"For instance, reading all of the Harry Potter books is getting something done too. Flipping channels on the couch all day, not so much."
I've always found it interesting that reading, as a form of entertainment, always seems to be held on a pedestal compared to television, cinema, or videogames. It's a kind of elitism that the literati hold over everyone who doesn't find reading as enjoyable as them. Consider this: one person reads the entire Harry Potter series and another reads the entire Twilight series, both are reading but the quality of the material is completely different. Assuming that literature is de facto superior to any other form entertainment is completely ignorant and wrong.
In this case, swap "flipping channels all day", which could include watching informative shows such as Bill Nye, How It's Made, or Mythbusters, with "watching Jersy Shore all day" and confusion about entertainment quality preferences are removed.
“One of my mentors asked me what was better – to spend 10 hours in front of the TV or to spend 10 hours doing other activities. Of course, I said the latter – there are few things I think that are worse than just sitting in front of the TV. Wrong, he said. It makes no difference – because what matters is how intensely you do any of those activities. It’s how much intensity you inject into those 10 hours rather than how you superficially spend them. If you watch TV intensely, with purpose, for 10 hours, you probably spent those 10 hours well.”[0]
I acknowledge that watching with purpose and flipping channels are different things—the point is, maybe what you do matters not as much as how you do it.
Perhaps watching TV is an activity that by its nature discourages any purpose and intensity, while reading has opposite effect? (Although I totally can read with my mind half-off, so it probably depends on an individual.)
One of my anecdotal observations is that people (especially children) who read more often have significantly better written communication skills. I had a number of peers that I went all the way from kindergarten through undergraduate with, and by the end, the people who had done a lot of reading as kids could write significantly more coherent papers, essays, and even emails.
Now, it's only a correlation; the kids who read a lot as children may have done so simply because they had some kind of stronger innate language skills. I'm not a psychology researcher or a neuroscientist, but it's definitely an interesting anecdote to me :)
I think your perception is correct. Not sure if it is justified or not.
I suspect there is a positive correlation to time spent reading with success measures like education level, test scores, etc. I also suspect the correlation to TV time is more along the lines of being overweight, unemployment, etc.
Any science behind that? Nope. Sort of a confirmation of the stereotype you are suggesting. I could look for studies to prove / disprove it, but I would likely suffer from confirmation bias.
I've always found it interesting that reading, as a form of entertainment, always seems to be held on a pedestal compared to television, cinema, or videogames. It's a kind of elitism that the literati hold over everyone who doesn't find reading as enjoyable as them. Consider this: one person reads the entire Harry Potter series and another reads the entire Twilight series, both are reading but the quality of the material is completely different. Assuming that literature is de facto superior to any other form entertainment is completely ignorant and wrong.
In this case, swap "flipping channels all day", which could include watching informative shows such as Bill Nye, How It's Made, or Mythbusters, with "watching Jersy Shore all day" and confusion about entertainment quality preferences are removed.