> I personally think that audiovisual media is far, far superior to reading.
I'd be very interested to know why you think this.
I personally prefer reading as a way to intake information, because I'm faster and more at least reading a bunch of stuff than I am watching a bunch of youtube videos.
Sorry I edited my comment and expanded it.
I think audiovisual media is better for most educational things, especially languages and skills. If you're learning Spanish or how to fix your car, I think a video (with audio) is better than a book most of the time. To be fair, there are definitely things better taught via book, but I do wonder if part of the reason why is 1) books have a longer history and 2) watching video is still kind of an awkward experience; I can't easily grab text from inside it or view the entire contents at once, like I can with text.
But more generally, I think audiovisual media just more closely matches the human experience of the world. Sitting hunched over an object looking at symbols is a learned activity, whereas watching and hearing something is more "natural" to people – see for example, how most languages were spoken-only for a long, long time before anyone wrote them down.
> Sitting hunched over an object looking at symbols is a learned activity, whereas watching and hearing something is more "natural" to people
Isn’t this the benefit? It’s conducive to abstract thought in a way recorded media is not. (The historical alternative is in-person rhetoric. As we all know, the online version is not substitute for debate.)