Has anyone else noticed that today's educational content intended for adults increasingly uses a format that was regionally only used for very young children? There is almost always personality emoting and doing accidentally on purpose funny things and laughing, exaggerating everything to keep people engaged.
Some excerpts from the book:
> “Dr. Ruth Westheimer is a psychologist who has a popular radio program and a nightclub act in which she informs her audiences about sex in all of its infinite variety and in language once reserved for the bedroom and street corners. She is almost as entertaining as the Reverend Billy Graham, and has been quoted as saying, “I don’t start out to be funny. But if it comes out that way, I use it. If they call me an entertainer, I say that’s great. When a professor teaches with a sense of humor, people walk away remembering.” She did not say what they remember or of what use their remembering is. But she has a point: It’s great to be an entertainer. Indeed, in America God favors all those who possess both a talent and a format to amuse, whether they be preachers, athletes, entrepreneurs, politicians, teachers or journalists. In America, the least amusing people are its professional entertainers.”
...
> “We may surmise that the ninety million Americans who watch television every night also think so. But what I am claiming here is not that television is entertaining but that it has made entertainment itself the natural format for the representation of all experience. ... The problem is not that television presents us with entertaining subject matter but that all subject matter is presented as entertaining...”
...
> “Books, it would appear, have now become an audio-visual aid; the principal carrier of the content of education is the television show, and its principal claim for a preeminent place in the curriculum is that it is entertaining.”
Can someone explain this to me? Billy Graham is... the last person I’d think of as an amusing figure.
He was so popular he even got to meet the queen of england when he was in the UK:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bNXzzzvXMuQ
(This is dramatized in Netflix’s Crown Season 2 Episode 6)
In the chapter "Shuffle Off to Bethlehem," Postman compares the 20th century televangelist with 17th-19th century spiritual leaders:
> “Television’s strongest point is that it brings personalities into our hearts, not abstractions into our heads. That is why CBS’ programs about the universe were called “Walter Cronkite’s Universe.” One would think that the grandeur of the universe needs no assistance from Walter Cronkite. One would think wrong. CBS knows that Walter Cronkite plays better on television than the Milky Way. And Jimmy Swaggart plays better than God. For God exists only in our minds, whereas Swaggart is there, to be seen, admired, adored. Which is why he is the star of the show. And why Billy Graham is a celebrity, and why Oral Roberts has his own university, and why Robert Schuller has a crystal cathedral all to himself. ”
...
> “It would be a serious mistake to think of Billy Graham or any other television revivalist as a latter-day Jonathan Edwards or Charles Finney. Edwards was one of the most brilliant and creative minds ever produced by America. His contribution to aesthetic theory was almost as important as his contribution to theology. His interests were mostly academic; he spent long hours each day in his study. He did not speak to his audiences extemporaneously. He read his sermons, which were tightly knit and closely reasoned expositions of theological doctrine Audiences may have been moved emotionally by Edwards’ language, but they were, first and foremost, required to understand it. Indeed Edwards’ fame was largely a result of a book, Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God in the Conversion of Many Hundred Souls in Northampton, published in 1737. A later book, A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections, published in 1746, is considered to be among the most remarkable psychological studies ever produced in America.”
All his videos are absolutely phenomenal - the best educational content I've seen on YouTube. I cannot recommend them highly enough. In my experience it is more akin to reading a (very engaging) textbook than watching a video. I often find myself pausing to think things through and can _feel_ myself grasping at new ideas and learning while watching.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYO_jab_esuFRV4b17AJtAw [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG4VkPoG3ko
The down votes are likely due to that as the comment does not contribute to much. If folks don’t want to hear more about 3b1b, it will just not gather upvotes.
Earlier today I was trying to find a list of all Alfa Romeo models to identify a car, and all the top results were ten paragraphs of SEO infused filler bullshit, with some smattering of half or less of the cars. Genuine enthusiasts get crushed under the weight of mighty marketing budgets seeking a pittance of adsense dollars.
It's an op-ed designed to get clicks and turn ad dollars, in a format that extracts even more clicks once you arrive. That's what's frustrating, all the genuine information is being replaced with content marketing apparatuses. That's not really Google's fault intentionally, it's just how the ecosystem has evolved.
Even the ones that are not hit-you-on-the-head scatological are still, as you say, trying to be funny and engaging but in a patronizing way.
Perhaps I am not the target audience but I preferred young science books that made you feel like you were learning real science — learning about the chemistry of plastics for example. The science wasn't a footnote to the experiment, it was the reason for the experiment.
Mae and Ira Freeman's science books for kids were great for younger readers. Kenneth Swezey's books. The classic "Golden Book of Chemistry" is a little slick, but still good (https://www.academia.edu/37919681/The_Golden_Book_Of_Chemist...).
Or maybe I just preferred the presentation of the older books...
I often mock some of my American friends by mimicking them when they say that some rather mundane thing is "AMAZING" or "OH MY GOD I CAN'T BELIEVE IT" or "THIS IS INSANE" and no, Mark, it's not insane, it's just a decent piece of a cake.
Of course my default French blasé attitude towards everything errs the other way, there's probably a compromise to be found. But at least when I say that I found something to be "amazing" my friends generally take note, because it's not something I say lightly.
That's sort of the main issue for me, it's like the loudness wars for music mixing, when people tell you how to unclog your drain as if it was the most amazing thing that ever happened to them the baseline is completely skewed.
BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!
And to keep videos above a certain length so that the algorithm prefers them over short, concise videos, and that the chance is higher for multiple ad rolls (= more monetization).
- differentials
- fluid based car transmission
- navy canon driver based on analog computers
- wave principles (using super cute appartus to show impedance)
Perhaps the patience level of audiences of that era was much higher than today? But that's OK, now, thanks to modern media technology, you can randomly access any part of the presentation or speed it up at will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_motorcycle#The_...