Expanded from a post I did at r/weirdcollapse :
==
I think books (ie long-form texts) are still the best way to learn. A hundred pages is often the dose needed to give the author space to set up their definitions and appropriate contexts, at least in a way that will stick.
An implication of that would be that the most productive people to read short-form are those that you can groove with.
Though this is counter to prevailing narratives about the internet and the need for a "world village" and to avoid "echo chambers," I think it is right. Online forums, especially those that limit your character count like Twitter, are probably the worst places to explore ideas you disagree with. (Also, at some point, it degrades into a kind of bullying). Books are the more productive place to explore. I know no one "has the time" to read books, but I'm used to acknowledging there are problems in our society that aren't going to get fixed.
I've read a lot of books by political conservatives and another group I don't share many impulses with -- optimists. In that format I find much to appreciate, and I can learn from them. Again, the lack of immediate hectoring and humiliation for people seeking internet points helps, but so does the clarification of the author's terminology and, frankly, the trust that develops through a book. People do not realize that ethos is a real component of persuasion, and anti-social media preys upon that ignorance.
So many people are trying to get short-form writing to do things it just cannot do. Why? It's easier. But who said truth was easy?
