I saw a Guardian thinkpiece recently proclaiming the benefits of "dream engineering": soon, with the aid of tailored bedtime practices and maybe even wearable technology, we'll be able to fully "optimise the cognitive benefits of dreaming" (their language). The piece was of course written by a self-proclaimed "sleep specialist" with a new book out.
If I were writing a sci-fi novel, the dream engineers would not be the good guys.
The grindset approach to reading (and as you pointed out, fitness) is something that also bothers me, particularly the way some people are engaging with traditional martial arts and other "wellness" domains like spirituality and even sobriety.
I agree with the general point, but I think drawing a connection to listening to an audiobook at 1.25 speed is a bit of a stretch. I don't listen to audiobooks because most are way too slow for me, to the extent that it markedly detracts from the experience. At worst you can say he's not getting the full benefit of the performance, which would also be the case if he were reading it.
Obviously, I think what these people actually get out of these books is nugatory at best and morally reprehensible at worst — and that is, of course, assuming that they aren't simply publically performing the act of reading for all the reasons you mention. But I do have to take you up on something. In short, I would completely stand behind the concept of reading books for moral instruction. Although that term sounds a bit Victorian or even like something some Kellogg-like weirdo might say, bt I did strongly react to your notion that there "should be the simple pleasure of reading a book". It can or should be that, for sure, but Musk and Bezos are surely correct to assume that art can teach you something? Again, what these two actually get out of literature is a potent combination of nonsensical and socially damaging, but I don't think the correct response is that they should actuall really "read for the sake of it" and not believe that books can, I dunno, contain politics or philosophy. Surely we read Tolstoy for more than a good yarn, etc. etc? Indeed, I don't think this is even your position: isn't your podcast entire predicated that art is related to politics? Perhaps just a missing "To be sure," paragraph somewhere.
I saw a Guardian thinkpiece recently proclaiming the benefits of "dream engineering": soon, with the aid of tailored bedtime practices and maybe even wearable technology, we'll be able to fully "optimise the cognitive benefits of dreaming" (their language). The piece was of course written by a self-proclaimed "sleep specialist" with a new book out.
If I were writing a sci-fi novel, the dream engineers would not be the good guys.
The grindset approach to reading (and as you pointed out, fitness) is something that also bothers me, particularly the way some people are engaging with traditional martial arts and other "wellness" domains like spirituality and even sobriety.
I agree with the general point, but I think drawing a connection to listening to an audiobook at 1.25 speed is a bit of a stretch. I don't listen to audiobooks because most are way too slow for me, to the extent that it markedly detracts from the experience. At worst you can say he's not getting the full benefit of the performance, which would also be the case if he were reading it.
Obviously, I think what these people actually get out of these books is nugatory at best and morally reprehensible at worst — and that is, of course, assuming that they aren't simply publically performing the act of reading for all the reasons you mention. But I do have to take you up on something. In short, I would completely stand behind the concept of reading books for moral instruction. Although that term sounds a bit Victorian or even like something some Kellogg-like weirdo might say, bt I did strongly react to your notion that there "should be the simple pleasure of reading a book". It can or should be that, for sure, but Musk and Bezos are surely correct to assume that art can teach you something? Again, what these two actually get out of literature is a potent combination of nonsensical and socially damaging, but I don't think the correct response is that they should actuall really "read for the sake of it" and not believe that books can, I dunno, contain politics or philosophy. Surely we read Tolstoy for more than a good yarn, etc. etc? Indeed, I don't think this is even your position: isn't your podcast entire predicated that art is related to politics? Perhaps just a missing "To be sure," paragraph somewhere.
Remember the zuck not realising that stephensons metaverse was a dystopian vision of a franchised future. They read but do they understand?