reading versus books on tape

[Denis Donovan <dmdonvan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Although I had never thought about it until this thread appeared on 
the list, in retrospect it's clear that my memory for material read 
is more accurate than for material seen or heard. I have many 
occasions to search for past material for present projects: material 
in books, audiotapes (or the radio) and seen on television or less 
frequently on videotapes. The audio/visual material may be narrative 
or interviews. I have often been disappointed to discover that I had 
interjected an idea or interpretation into my memory of the heard or 
seen material whereas I tend to find that material that I have read 
is as I remember it. My only explanation is that reading is much more 
active and involves more work than watching or hearing. Moreover, 
reading a sentence twice, or reading it,thinking about it, 
challenging it, disbelieving it -- or whatever -- and then reading it 
again is a very active process. If you feel that you have "won" an 
oral/aural argument, the other side is gone, vanquished in your mind 
and the content irretrievable unless recorded. Even if you feel you 
have "won" a written argument, the other side is there, staring you 
in the face -- or in the fingertips, as in Tony Stockman's case. 
Additionally, there are no paralinguistic distractions when 
processing written material.

Just a thought.

--
=====================================================
Denis M. Donovan, M.D., M.Ed., F.A.P.S.
Medical Director, 1983 - 2006
The Children's Center for Developmental Psychiatry
St. Petersburg, Florida

Mail:	P.O Box 47576
	St. Petersburg, FL 33743-7576
Phone:	727-641-8905
Email:	dmdonvan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
=====================================================