It’s odd how you’re acting like you’re making an argument against the general imperative to read books, but your examples are people being requested to read specific books which may or may not be useful and/or interesting to the reader.
The interesting thing: those useful information probably aren't seen as "books" even when they're in written form. The obvious example is the repair manual in PDF on the brake maker's site. Or the blog explaining how they dealt with their vintage bike's brake cable.
Of course that information is probably actually a youtube video (I refresh every single components of a bike with a toolkit from amazon and hours of youtube videos with Shimano's PDFs on the side)
> It’s odd how you’re acting like you’re making an argument against the general imperative to read books, but your examples are people being requested to read specific books which may or may not be useful and/or interesting to the reader.
You're right. I should be clear that I find the very premise of pushing people to do a category of activity pretty odd. I wouldn't tell people to "go watch internet videos" or "go study academics" or "do some sport". If I'm close to them, such a generic advice would be dumb, and if I don't know their life, I shouldn't be throwing random platitudes at them either.
From that point of view, "read books" doesn't make any sense, and If I had to say something I'd come up with an actual thing that could benefit them.
The same way I'm kinda wary of people explaining they read X books a month. This feels like they don't see books as individual items, but as a KPI, which is weirding me out.
Reminds me a bit of the idea of tea drinkers as some cultured ideal.
You’d ideally be recommending books that are tailored to their needs and interests (which, remember, is not the same as your prior examples, which were specific books pushed on people regardless of their needs and interests).
You’d be hard-pressed to find a single decent educator who disagrees with you, though it’s easy to come to the idea that you’re contrarian on this point.
There are two factors: 1) educators have to suggest a small set of books for a large group of students due to the scale of mass education. AFAICT almost every educator regards this as a problem but it’s not exactly helped by views like “reading books is a dumb goal.” 2) when educators are talking about overall goals and policy, they obviously cannot say “well for person X we want them to read book X; for person Y we want them to read book Y, etc.” This washes out as “we want students writ large to read books writ large.”
The overall objective is to build a baseline ability for every student to be able to find, navigate, and interpret information. A lot of our society’s information is stored in a particular format called “book” that is navigated differently from other formats. Despite the generic-sounding imperative to read books, it is self-evidently the case that the only way to achieve it is by meeting each individual student where they are in terms of both skill level and interests, so that’s what educators try to do. Again: this is extremely challenging in mass education environments!
Other information formats should be and are also part of a good educational system, obviously, including manuals and instructional videos. I have clear memory of manuals and cookbooks even in my early education, which was low quality by US standards.
Agreed re weirdness of # of books as a meaningful metric, and I suspect most educators would agree with us as well.
Your general strength is higher, so most physical tasks are easier. Same for reading, if you practice reading books and enjoy looking at the written word, then reading developer documentation doesn't seem as intimidating which opens more doors for you.
Some people like lifting weight, sure. But if your goal is to carry injured big dogs in your medical center, you won't be lifting random weights, nor doing generic workout. And you might not even do that in a gym, you could as well train with healthy dogs and get an actual feel of their weight distribution.
For books it goes the same. Reading stuff that will actually help you and bring you closer to your goals will help a lot more than reading for reading. On the other side you'll be able to go through thousands of page if the subject matters to you, where reading dumb prose will kill your attention in matters of minutes.
Learning to plow through uninteresting books for the sake of it doesn't sound like a worthwhile use of someone's time. But yes, just like workout, some people enjoy the effort in itself and like to feel the pain.
Of course not, but that's just a very specific edge case of "go read books".
When I recommend for someone to go read a book, I consider it implied that they should find good, interesting and constructive books to read, not the opposite.
I personally think reading is as objectively good for the mind as walking is for the body.
Walking is objectively good and healthy for everybody and anybody, bar physical conditions and edge cases.
However, you could go walk in weird ways in boring or dangerous and unhealthy places and that's not ideal, but who would purposefully do that?
Same goes for reading.