The influence of reading on the logic, worldview and criticality of information perception
As always, when it comes to history, in the topic of habrahabr.ru/blog/startup/46236.html#comments there are serious battles.
And one feature struck me. People of middle age are 25-30 years old, on average they take a position close to me on the role of Stalin and the view on the history of the USSR in general. And, as a rule, the phrase “read books” or “read more” is often found in their councils.
But opponents are divided into several groups.
')
The first group, "hereditary ideological." That is, the descendants of Bandera, forest brothers and the type of them. I do not give any estimates to them now, since here we are not discussing this at the moment. So they are to me, as their position is clear. They were so brought up within the family, they are. They are not lovers of reading, their voice is the voice of ideology. They will say in any topic, even about money, “that they generally don’t consider Russia as a country with customers,” although this is not at all discussed - habrahabr.ru/blog/eCommerce/46207.html#comment979064
The second group, the smallest - the "uncertain". These are people who do not own the question, but giving them sources that have a certain degree of authenticity - they read and think about what they have read. About these people, too, everything is clear - they are smart, but this question they were not interested in until that time, but now it became interesting to them, and they ask a bunch of different information to form their opinion.
The third group is “young dissidents”. They do not read or hear what they say, they are young, they edit Wikipedia, and do not hesitate to bring it as a source of facts. This is generally a strong move, isn't it?
-What are your facts?
-Do I have the facts? A minute ... (Wikipedia articles frantically rule) - Here are my facts. Oh, you do not recognize Wikipedia as a source of facts? Then you have nothing to talk about.
Example - habrahabr.ru/blog/startup/46236.html#comment981953
And to the extent that you say to a person - “According to the German Federal Office for the Calculation of Military Losses,” after two comments, the person, without even checking, declares that I did not say that the yearbook was German, but wrote that he was Soviet (and on Habré can not be edited). They, I believe, read only what they themselves wrote in Wikipedia.
And the last group is “children of perestroika” (this is a provisional name). They are divided into two subgroups of "Teletubbies" and "yellowcaster". The first do not read anything, but actively watch TV in the style of "Radzinsky cuts the truth-womb". And the latter may not have a TV at all, they advise him to throw out, they read a lot, but the yellow press, and as an argument base they cite references, such as habrahabr.ru/blog/startup/46236.html#comment981332 , where evidence of the horrors of the bloody gebni is in the neighborhood with evidence of contacts with an alien civilization (from "reliable sources")
So the question is, has anyone else noticed a similar feature?
By persuasive requests, the latest group of “real boys, many who read, stint on those. themes and sometimes (rarely, rarely) to others. ” Details
dzhev.habrahabr.ru/blog/46327.html#comment983884
And the question to directly to those who like to read a lot - how do you suppose “War and Peace”, “Crime and Punishment” for the younger generation can be replaced by modern fiction and fantasy? After all, topics are raised no less global. The only thing you can blame modern author - the quality of the syllable is inferior to the classics :). And so, too, “Crime and Punishment” is a detective story of that time for the masses, in my opinion :)
And the last question for fans to read? How much you manage to read. I have an average of 4-7 artistic per week, 1-2 historical or journalistic, technical as needed.
And one feature struck me. People of middle age are 25-30 years old, on average they take a position close to me on the role of Stalin and the view on the history of the USSR in general. And, as a rule, the phrase “read books” or “read more” is often found in their councils.
But opponents are divided into several groups.
')
The first group, "hereditary ideological." That is, the descendants of Bandera, forest brothers and the type of them. I do not give any estimates to them now, since here we are not discussing this at the moment. So they are to me, as their position is clear. They were so brought up within the family, they are. They are not lovers of reading, their voice is the voice of ideology. They will say in any topic, even about money, “that they generally don’t consider Russia as a country with customers,” although this is not at all discussed - habrahabr.ru/blog/eCommerce/46207.html#comment979064
The second group, the smallest - the "uncertain". These are people who do not own the question, but giving them sources that have a certain degree of authenticity - they read and think about what they have read. About these people, too, everything is clear - they are smart, but this question they were not interested in until that time, but now it became interesting to them, and they ask a bunch of different information to form their opinion.
The third group is “young dissidents”. They do not read or hear what they say, they are young, they edit Wikipedia, and do not hesitate to bring it as a source of facts. This is generally a strong move, isn't it?
-What are your facts?
-Do I have the facts? A minute ... (Wikipedia articles frantically rule) - Here are my facts. Oh, you do not recognize Wikipedia as a source of facts? Then you have nothing to talk about.
Example - habrahabr.ru/blog/startup/46236.html#comment981953
And to the extent that you say to a person - “According to the German Federal Office for the Calculation of Military Losses,” after two comments, the person, without even checking, declares that I did not say that the yearbook was German, but wrote that he was Soviet (and on Habré can not be edited). They, I believe, read only what they themselves wrote in Wikipedia.
And the last group is “children of perestroika” (this is a provisional name). They are divided into two subgroups of "Teletubbies" and "yellowcaster". The first do not read anything, but actively watch TV in the style of "Radzinsky cuts the truth-womb". And the latter may not have a TV at all, they advise him to throw out, they read a lot, but the yellow press, and as an argument base they cite references, such as habrahabr.ru/blog/startup/46236.html#comment981332 , where evidence of the horrors of the bloody gebni is in the neighborhood with evidence of contacts with an alien civilization (from "reliable sources")
So the question is, has anyone else noticed a similar feature?
By persuasive requests, the latest group of “real boys, many who read, stint on those. themes and sometimes (rarely, rarely) to others. ” Details
dzhev.habrahabr.ru/blog/46327.html#comment983884
And the question to directly to those who like to read a lot - how do you suppose “War and Peace”, “Crime and Punishment” for the younger generation can be replaced by modern fiction and fantasy? After all, topics are raised no less global. The only thing you can blame modern author - the quality of the syllable is inferior to the classics :). And so, too, “Crime and Punishment” is a detective story of that time for the masses, in my opinion :)
And the last question for fans to read? How much you manage to read. I have an average of 4-7 artistic per week, 1-2 historical or journalistic, technical as needed.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/28886/
All Articles