11 ms·

Writing Is Objectively Superior to Speaking as a Communication Method (2020)

54 points by tomodachi94 3y ago

ssteeper 3y ago
This is not an objective argument, if you were expecting one based on the title. The author is making this claim as "an antisocial autistic person". > I can't bring myself to understand the importance for such things (if it even exists.) Communication is about the exchange of information, not superfluous nonsense that contains hardly any relevance to it.
pbj1968 3y ago
Yeah, I watched a 45 minute video and listened to an hour podcast arguing the same.
tekacs 3y ago
I think that the author is a little mixed up and is /actually/ saying that 'Reading is Objectively Superior to Listening as a Communication Method'. Writing != Reading and as someone building an app powered by dictation that turns speech into text for the reader to consume... speaking is fast, reliable and powerful and reading is fast, reliable and powerful. On the other hand typing (especially on mobile, but even on desktop) doesn't share these qualities nearly as much in the general populace, even if some of us are good at it -- and hand-writing is even worse (although it's arguably a more powerful communication method). Listening is also pretty bad and you can see for example Matter's recent release of podcast transcription as a great example of making things easy to consume and easy to produce.
- paulpauper 3y ago
  listening is good for multitasking . both formats have pros and cons. you can listen to a book in the car for example.
  - hotnfresh 3y ago
    Listening requires so much focus from me that if I try to multitask I’ll just realize, after a span of seconds to minutes, that I’ve not heard a single word that was said. It’ll happen again as soon as I pick the multitasking back up. May as well read or watch a video. Same focus required either way. Though I do think I’m unusual. Basically can’t enjoy podcasts the way most people do, which is a bummer. In hindsight, the high school calculus teacher who forced us to take notes while they lectured, and got upset if you stopped, was not setting me up for success. I’d get to the end with a bunch of notes but having understood nothing I heard, because I was too busy transcribing to actually listen. I knew she was messing me up at the time and what I needed to be able to do to succeed, but it took me years to realize it’s a general problem I have. Can’t take information in unless my attention is undivided.
    - jackthetab 3y ago
      I guess we're both "unusual" then.
    - paulpauper 3y ago
      most podcasts suck because they are full of ads and filler.
    - xeonmc 3y ago
      Like Feynman once discovered how different people have different processing architectures, just from the simple act of counting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj4y0EUlU-Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj4y0EUlU-Y
      - RoyalHenOil 3y ago
        That is very interesting. I am like Fenyman in this regard: counting internally is verbal, while reading is visual. I can count, recite the ABCs, sing, etc., while reading, just so long as I have it sufficiently well memorized that I can do it mindlessly. (I can't read and also actively think about something else. The reading takes up all of my thought process.) I would be curious to know if Fenyman experienced an internal monologue while he was thinking. I do not (my internal verbalizing is basically limited to recalling information that I've memorized rote), and I've often wondered if this is why I am adept at reading without verbalizing.
  - clipsy 3y ago
    From my experience with "multitaskers," it isn't possible with listening either.
  - ripe 3y ago
    If the material isn't important to me, then maybe casual listening will work. But if I need to follow closely and understand, then audio is terrible. If I miss a word or mis-parse a sentence, I can't rescan. I would much rather read than listen.
    - wholinator2 3y ago
      I find when trying to listen and focus that the back and forward (mostly back) buttons are indispensible and that having them set to a custom length for my attention span and typical concentration loss helps immensely.
- movedx 3y ago
  On a somewhat related note: how come we, as a society, have never really adopted the daily "video log" (except for the YouTubers amongst us; the Neistat wannabes), but we have _heavily_ adopted the idea of the written journal?
  - catchnear4321 3y ago
    writing in a journal, you put your thoughts into something. akin to a deposit in a bank. recording yourself with a device such as a camera or microphone, the device is taking your thoughts and putting them inside of itself. implicitly, you are more vulnerable. but times change, and with them so does access to the necessary technology. you haven’t yet reached the terminus. enjoy the ride.
  - tekacs 3y ago
    If you (or anyone reading this) have any interest in doing this, consider e-mailing me (e-mail in my profile) and I might have something very compelling for you. I journal like this all the time now and so does my team. :)
  - vlark 3y ago
    Writing is cheap, portable, and available to anyone who can produce and process written script; the poorest child in the poorest country can be taught to write their ideas in a journal. Video is expensive: not just the personal device & storage account, but the entire infrastructure to support uploading, storing, and maintaining an always-accessible archive. It is also difficult to revisit video to search for previous ideas and thoughts, etc. Text is easy to index and search both in digital and analog formats (at least, if one gives forethought to indexing one's journals during or shortly after writing a journal entry).
    - codazoda 3y ago
      Audio didn’t really catch on for journaling either; save podcasters. It’s reasonably easy to store for most of us on this platform. For most people it has the same search problem. I used to take audio notes in the car, because it’s easy to do. But I never went back and listened. Maybe if it could be transcribed reasonably well it would work out. Some dictate to their phones quite a bit these days.
- drewcoo 3y ago
  I think you're pedantically separating the sending and the receiving and calling receiving "communication," while sending is not. This is clearly not the case. Further, the author writes about "written communication," which implies the entire send/receive chain. You must be "mixed up," as you put it. So maybe writing is terrible if both actors are in bad faith and no one bothers trying to understand or steel man.
jrflowers 3y ago
Personally I like how rewarding it is to convey jokes in writing. The spoken word has too many giveaways that make understanding a joke a simple children’s game but with writing only the most highly educated can traffic in humor, its nuances both secreted away and sat in plain sight for those of generous intellect. One can know they’ve truly arrived at greatness when their friends stop calling.
elyobo 3y ago
A corollary is that text is better than video as well. Possibly not for entertainment, for for education, I find text infinitely preferable - much easier to scan forward and back as required.
paulpauper 3y ago
In this day and age, anyone who doesn't take steps to hide their identity online is quite likely an NPC with no original thoughts and thus no reason to worry about ever experiencing negative consequences from expressing themselves. A normie tosser trumpeting their lack of need to hide their personal information online is the intellectual equivalent of a homeless person bragging about not having any need for a bank account or a wallet. Or the person using his or her own real name makes a living as a pundit and does not to have to worry about negative consequences. A lot of people on twitter and substack make a living and use real names and this does not preclude them from having original and or controversial ideas.
- RoyalHenOil 3y ago
  Yes, this is written by someone who is not as deep thinking as they think they are. It does not require creative genius to imagine scenarios that disprove the claims (like the one you cited here) they have so thoughtlessly asserted. It does, however, require them to put some real effort toward aligning their beliefs with observable reality.
cm2012 3y ago
It is if you're a smart person. The bottom 70% of the IQ range has a really hard time with fast reading comprehension. Even people in white collar jobs. It's not something people admit, they even hide it, but it's something you can't help but notice.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- paulpauper 3y ago
  there is a reason the verbal part of the SATs used to be harder than math, and analogies were removed. Reading comprehension is hard.
hprotagonist 3y ago
now try explaining your programming problem to: - a person on IRC/slack/the comment section of a pull request - that same person on a voice connection. and see which one leads to incoherent rage faster.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
karaterobot 3y ago
Sounds like the word this person should have used is "subjective". Writing is subjectively superior to speaking, from inside their head. For a lot of people it is not superior, or is only superior in certain situation, inferior in others.
avalys 3y ago
There are types of communication that are best done by writing, and others that are best done by speaking. When someone tries to communicate in writing something which is better handled by speaking, it's tedious and slow. When someone tries to communicate by speaking something which is better handled by writing, it's tedious and slow. A lot of Youtube videos and podcasts fall into the latter category, so like the author, I find myself getting annoyed about it a lot these days. Rather than spend 10 minutes watching the video, I prefer to spend 30 seconds reading the closed caption transcript. However, this doesn't mean the former category doesn't exist.
chipuni 3y ago
> Faced with this sort of argument, a lot of people will pay lipservice to the need for things like body language, facial expressions, and eye contact, but as an antisocial autistic person, I am afraid that I can't bring myself to understand the importance for such things (if it even exists.) That sentence is the key to the whole article. Koshka doesn't understand that multiple, simultaneous channels of information give richer information than the strict meaning of the text. If you don't believe that information is conveyed through body language, facial expressions, and eye contact, then try watching a movie in a language that you don't understand, without subtitles.
- movedx 3y ago
  Right. My wife and I went to Germany once and my wife, being in TV/movies/theater, took me to some German theater... which was obviously all in German... which she speaks, and I don't. Thanks love /s Anyway, although I couldn't understand what was being _said_, I could understand what was being _shown_ to me _visually_. I got the idea of each scene: that guy is a gangster and has a blood feud with that guy, who is chasing that chick's heart, and also is on the run from the cops, and so on. Without the language, I understood easily 70-80% of what was going on.
alphazard 3y ago
A lot of comments making the counter argument "speaking > writing" are smuggling in interactive communication. And in that case I would have to agree, it's faster for most people to talk than write, and going back and forth in conversation is easier than in text. But that doesn't scale. Even if you have the best ideas, you won't get very far coordinating others if you can't communicate non-interactively.
scl67 3y ago
Quite literally subjectively, not objectively. Some % of communication is non-verbal. Tone, expression, gesture. If the author of this article struggles with direct communication, it's likely because they don't (or can't) pay the necessary attention to these. So, for them text may be preferable. But most people aren't raw information processors. I'm sure that's why emojis have become so widely embraced - it's easier to indicate tone with a picture than with text.
movedx 3y ago
(It's worth noting this about the author's personality: "... as an antisocial autistic person, I am afraid that I can't bring myself to understand the importance for such things ..." - so the author is antisocial and autistic. Worth knowing when reading my thoughts, below.) Writing and speaking have their places. It depends on context and the situation, really. If I'm in a room with someone, and I say, "I dislike the work you've done", but it's delivered with a sarcastic tone, with a smile on my face, and a flowery movement of the arm to denote that I was joking, ideally the whole statement will be taken as a joke. However... If I'm in a room with someone, and I email them to say, "I dislike the work you've done", then everything else mentioned above is lost. How is this perceived by the other person? I, as the author of the statement, have to do extra work to portray meaning which can _still_ get lost: "I dislike the work you've done! ... lol j/k ;-)" That's not superior in this simple example, so I doubt it's going to be superior in more complex examples. So I would ask the author this: why do we attend courts to solve complex legal matters? Why not do it entirely in writing? Would that not allow the highly educated, skilled labour that supports the legal system to "scale" better? Could a judge now not handle many cases at once versus having their time pinned to a physical location in which one case can be heard at a time?
EGreg 3y ago
Whenever I say something serious I wonder if it wasn’t better to just record it. When I have a conversation with a vendor or investor, and don’t record it, I feel like I have to repeat myself again and again if we go with another vendor or investor, and all that effort where it went awesome is now useless. And then write it down, and summarize it in a tree structure. So I can simply link to the final result instead of talking and repeating everything
readthenotes1 3y ago
Most of the superiority of reading (not writing - writing is only half a communication method) comes from editing for clarity and brevity which is harder to do with recordings and much harder to do with live speech
mostlylurks 3y ago
The written word may be superior to speech in conveying information efficiently, but only if you assume that the recipient is willing and capable of engaging with the medium. Unfortunately, that does not apply to most people you will encounter. A significant majority of people will struggle with pieces of text longer than a couple of sentences while having no trouble at all receiving the same information verbally. That is just the world we live in, and thus, it would be pragmatic to opt for verbal communication unless you know your audience can handle communicating via text.
- RoyalHenOil 3y ago
  It's not just people who struggle with text who benefit from listening to someone speak. I am extremely introverted, I struggle to identify facial expressions, I am highly adept at reading, and I'm also a bit hard of hearing (what I think may be a verbal processing disorder in my brain, because I have had several hearing tests and they have not been able to find anything wrong). You would think this means that I agree with the author of this article. Yet I find verbal communication still very valuable when it is paired with facial expressions and body communication (especially hand gestures). Some concepts are extremely difficult to get across without these additional elements. There have been many times that I've read extensively about a topic and struggled to imagine what they are describing, then watched a YouTube video of someone simply standing in front of a camera and describing the topic, and only then does it finally click for me. It goes the other way, too, of course (hearing it first without understanding and then reading it to have to click), but it suggests to me that both are valuable for understanding. If I had to choose only one, I would choose reading. However, being limited to only reading would reduce my ability to learn about complex topics.
throwaway290 3y ago
McLuhan would like to have a word...
pcstl 3y ago
There is a certain self-centeredness present in many people that bothers me and that this piece displays in spades. It usually goes something like this. "I am A Very Smart Person. I do not understand the point of Thing X. Therefore, Thing X must be useless and anyone that cares about Thing X must be an imbecile." The core issue here is that the only thing this kind of argument does is portray the person making the argument as incapable of even conceiving the idea that there can be other points of view and other ways of interacting with the world than their own. In this case, to the point that after making a fully subjective argument, the author claims that their point is "objective" seemingly due to lack of self-awareness. I am aware that the author is autistic and that autism usually comes with a certain difficulty when it comes to putting oneself into other peoples' shoes and a certain lack of self-awareness, but the self-aggrandizing tone of this little essay is simply very tiring.
thecodedmessage 3y ago
Autism is no excuse for this level of confusion about what “objective” means and scorn for others’ ways of communicating that escalated to (checks notes) blatant and explicit misogyny. Plenty of autistic people do not do this.

54 points by tomodachi94 3y ago

This is not an objective argument, if you were expecting one based on the title. The author is making this claim as "an antisocial autistic person". > I can't bring myself to understand the importance for such things (if it even exists.) Communication is about the exchange of information, not superfluous nonsense that contains hardly any relevance to it.

pbj1968 3y ago

Yeah, I watched a 45 minute video and listened to an hour podcast arguing the same.

tekacs 3y ago

I think that the author is a little mixed up and is /actually/ saying that 'Reading is Objectively Superior to Listening as a Communication Method'. Writing != Reading and as someone building an app powered by dictation that turns speech into text for the reader to consume... speaking is fast, reliable and powerful and reading is fast, reliable and powerful. On the other hand typing (especially on mobile, but even on desktop) doesn't share these qualities nearly as much in the general populace, even if some of us are good at it -- and hand-writing is even worse (although it's arguably a more powerful communication method). Listening is also pretty bad and you can see for example Matter's recent release of podcast transcription as a great example of making things easy to consume and easy to produce.

paulpauper 3y ago
listening is good for multitasking . both formats have pros and cons. you can listen to a book in the car for example.
- hotnfresh 3y ago
  Listening requires so much focus from me that if I try to multitask I’ll just realize, after a span of seconds to minutes, that I’ve not heard a single word that was said. It’ll happen again as soon as I pick the multitasking back up. May as well read or watch a video. Same focus required either way. Though I do think I’m unusual. Basically can’t enjoy podcasts the way most people do, which is a bummer. In hindsight, the high school calculus teacher who forced us to take notes while they lectured, and got upset if you stopped, was not setting me up for success. I’d get to the end with a bunch of notes but having understood nothing I heard, because I was too busy transcribing to actually listen. I knew she was messing me up at the time and what I needed to be able to do to succeed, but it took me years to realize it’s a general problem I have. Can’t take information in unless my attention is undivided.
  - jackthetab 3y ago
    I guess we're both "unusual" then.
  - paulpauper 3y ago
    most podcasts suck because they are full of ads and filler.
  - xeonmc 3y ago
    Like Feynman once discovered how different people have different processing architectures, just from the simple act of counting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj4y0EUlU-Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj4y0EUlU-Y
    - RoyalHenOil 3y ago
      That is very interesting. I am like Fenyman in this regard: counting internally is verbal, while reading is visual. I can count, recite the ABCs, sing, etc., while reading, just so long as I have it sufficiently well memorized that I can do it mindlessly. (I can't read and also actively think about something else. The reading takes up all of my thought process.) I would be curious to know if Fenyman experienced an internal monologue while he was thinking. I do not (my internal verbalizing is basically limited to recalling information that I've memorized rote), and I've often wondered if this is why I am adept at reading without verbalizing.
- clipsy 3y ago
  From my experience with "multitaskers," it isn't possible with listening either.
- ripe 3y ago
  If the material isn't important to me, then maybe casual listening will work. But if I need to follow closely and understand, then audio is terrible. If I miss a word or mis-parse a sentence, I can't rescan. I would much rather read than listen.
  - wholinator2 3y ago
    I find when trying to listen and focus that the back and forward (mostly back) buttons are indispensible and that having them set to a custom length for my attention span and typical concentration loss helps immensely.
movedx 3y ago
On a somewhat related note: how come we, as a society, have never really adopted the daily "video log" (except for the YouTubers amongst us; the Neistat wannabes), but we have _heavily_ adopted the idea of the written journal?
- catchnear4321 3y ago
  writing in a journal, you put your thoughts into something. akin to a deposit in a bank. recording yourself with a device such as a camera or microphone, the device is taking your thoughts and putting them inside of itself. implicitly, you are more vulnerable. but times change, and with them so does access to the necessary technology. you haven’t yet reached the terminus. enjoy the ride.
- tekacs 3y ago
  If you (or anyone reading this) have any interest in doing this, consider e-mailing me (e-mail in my profile) and I might have something very compelling for you. I journal like this all the time now and so does my team. :)
- vlark 3y ago
  Writing is cheap, portable, and available to anyone who can produce and process written script; the poorest child in the poorest country can be taught to write their ideas in a journal. Video is expensive: not just the personal device & storage account, but the entire infrastructure to support uploading, storing, and maintaining an always-accessible archive. It is also difficult to revisit video to search for previous ideas and thoughts, etc. Text is easy to index and search both in digital and analog formats (at least, if one gives forethought to indexing one's journals during or shortly after writing a journal entry).
  - codazoda 3y ago
    Audio didn’t really catch on for journaling either; save podcasters. It’s reasonably easy to store for most of us on this platform. For most people it has the same search problem. I used to take audio notes in the car, because it’s easy to do. But I never went back and listened. Maybe if it could be transcribed reasonably well it would work out. Some dictate to their phones quite a bit these days.
drewcoo 3y ago
I think you're pedantically separating the sending and the receiving and calling receiving "communication," while sending is not. This is clearly not the case. Further, the author writes about "written communication," which implies the entire send/receive chain. You must be "mixed up," as you put it. So maybe writing is terrible if both actors are in bad faith and no one bothers trying to understand or steel man.

jrflowers 3y ago

Personally I like how rewarding it is to convey jokes in writing. The spoken word has too many giveaways that make understanding a joke a simple children’s game but with writing only the most highly educated can traffic in humor, its nuances both secreted away and sat in plain sight for those of generous intellect. One can know they’ve truly arrived at greatness when their friends stop calling.

elyobo 3y ago

A corollary is that text is better than video as well. Possibly not for entertainment, for for education, I find text infinitely preferable - much easier to scan forward and back as required.

paulpauper 3y ago

In this day and age, anyone who doesn't take steps to hide their identity online is quite likely an NPC with no original thoughts and thus no reason to worry about ever experiencing negative consequences from expressing themselves. A normie tosser trumpeting their lack of need to hide their personal information online is the intellectual equivalent of a homeless person bragging about not having any need for a bank account or a wallet. Or the person using his or her own real name makes a living as a pundit and does not to have to worry about negative consequences. A lot of people on twitter and substack make a living and use real names and this does not preclude them from having original and or controversial ideas.

RoyalHenOil 3y ago
Yes, this is written by someone who is not as deep thinking as they think they are. It does not require creative genius to imagine scenarios that disprove the claims (like the one you cited here) they have so thoughtlessly asserted. It does, however, require them to put some real effort toward aligning their beliefs with observable reality.

cm2012 3y ago

It is if you're a smart person. The bottom 70% of the IQ range has a really hard time with fast reading comprehension. Even people in white collar jobs. It's not something people admit, they even hide it, but it's something you can't help but notice.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
paulpauper 3y ago
there is a reason the verbal part of the SATs used to be harder than math, and analogies were removed. Reading comprehension is hard.

hprotagonist 3y ago

now try explaining your programming problem to: - a person on IRC/slack/the comment section of a pull request - that same person on a voice connection. and see which one leads to incoherent rage faster.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

karaterobot 3y ago

Sounds like the word this person should have used is "subjective". Writing is subjectively superior to speaking, from inside their head. For a lot of people it is not superior, or is only superior in certain situation, inferior in others.

avalys 3y ago

There are types of communication that are best done by writing, and others that are best done by speaking. When someone tries to communicate in writing something which is better handled by speaking, it's tedious and slow. When someone tries to communicate by speaking something which is better handled by writing, it's tedious and slow. A lot of Youtube videos and podcasts fall into the latter category, so like the author, I find myself getting annoyed about it a lot these days. Rather than spend 10 minutes watching the video, I prefer to spend 30 seconds reading the closed caption transcript. However, this doesn't mean the former category doesn't exist.

chipuni 3y ago

> Faced with this sort of argument, a lot of people will pay lipservice to the need for things like body language, facial expressions, and eye contact, but as an antisocial autistic person, I am afraid that I can't bring myself to understand the importance for such things (if it even exists.) That sentence is the key to the whole article. Koshka doesn't understand that multiple, simultaneous channels of information give richer information than the strict meaning of the text. If you don't believe that information is conveyed through body language, facial expressions, and eye contact, then try watching a movie in a language that you don't understand, without subtitles.

movedx 3y ago
Right. My wife and I went to Germany once and my wife, being in TV/movies/theater, took me to some German theater... which was obviously all in German... which she speaks, and I don't. Thanks love /s Anyway, although I couldn't understand what was being _said_, I could understand what was being _shown_ to me _visually_. I got the idea of each scene: that guy is a gangster and has a blood feud with that guy, who is chasing that chick's heart, and also is on the run from the cops, and so on. Without the language, I understood easily 70-80% of what was going on.

alphazard 3y ago

A lot of comments making the counter argument "speaking > writing" are smuggling in interactive communication. And in that case I would have to agree, it's faster for most people to talk than write, and going back and forth in conversation is easier than in text. But that doesn't scale. Even if you have the best ideas, you won't get very far coordinating others if you can't communicate non-interactively.

scl67 3y ago

Quite literally subjectively, not objectively. Some % of communication is non-verbal. Tone, expression, gesture. If the author of this article struggles with direct communication, it's likely because they don't (or can't) pay the necessary attention to these. So, for them text may be preferable. But most people aren't raw information processors. I'm sure that's why emojis have become so widely embraced - it's easier to indicate tone with a picture than with text.

movedx 3y ago

(It's worth noting this about the author's personality: "... as an antisocial autistic person, I am afraid that I can't bring myself to understand the importance for such things ..." - so the author is antisocial and autistic. Worth knowing when reading my thoughts, below.) Writing and speaking have their places. It depends on context and the situation, really. If I'm in a room with someone, and I say, "I dislike the work you've done", but it's delivered with a sarcastic tone, with a smile on my face, and a flowery movement of the arm to denote that I was joking, ideally the whole statement will be taken as a joke. However... If I'm in a room with someone, and I email them to say, "I dislike the work you've done", then everything else mentioned above is lost. How is this perceived by the other person? I, as the author of the statement, have to do extra work to portray meaning which can _still_ get lost: "I dislike the work you've done! ... lol j/k ;-)" That's not superior in this simple example, so I doubt it's going to be superior in more complex examples. So I would ask the author this: why do we attend courts to solve complex legal matters? Why not do it entirely in writing? Would that not allow the highly educated, skilled labour that supports the legal system to "scale" better? Could a judge now not handle many cases at once versus having their time pinned to a physical location in which one case can be heard at a time?

EGreg 3y ago

Whenever I say something serious I wonder if it wasn’t better to just record it. When I have a conversation with a vendor or investor, and don’t record it, I feel like I have to repeat myself again and again if we go with another vendor or investor, and all that effort where it went awesome is now useless. And then write it down, and summarize it in a tree structure. So I can simply link to the final result instead of talking and repeating everything

readthenotes1 3y ago

Most of the superiority of reading (not writing - writing is only half a communication method) comes from editing for clarity and brevity which is harder to do with recordings and much harder to do with live speech

mostlylurks 3y ago

The written word may be superior to speech in conveying information efficiently, but only if you assume that the recipient is willing and capable of engaging with the medium. Unfortunately, that does not apply to most people you will encounter. A significant majority of people will struggle with pieces of text longer than a couple of sentences while having no trouble at all receiving the same information verbally. That is just the world we live in, and thus, it would be pragmatic to opt for verbal communication unless you know your audience can handle communicating via text.

RoyalHenOil 3y ago
It's not just people who struggle with text who benefit from listening to someone speak. I am extremely introverted, I struggle to identify facial expressions, I am highly adept at reading, and I'm also a bit hard of hearing (what I think may be a verbal processing disorder in my brain, because I have had several hearing tests and they have not been able to find anything wrong). You would think this means that I agree with the author of this article. Yet I find verbal communication still very valuable when it is paired with facial expressions and body communication (especially hand gestures). Some concepts are extremely difficult to get across without these additional elements. There have been many times that I've read extensively about a topic and struggled to imagine what they are describing, then watched a YouTube video of someone simply standing in front of a camera and describing the topic, and only then does it finally click for me. It goes the other way, too, of course (hearing it first without understanding and then reading it to have to click), but it suggests to me that both are valuable for understanding. If I had to choose only one, I would choose reading. However, being limited to only reading would reduce my ability to learn about complex topics.

throwaway290 3y ago

McLuhan would like to have a word...

pcstl 3y ago

There is a certain self-centeredness present in many people that bothers me and that this piece displays in spades. It usually goes something like this. "I am A Very Smart Person. I do not understand the point of Thing X. Therefore, Thing X must be useless and anyone that cares about Thing X must be an imbecile." The core issue here is that the only thing this kind of argument does is portray the person making the argument as incapable of even conceiving the idea that there can be other points of view and other ways of interacting with the world than their own. In this case, to the point that after making a fully subjective argument, the author claims that their point is "objective" seemingly due to lack of self-awareness. I am aware that the author is autistic and that autism usually comes with a certain difficulty when it comes to putting oneself into other peoples' shoes and a certain lack of self-awareness, but the self-aggrandizing tone of this little essay is simply very tiring.

thecodedmessage 3y ago

Autism is no excuse for this level of confusion about what “objective” means and scorn for others’ ways of communicating that escalated to (checks notes) blatant and explicit misogyny. Plenty of autistic people do not do this.