Queereaders discussion

It's no secret that reading is good for you. Just six minutes of reading is enough to reduce stress by 68%, and numerous studies have shown that reading keeps your brain functioning effectively as you age. One study even found that elderly individuals who read regularly are 2.5 times less likely to develop Alzheimer's than their peers. But not all forms of reading are created equal.

The debate between paper books and e-readers has been vicious since the first Kindle came out in 2007. Most arguments have been about the sentimental versus the practical, between people who prefer how paper pages feel in their hands and people who argue for the practicality of e-readers. But now science has weighed in, and the studies are on the side of paper books.

Rest of article here:
http://mic.com/articles/99408/science...

Nancy wrote: "It's no secret that reading is good for you. Just six minutes of reading is enough to reduce stress by 68%, and numerous studies have shown that reading keeps your brain functioning effectively as ..."

Thanks for posting this article. It was very interesting. I read a mixture of both e-books and good old fashioned paper books and now I am really glad I do. This article reminds me of why I need to be using the public library more. I think the e-books tire out my eyes faster (a screen vs. paper) but as my eyes age and I have trouble reading smaller print, I find them easier to read at times, and less cumbersome to carry when I am traveling. So I will probably continue to read a mix but these facts were good to know. :)

I read a mixture, though I try to limit my Kindle-use to traveling and late-night (AKA lighting too poor for traditional books) use. I read fast either way, though I will admit that with particularly long ebooks seeing that percentage linger on one number for a long time can make me irritated and antsy (while with traditional books it's easy to see the progress).

I've upped my reading time exponentially from what it's been the last few years, and it's definitely improved my mood and creativity. I've been writing more now than I have in years, which is great. Does anyone else think the de-stressing and memory-boosting findings are true for them?

I have no problems comprehending the books I read on my phone.

I read a mixture too. I'm finding that I'm starting to donate many of my mass-market paperbacks on my shelves, as the print is too small. The Kindle is handy while I'm traveling, or reading during the long commute to work.

It's easy enough to bookmark sections and highlight favorite passages, no more difficult than flipping pages and taking notes.

The other nice thing about the Kindle is that I am fully focused on reading. If I'm reading on the tablet, the internet or games tend to distract me while I'm reading.

As for reading comprehension, I don't see a significant difference.

Nancy wrote: "I read a mixture too. I'm finding that I'm starting to donate many of my mass-market paperbacks on my shelves, as the print is too small. The Kindle is handy while I'm traveling, or reading durin..."

I don't have any trouble with comprehension either with the books I read with my kindle app. I like being able to highlight a passage and take a note if I need to. I also enjoy the dictionary feature so in some ways it may be making me smarter to read on the tablet because when I am reading a paper book, I don't have a dictionary with me.

When I'm reading a paperback, I have the ipad with me in case I need to look up a word. It's much easier than lugging the big hardback dictionary around.

Nancy wrote: "When I'm reading a paperback, I have the ipad with me in case I need to look up a word. It's much easier than lugging the big hardback dictionary around."
That is a good idea and I have dictionary app and I usually have my i-pad with me (which doesn't go online unless I have a wifi signal), or even my phone would work (and I do sometimes look stuff up on that) but for some reason looking all that stuff up that way is not as fluid as doing it when it is all integrated together. Laziness I know. LOL

Another recent study (don't have a link) has shown that e-readers used at bedtime interfere with sleep via the light-pineal-melatonin axis. I would expect back-lit readers like the iPad and other tablets are worse in this respect than e-ink readers kie the nook and Kindle as they are not back-lit.

I like real books, and have trouble reading on tablets. Given a choice I'll always choose a book. I'm not sure why. It could be just habit. I find e-ink devices lack contrast for me. I've given my Kindles away. I have lots of books on my iPad and iPhone, but have never been able to finish a novel and have only read a few short stories on them. It's just not the same.

Nancy wrote: "When I'm reading a paperback, I have the ipad with me in case I need to look up a word. It's much easier than lugging the big hardback dictionary around."

I agree searching and word/concept research is easier on an iPad. I've gotten into the habit of having a dictionary and "All of Wiki" apps open on my iPhone which I use for look-up. It's almost as easy. I also use Google translate to figure out those annoying foreign language phrases some authors like and Google in Safari when needed.

All of Wiki is a great app if you have room. It's a 5 gig download of all the english text from wikipedia. One can set it to download ad hoc images if you want and store them or not.

Kernos wrote: "Another recent study (don't have a link) has shown that e-readers used at bedtime interfere with sleep via the light-pineal-melatonin axis. I would expect back-lit readers like the iPad and other t..."

Again, not my experience. I read on my phone and oftentimes when it's late I'll fall asleep with it in my hand.

Nancy wrote: "It's no secret that reading is good for you. Just six minutes of reading is enough to reduce stress by 68%, and numerous studies have shown that reading keeps your brain functioning effectively as ..."

Thanks, Nancy... Good news then. I had a hunch, since my Grandmother is ancient (and I mean ultracentenary) and is still very witty!

I prefer paper too. The only problem I've got is that I have really run out of space; I can hardly open my front door... Still, I think the feel of books, their smell, the fact that really all pages look different etc are all part of the reading experience.

I noticed I remember stuff better when I'm reading a *real* book, as opposed to looking at articles online. I refuse to use e-"book"s. To me, electronic books aren't the real deal, and printed material is far superior.

I prefer "real" books over e-books myself, but I live in Hong Kong and sometimes, the actual book is just too hard to find or too long to wait if I specially order it. And a lot of times, the title is cheaper when it's in e-book format.

As to dictionaries, I often use my phone to look up words online.

I think it's more of preferences? I find myself enjoying books better with my Kobo Mini. And I read faster and more, maybe because I could bring it around and could easily steal some time for reading anywhere.

I don't use devices with backlight for reading like ipad or smartphones, that's very bad for the eyes.

Recent science has also shown that reading (or at least "literary" reading) produces quantifiable improvements in empathy.

Pretty interesting .. and makes sense to me.

The UK Guardian's article about the research is here: http://www.theguardian.com/books/book...

I first heard about it in an in depth radio segment on PBS, but I can't find any links to that audio material. A shame because it was fascinating, I thought.

Greg wrote: "Recent science has also shown that reading (or at least "literary" reading) produces quantifiable improvements in empathy. ...

I don't have full access to Science anymore and there's not much detail in the abstract of this study. I'm interested how they defined and chose 'literary' fiction. I've a feeling there's a lot more complexity with this.

Kernos wrote: "I don't have full access to Science anymore and there's ..."

Yes Kernos, there was a whole lot more information on the half hour radio segment I can't find online. I listened to it on the actual radio at the time.

I put "literary" in quotes because it was an extremely loose definition. Basically it seemed to me like they were taking about writing of any genre whatsoever that was character oriented as opposed to being solely plot oriented (potboilers). I think even in the link I gave, the study authors are quoted saying they don't want to be stuck trying to define what is literary.

They gave several people the various empathy tests before and after various types of reading (and control subjects not doing the reading - if I recall, some control subjects watching tv, others idle, etc), and they found the readers doing better. I thought it was fairly fascinating because one of the tests was to show cards of the faces of people experiencing different emotions and testing whether the subjects could correctly identify the emotion. It wasn't obvious to me that readers would show improvement on a visual test like that, but with a large number of subjects, the numbers held out for large improvements. I would've expected more improvement in that test from a visual activity like watching actors in tv/movies. But it was quite the opposite. Fascinating, no?

Of course any test of true empathy is impossible since it's a nebulous thing to measure. It's obvious when I get close to a person what degree of empathy they possess deep inside them, the more obvious the closer the contact, but there's no ruler for me to put it up against, just a feeling. Still, the study seems to confirm at least something was going on, something important gained in the activity of reading. I liked that. It confirmed my general (highly unscientific) impressions.

A similar study/article

http://www.scientificamerican.com/art...

Mtsnow13 wrote: "A similar study/article

http://www.scientificamerican.com/art..."

Thanks for the link Mtsnow13! It does seem like that study had similar conclusions.

I'd love to see detailed test results and processes if I can ever find them.

This might be useful... Some statistics, etc. cited in this study titled :

How Does Fiction Reading Influence Empathy? An Experimental Investigation on the Role of Emotional Transportation

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...

And I believe this is the same study, but actually lists as 43 pages:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic...

And here looks to be an actual 10-page PDF document for download on the study:

[PDF]The Relationship Between Empathy and Reading Fiction: Separate ...
jeps.efpsa.org/article/download/jeps....
Jul 14, 2014 - Reading Fiction: Separate Roles for Cognitive and Affective Components. ... with the development of empathy in children, suggest- ing that ... a depiction of a mental state, but does not necessarily ...... ing influence empathy?

Here's a related topic
Lifelong Reading, Hobbies Might Help Stave Off Dementia
Stimulating activities may encourage brain to adapt and create 'work-arounds,'study suggests

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/...

I don't like to get science/health info from the media commons, but I have seen similar discussions in medical journals

Thanks Mtsnow13 and Kernos!

What were they reading? All the same novel? What novels and authors? Just curious about perhaps empathetic measures and genre or specified authors to look into.

Hi Serena,

In the individual studies that Mtsnow13 provided the links for, the fictional reading materials were:

Morality for Beautiful Girls by Alexander McCall Smith (a mystery from the The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency series)

Blindness by José Saramago

The Adventure of the Six Napoleons and Other Cases by Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes mystery)

Greg wrote: "Kernos wrote: "I don't have full access to Science anymore and there's ..."

Yes Kernos, there was a whole lot more information on the half hour radio segment I can't find online. I listened to it ..."

Yeah, that is fascinating.