If you don't read, where do you find information?

[Phaycops]

I need help. My boyfriend's mom has cancer. That is the short version, believe you me In any event, she called him up the other night to tell him she doesn't want to get back on the chemo (who can blame her?!), and to ask what he thought of "natural remedies." She said she wasn't "talking about Reiki or anything" (heh), but that she wanted to try some alternatives, I guess.

Here's the problem. She's already a skeptic about most things. We gave her Why People Believe Weird Things, but she doesn't really read. I'm at a loss. How can you educate someone about something so important if they won't read the proper books?! I don't know how Internet-savvy she is, and I must say, Quackwatch isn't that easy to navigate (unless it's been changed recently -- this has always been a big problem for me). I really don't know what to do.

I'm always uncomfortable about people who "don't read." It just doesn't make sense to me.....

 

[joesixpack]

I have found that many people who don't read books will read from the net for hours. Maybe refer ther to Quackwatch.org?

 

[Tmy]

I'm always uncomfortable about people who "don't read." It just doesn't make sense to me.....

I cant remember the last time I read a book for my own pleasure. Whats so great about reading books anyway. Its more snobbery than anything. Books are rather inefficent. You can be exosed to more information through TV. But the book eliteists tell us to "kill our TV's". Why? Whats wrong with TV? Are books somehow better quality because the information is on paper? At least with a TV show I know its crap within 5 min. You need to get hours into a book before you realize its garbage.

 

[SixSixSix]

Re: Re: If you don't read, where do you find information?

I cant remember the last time I read a book for my own pleasure. Whats so great about reading books anyway. Its more snobbery than anything. Books are rather inefficent. You can be exosed to more information through TV. But the book eliteists tell us to "kill our TV's". Why? Whats wrong with TV? Are books somehow better quality because the information is on paper? At least with a TV show I know its crap within 5 min. You need to get hours into a book before you realize its garbage.

Oh, boy, where to start...

The basic reason that books are superior sources of information than TVs is because television programmes are far more concerned about entertainment than informing the public. Compare the number of words on any particular news story you like over the next few days between a newspaper article and whichever your favourite TV news station is. Heck, add up all your favourite TV news stations, the newspaper will still win. You get much better coverage out of the printed word than a 2 minute sound bite.

There are very few books that take hours to determine their garbage quality. The average paperback of perhaps 300 pages is only 6 hours reading at my usual speed; I'm not particularly fast or slow.

You can read on the subway, on the bus, during your lunch break at work, whatever. Perhaps you have a portable television or net TV that you can do this with, but if so you're in a definite minority.

Not all books are of high quality, but at least there's a chance that reading a book might give you some useful information. That chance is vanishingly small if you confine yourself to CNN, for anything except the most earth-shattering events.

 

[joesixpack]

Whats so great about reading books anyway. Its more snobbery than anything. Books are rather inefficent. You can be exosed to more information through TV.

That is either a very dry wit or a very shallow mind. The lack of winking emoticons makes it difficult to tell if it's the former.

 

[Boo]

Phay,


For many people, especially those dealing with illness, the amount of information is simply overwhelming. Instead of offering books, copy chapters, print out articles and summaries from websites. Keep information pertinent and succinct. Only offer a few items at a time including, if applicable, websites.

Another thing to consider is this person has been dealing with this illness daily for a period of time. At some point they will probably feel saturated or overloaded with information, it can also seem that there is nothing new. Everything they read gives the same basic information, ad nauseum. This may be what fueled the question about alternative treatment. If they are sceptical by nature they will realize it makes no sense.

It's a bit like watching the news, sometimes you need some comedy relief.


Hope this helps.




Boo

 

[Tmy]

That is either a very dry wit or a very shallow mind. The lack of winking emoticons makes it difficult to tell if it's the former.

Why is a person who picks on books shallow, while a person who poo poos TV is considered enlightened?

Are blind people stupid cause they cant read books?

 

[SixSixSix]

Why is a person who picks on books shallow, while a person who poo poos TV is considered enlightened?

Picking on particular books is not shallow (some of them suck). Picking on the written word in general is not merely shallow but hypocritical (given that you're posting to a forum using the written word, rather than just watching television).

Most of television is garbage. Why do you think the Internet is so popular?

Are blind people stupid cause they cant read books?

That's what braille is for, yes? (And in any case, they can't watch TV either, so I'm not sure what your point is here).

 

[TruthSeeker]

First, I'm sorry to hear about your boyfriend's mom.

Second, is there someone at the hospital where she had her chemo with whom she could discuss the alternatives? Perhaps a nurse or nurse-practitioner in the chemo clinic.

Or does the hospital have a Patient Education (or ehealth) resource centre?

There might be something useful

here

Good luck

 

[Phaycops]

Thank you guys so much for the ideas and information. Well, except whats-his-name there, but he's on my list now, so wha-evah!

I think printing out articles and excerpts is a great idea, Boo! You're right about the information overload. Not to mention the sheer exhaustion of being sick and being made sicker by her treatment. I can totally understand the "I'll try anything that's not as bad as chemo" attitude, except that I've never had chemo. We should be getting down to see her soon. Also, articles from, say, Skeptic, or SI, are a little more informally written than, say a book.

TS--I'll check on patient resources. Thanks

 

[Tmy]

Picking on particular books is not shallow (some of them suck). Picking on the written word in general is not merely shallow but hypocritical (given that you're posting to a forum using the written word, rather than just watching television).

Most of television is garbage. Why do you think the Internet is so popular?



That's what braille is for, yes? (And in any case, they can't watch TV either, so I'm not sure what your point is here).

The internet aint a book either. Thats what the original post was about. In fact Id say the net is more TV than book.

And whats so bad about TV? Name the garbage.

 

[Rob Lister]

Thank you guys so much for the ideas and information. Well, except whats-his-name there, but he's on my list now, so wha-evah!

I think printing out articles and excerpts is a great idea, Boo! You're right about the information overload. Not to mention the sheer exhaustion of being sick and being made sicker by her treatment. I can totally understand the "I'll try anything that's not as bad as chemo" attitude, except that I've never had chemo. We should be getting down to see her soon. Also, articles from, say, Skeptic, or SI, are a little more informally written than, say a book.

TS--I'll check on patient resources. Thanks

I've got to ask: is she terminal? Really, I think you are in a very difficult position, either way. You need (she needs/your boyfriend needs) the advice of a clinical psychologist at the very least, not an internet discussion forum, not quackwatch. I’m not dis’ing you, I know you want to do the right thing but you really are not qualified. If you want to help, find/pay for the proper help. The issue is well beyond what a laymen should attempt.

 

[joesixpack]

TMY asked;

And whats so bad about TV? Name the garbage.

There's very little on TV that ISN'T garbage. Other than a few (very few) things on PBS, it's all trash. Most of the crap on PBS is pretty worthless too, though.

When I used to watch TV, I didn't really think it was so bad, but when I went a few months without it, I realized I didn't miss it. After I wen't a year without it, I realized everything on it was worthless and I was very annoyed every time I was forced to watch it.

I have a TV now with a DVD and VCR. So basically, the only things I watch on it are rented movies.

 

[Tmy]

TMY asked; There's very little on TV that ISN'T garbage. Other than a few (very few) things on PBS, it's all trash. Most of the crap on PBS is pretty worthless too, though.

When I used to watch TV, I didn't really think it was so bad, but when I went a few months without it, I realized I didn't miss it. After I wen't a year without it, I realized everything on it was worthless and I was very annoyed every time I was forced to watch it.

I have a TV now with a DVD and VCR. So basically, the only things I watch on it are rented movies.

SNOB! I bet you only liked PBS cause thats the one station that the cool literatti will actually lower themselves to watch. BAH! theres lots of great things on TV.

I think its ignorant to ignore an entire medium just because its dares to entertain people of all classes. Is that the real problem? Its enjoyed by the underlcass and therefore you are too good for it?


You still havent mentioned whats bad on TV. Why be so vauge. Lets hear what the crap is, after all there is so much of it......right?

 

[joesixpack]

You still havent mentioned whats bad on TV. Why be so vauge. Lets hear what the crap is, after all there is so much of it......right?

All of reality TV, Every cop show, every Stephen Bochco series, every soap opera, Every local news program I have ever seen, most network news shows, and almost every sit-com. I liked the X-Files for the first few seasons, old twilight zone stuff is pretty good, and I like the Aadams Family.

Perhaps you could tell me what's so worthwile on TV now?

SNOB!

Troll

 

[Tmy]

All of reality TV, Every cop show, every Stephen Bochco series, every soap opera, Every local news program I have ever seen, most network news shows, and almost every sit-com. I liked the X-Files for the first few seasons, old twilight zone stuff is pretty good, and I like the Aadams Family.

Perhaps you could tell me what's so worthwile on TV now? Troll

You are a TV bigot. You hate TV for no real reason.

Actually your list is what I like about TV.

You never liked NYPD Blue, or Law n Order?

Survivor is great. Even if just to see human interaction and real life emotion.

The local news gets the news across, whats so bad about that. Is the newspaper any different.

Soap opears are the modern day equivelent of Shakespear.

There are some good sitcoms. Simpsons and Arrested Developement come to mind.

How can you resent pretty much everything on TV. Its enetertainment. Do you not like fiction books cause they are entertainment? Must TV only be used for educating the public on facts n figures?

geez, if you hate all that TV so much, I feel bad for you. You are really missing out .

 

[SixSixSix]

You are a TV bigot. You hate TV for no real reason.

I would say rather that you like it for no real reason, but I suppose subjectivity enters into this.

You never liked NYPD Blue, or Law n Order?

You're kidding, surely?

Survivor is great. Even if just to see human interaction and real life emotion.

Even if this was true of Survivor 1 - and it wasn't - it is highly unlikely to be true about Survivor 6 (or whatever they're up to).

That's the main problem with TV - it's TIRED. The same thing, over and over again. There's no NEED to watch it - we've seen it all before, and better.

The local news gets the news across, whats so bad about that. Is the newspaper any different.

Hell yes the newspaper is different. For a start it's more than a sound bite. Can you read a newspaper cover to cover in the time it takes to watch the news? And even if you can - good for you - can you honestly say that the information content is equal?

Soap opears are the modern day equivelent of Shakespear.

That's probably quite accurate, from a certain point of view. Shakespeare was catering to much the same audience as soap opera is aimed at. However, the main difference is that Shakespeare's stuff was not only good then, it is still good centuries later. Tell me, do you think anyone is going to be watching episode one of Melrose Place in a century or so?

There are some good sitcoms. Simpsons and Arrested Developement come to mind.

Simpsons may be worth watching. That's 1/2 hr per week, maybe. And if I add in a couple of other programs, perhaps I could stretch it to 3 hrs per week.

Not really a good investment for cable fees.

How can you resent pretty much everything on TV. Its enetertainment.

Because it's poor entertainment - especially in the digital age. I'd much rather spend 3 hours (eg) playing World of Warcraft, watching a DVD or (yes) reading a book than putting up with commercials interrupting a program I couldn't really care less about.

Do you not like fiction books cause they are entertainment?

Some books are good. Some are bad. The ratio is far superior to TV.

Must TV only be used for educating the public on facts n figures?

The entertainment that TV provides caters to the lowest common denominator, and is of largely no interest to me. The few programs that break this mold I usually find out about later, and buy the DVDs of to watch at my leisure. It's more efficient. If they provided download links (at a price, of course), I'd do it that way instead.

There are books, however, to suit just about everyone, because the costs to publish a book are much less than the costs to create a television pilot (let alone a series).

Now, the good news is that this could potentially change. The barrier to entry to creating movies has been substantially lowered - any idiot can now own a digital video camera, and buy software that could emulate Star Wars circa ANH level special effects. (Getting decent actors is not so easy, but arguably current television programmes struggle there as well).

geez, if you hate all that TV so much, I feel bad for you. You are really missing out .

Missing out? MISSING OUT? Come off it. If, by some miracle, a television programme is made that I would actually like, I have many more options available than having to watch it when it's first aired. Virtually everything gets released on DVD nowadays, and certainly everything that's popular (even a cult following).

The risk is zero. The only thing you miss out on is talking to your mates at the water cooler about last night's episode - and I can certainly live with that.

 

[kittynh]

I have a daughter that can NOT read. Our best hope is that she will be able to read well enough to navigate our world. Things like signs and maps, maybe.

So how did she win her schools geo-bee? By watching the right shows on television. By listening to books on tape. By my talking and sharing with her. If she has a question I find out the answer. Maybe finding out the information and then letting the mom ask questions is the way to go. Ask what she is interested in investigating. Then look it up, and tell her the answer.

A lot of people thought I should be flipping out that my very intelligent daughter will NEVER read a book (the traditional way). Our nephew is blind though. He never even bothered with braille, beyond the basics, as our society has great resources with books on tape and talking computers! So I knew our daughter would be fine. There is a lovely web site that has over 10,000 books on tape available for the deaf AND dyslexic. If there is a book you need, often they will tape it for you if they don't have it.

Any good anti woo woo books on tape? When my friend was ill with cancer, she enjoyed books on tape a lot.

And thank goodness for all the really good shows on tv these days.

 

[joesixpack]

You are a TV bigot. You hate TV for no real reason.

Troll.

Actually your list is what I like about TV.

I think you're lying.

Survivor is great. Even if just to see human interaction and real life emotion.

Now I know your're lying.

The local news gets the news across,

You might think so if that's your only source of news, which I doubt.

Soap opears are the modern day equivelent of Shakespear.

No, Scorsese, Coppola, Or maybe Speilberg are the modern day equivilant of Shakespeare.

There are some good sitcoms. Simpsons and Arrested Developement come to mind.

OK, I forgot those, but the simpsons is getting a bit tired. Family Guy's pretty funny the three times I've seen it, but even those aren't really worth turning on the TV for.

How can you resent pretty much everything on TV[?]

I don't resent it, I just don't like it.

Do you not like fiction books cause they are entertainment?

No, I just like them because they're better entertainment than most of the garbage on TV.

geez, if you hate all that TV so much, I feel bad for you. You are really missing out .

You're definately a troll. No one would EVER say that seriously. LMAO

 

[Phaycops]

I have a daughter that can NOT read. Our best hope is that she will be able to read well enough to navigate our world. Things like signs and maps, maybe.

Kitty--I'm really sorry, I didn't mean to imply that blind people or people with learning disabilities are total freaks or anything I just meant that when I hear someone (who can) say "I don't really read," I just don't know what to say. I read books for entertainment and for information, and they're my primary source of both. They're also my first line of defense when someone has questions about "woo-woo" types of things. So when someone says that they have a question about herbal remedies, my first instinct is to point them towards all the great books out there. But if that person is really averse to reading a book for whatever reason, I really don't know where to begin. I think that books on tape are not the same as watching TV, by the way. They still force you to engage your imagination actively, rather than giving you information passively. That, I think, is the real difference between books (or books on tape ), and TV. Active versus passive participation.

Anyway, this thread has generated a much more interesting discussion than I meant it to Good for me, I suppose. Anway, I also wanted to respond to this from Rob Lister:

I've got to ask: is she terminal? Really, I think you are in a very difficult position, either way. You need (she needs/your boyfriend needs) the advice of a clinical psychologist at the very least, not an internet discussion forum, not quackwatch. I’m not dis’ing you, I know you want to do the right thing but you really are not qualified. If you want to help, find/pay for the proper help. The issue is well beyond what a laymen should attempt.

I'm not sure why you think a shrink can provide my boyfriend's mom with good, scientific information about herbal remedies. What, exactly, am I not qualified for? What issue is this that is far beyond what a layman should attempt? What, exactly, are you going on about? I'm not trying to be rude, but your response was way out of proportion to the initial question, IMO. Please clarify. Thanks.