Huh? That wasn't at all what I was asserting.

No, I haven't read The Shallows yet - but you've persuaded me to check it out. Thanks.

Frank—No problem. I must ask, though, have you read The Shallows? Were you still unconvinced? Because I think he does a pretty good job of arguing in there that there is a big difference between how print media and electronic media affect our brains, and thereby, ultimately, our cultures. Of course, his main argument is about the internet. Is TV necessarily detrimental in the same way? No, not necessarily. But the statistic above works out to 5 hours a day! To be honest, I still can't believe that's right. But if it's anywhere close to right, I don't see how one can look of that and not conclude, prima facie, that that must be unhealthy. I think I would call it unhealthy as well if a society were spending 5 hours a day reading serial novels. The enormous use of cellphones and smartphones poses its own quite distinct set of issues, I think, largely pertaining to the anti-social effects of being always in a private bubble even when one is out in public.

But of course, each of these would need to be spelled out at some length—and as I said, at least as far as the internet is concerned, I hope to post at greater length once I finish The Shallows. My only point in this post was to say, "Well, gosh. It's hard to imagine all this isn't unhealthy for us," as one might do if posting statistics about how much fast food Americans consume. To me, at least, that much seemed instinctively obvious. However, I suppose it's good to know that it doesn't seem instinctively obvious to everyone, and the arguments must thus be made quite carefully.

Forgive me if my comments came across as unduly offensive. That was not my intent.

I wasn't asking for a comprehensive analysis of the situation. Rather, I was merely questioning how you chose to frame these statistics. They didn't come across as an "interesting observation," but rather as an implied condemnation of our use of the internet. On that count, I stand by my initial complaint: there's nothing in those statistics to substantiate your implication that our cultural problems are (at least in part) thanks to extended time we spend in front of computer and TV screens.

For what it's worth, one of the central reasons I objected to your post is because I'm suspicious of arguments/implications that a print literate society is superior to a digitally-focused one. For my money, I don't think there's much difference between Victorian readers snapping up Dickens's latest serial piece and modern viewers catching the latest Mad Men or Big Bang Theory episode. That's obviously a highly arguable statement, but I think having that argument - or at least an argument of that nature - would be more helpful than one based on the question, "Is our society headed for the crapper because we spend so much time with our computers/cellphones/TVs?"

By the way, Frank, I should add—the statistic about text messages, of course, doesn't quite fit with the others, and doesn't point as obviously to the same sort of malaise. I mostly included it sheerly for its ridiculousness...I just cannot imagine why any sane person would want to send 75 text messages a day. I could explain, if I spent enough time, why this is not merely a matter of personal distaste for me, but perhaps culturally detrimental, but I understand that that would take some explaining.