• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • See https://www.intpforum.com/threads/upgrade-at-10-am-gmt.27631/

Motion pictures v. Stationary words


Local time
Yesterday, 18:51
Sep 9, 2016
(this universe)
It appears some people choose to read over to watch and others vice versa. Is there any reason why? (Correlations would work too)

I myself prefer to read over to watch, because reading is easier to resume after interruptions(for me). It may also be that it is easier to get caught watching a movie than reading a book (I believe so).

Theoretically, there should also be people who like both equally...

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Today, 10:51
Dec 12, 2010
One speculation is that P types often prefer movies, and J types often prefer books:

because with one you're reacting to a stimulus

with the other you're making an effort to understand words.

I like reading because I can easily go for the highest quality information, or something relevant to a subject. So I can read parts of the Bible over and over, whereas there is no parallel to that in movies, and if I want to learn about some field of knowledge, I can pick up a textbook and skim through it.

But for fiction I don't usually read unless it's a short story, e.g. Poe. I also don't watch movies or TV unless I'm in certain situations. Watching things is easier to do without investment, whereas with reading you need to know beforehand that you want to read what you want to read.

edit: I also found the title interesting, because words require a process to understand (you start at the beginning of the sentence, and gradually get to the end, i.e. it implies a process in time), whereas with a picture, you can get it all at once (although with time taken to pick up the details).


think again losers
Local time
Today, 10:21
Mar 17, 2011
I like both. They're different mediums with different advantages and disadvantages.

With reading, there is less limitation to content. World-shattering explosions costs the same to produce as a dialogue between two people. For viewing, there are heavy budget constraints and other limitations.

But viewing conveys more information within the same amount of time, and can overcome the limitations of language. I don't want to read a detailed description of every one of the 50 people present at a wedding, but I wouldn't mind seeing is in a movie.

The Grey Man

Well-Known Member
Local time
Yesterday, 19:51
Oct 6, 2014
It is obvious to everyone who views a building In the Ancient Greek style what is the burden and what is the support: the architrave and the columns respectively. This is because there is a plain visual distinction between support and burden where the columns meet the architrave. In Gothic architecture, the distinction is less obvious because Gothic pointed arches combine column and beam in one shape. Burden and support are subsumed by a symbol; the medium of architecture becomes a message, to once again borrow that very happy saying of McLuhan.

Spengler viewed this difference between the Greek and Gothic architectures as indicative of a distinguishing characteristic of Western culture in general. To him, the victory of the pointed arch over the visible burden-support relations embodied by the architrave and even the rounded arch marks the irruption of Western Man's obsession with overcoming sensible boundaries into architecture. You might say that the pointed arch is the architectural cognate of what Spengler called the prime symbol of West: the striving of the individual soul towards an infinitely distant horizon. As Brody said in the third Indiana Jones movie:

"The search for the Grail is the search for the divine in all of us."

In like manner, the gradual superecedence of concretistic arts such as architecture, sculpture, and painting by abstract musical composition, poetry, and prose as the dominant art forms of the West may be viewed as the artistic expression of the Westerner's desire to grasp things beyond the present and sensible with his own mind, which has its political equivalent in the Reformation, in which men were freed to "search for the divine" without the intermediary of a priest.

When a man reads, he participates in the emancipation of the intellect from the constraints of circumstance, the message from the medium, the meme from the gene that it has been the labour of centuries to bring about in the West.

On the other hand, when a man watches a movie, he does nothing but deliver himself into the same intellectual slavery of the aimless masses who "pass the time" and their own lives on those pop-culture abortions which stand to, say, English poetry as does the most insipid brew to fine wine, squandering their gifts and neglecting their responsibilities all while taking foolish solace in the paltry and infuriatingly nonsensical excuse that "I" won't be around to reap the bitter harvest of their sloth.

* Schopenhauer, who considered the physiognomy of the oppositon of gravity and rigidity in and through the conscious representation of burden-support relations to be the proper motive of architecture, naturally prefered the Greek to the Gothic style.


Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday, 17:51
Jan 24, 2012
Some people basically can't read, for starters, or write really (you can tell by their grammar or how they type; etc). So they get mad, jealous, envious, then try to make it so where it seems they manipulated it to change it so that TV media seems better or more modern and updated than reading/writing, so it could mean they're smarter or not as dumb as they originally were frightened about. That being said TV is written, but mostly an audio visual medium. I'm not going to get into it for those reasons, as it's a new argument beyond the scope of this thread. For whatever the reasons for watching TV is, it's said those mediums do just dumb you down so you can't form more original thoughts.


pat pat
Local time
Today, 02:51
Jan 1, 2009
I wouldn't choose one over the other, both are fine depending on purpose. I usually dislike most stuff I read and most stuff I watch. That's what becoming old and grumpy is all about- look forward to it.

I tend to prefer tv series to movies, though, as the characters and plot usually have more time to develop and I tend to prefer those type of stories. That being said, I haven't watched that many movies, so I guess there's still quite a large library I haven't been introduced to and which might change my opinion.

I guess my opinion of any media is influenced by what I think of the author/s intention- meaning I usually get a sense of what the writer/s are trying to convey, what they feel and think about their own story, what they think is cool/ neat and what they want to communicate to others. So stuff like when a writer is trying to show how cool the main character is, or whether he has a naive perspective on right or wrong, or whether he is opinionated about some themes, how consistent/ complex his world is, how he writes (which says a lot about how he thinks) etc influences whether I enjoy something

As for reading, I guess I almost prefer non- fiction at this point. But even then, I need to get a sense the author has a decent grasp of what he's talking about, not getting into bad science or saying unfunded or stupid things. (I get the impression writing good non- fiction books is a difficult matter, a lot of people write like they are copying wikipedia (or other "fact" source) and not really showing a good understanding and depth about what they're writing about. Presenting their area of expertise is more about meeting certain hallmarks, than showing what you've learned as an individual (not to be confused with writing your random opinions with no factual grounds)). Or saying simple things in an overly complicated manner (which is the main reason I can never get into philosophy, though I can understand some people enjoy that matter of communicating and that in some cases the way they write might transmit a meaning not easily communicated in other ways.)

"So why don't you write something, huh???"

I actually tried that, but turns out my writing is as shit as most people's. Writing is hard, not gonna argue that. Same with making a good movie or tv show (or other motion pictures).

As a side note: stop watching super hero movies, they encourage bad storytelling and always suck. Don't fucking pay for that via cinema

Rolling Cattle

Local time
Yesterday, 20:51
Jan 24, 2018
When getting answers and tutorials from the web, I generally lean towards the written version. I find it easy to spot exactly what I need from an organized text. I find some youtube videos frustrating because the information is either near the end of the long clip, or I realize after watching that info isn't in the clip at all. Of course, this opinion does not apply to the instances where visuals are better responses to my inquiry. I like google's "suggested snippet" feature .

I find it hard to sit through most movies. To me, it's 90 minutes of forced constraint. I realize this is dumb and not cool. It's supposed to bring people together and generate conversation. They are meant to spark imagination, and deliver important insights.

Minute Squirrel

Local time
Today, 01:51
Jan 9, 2016
Unimaginative and stupid people prefer watching movies

People afraid that the use of more senses will dull the ability to abstract(i.e. faggy and insipid intellectual self pleasers) prefer books.

I prefer to inhabit books and read movies

And thus my mind slips
Top Bottom