over expand their premise to the point of tedium. Something that could have been an essay become a book. That can drive people away from good stuff through sheer scale that wasn't necessary. |
|
|
| ▲ | King-Aaron 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| While to some degree you are right, I disagree with your assertion that "Just because something is short doesn't mean it is bad so long as it is sculpted just right." When we are talking about distributing information, I agree more with the author that short hand content breeds tribalism and makes people lazy. |
| |
| ▲ | ColdStream 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree, I was talking more broadly. Unfortunately, on social media there is rarely time for people to sculpt well thought out takes. Those that shoot first generally win. |
|
|
| ▲ | seydor 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| you are correct, there is a difference between a hot take and a laconic statement. the issue is with attention-seeking. Platforms willingly turn their forums to competition for likes, instead of encouraging compromise, which is what drives interesting discussions. |
