Izawwlgood wrote:My reply to your original statement stands - what you don't perceive is irrelevant to a discussion on cognitive load, just like one of the many constants in this discussion is also irrelevant to a discussion on cognitive load.
Given that perceive in its broadest definition is anything you are aware of I suppose I must agree.
Tyndmyr wrote:Huh, not sure how the conversation got here from media consumption....
There was a little girl and a rabbit involved.
Tyndmyr wrote:But yeah, we're not talking about objective reality here, just comparing how brains function with different media.
I suggest that my takeaway from this discussion is that media doesn't matter, it's all good.
That stories which are told differently about the same thing aren't comparable. That if every element in a book isn't in the movie that the stories aren't really comparable.
That because books are all text that reading doesn't take a lot of effort.
That vision as a media channel is more efficient when used for books than your ears which evolved to handle speech.
And that if you don't perceive it it doesn't impact your cognitive load, which is true, but which also might indicate that had you managed your resources better you might have perceived that you were going to get hit by that 57 Chevy.
I shall now go back to my pocket universe until later.