"Why Readers, Scientifically, Are The Best People To Fall In Love With"

[Aiel Heart]

I just came across this article and it's rather interesting to me. A lot of these concepts I learn about and have pondered related to reading before, but I'd never put it together in my brain that way :P

[Basel Gill]

I vouch for this concept!

[Rhea]

"Readers, like voicemail leavers and card writers, are now a dying breed, their numbers decreasing with every GIF list and online tabloid. The worst part about this looming extinction is that readers are proven to be nicer and smarter than the average human, and maybe the only people worth falling in love with on this shallow hell on earth."

 

I knew it! I am smarter than the average human!

[Xthrax]

This is for everyone one of us on this site. Readers!

[Guest]

article title was one of thos pop cultures slap in face tio science, becuse all the studies thhey did quote did not have to do with specificaly readers are bestt peopl to fall in love with, had tio do with probability that thos who read lot more likely have empathy and may hav higher iq, etc., so to say that "readers, scientificaly, are the best people to fall in love with' is misleading becuse science didnt say thatt at all, the authorr is saying thatt based on biased interpretation of thos studies mentioned. fact that the author also uses the word "proven" which is the number one taboo word to use in any sort of scientificc literature also makes it somwhat of joke to me.

 

in my own exprince, readers outsiide of scholarlly circles are onlly slightly more empathetic and inteligent than what mighht consider average person who dosnt read much at all unles forced. have to emphasise slighhtly because the diference isnt very appreciable - mostlly still have very limited vision - and had to make distinction of outsid scholarlly circle becuse i find in scholarlly circles, more likely to find an appreciable amount of empathhy or abilitty to take multiple perspctives or higher intellect. critical thinkin, empathy, and the abiliity to truly go beyond oneself in my experince is a rare gift, somthing no amount of reading can truly give you thuogh can help give new ideas to examine with thos abilities, and seem shownn by the very small amount of peple i hav seen who realy have empathy or who i would consider actuallly very intelligent, readers or not.

 

i know people who may read fifty books a yearr but who cuoldnt take somone elses perspective beyond a cliche if thir life depended on it and possess almos no depth of character, and there people i kno who almos nevre read but who have astuonding ability to understand what others thinking. i know number of people who cant read/write at all, but i would say they are very intelligennt and wise, and the article seems to imply that having "a thousand souls", bein able to take perspectiv of other and have a rich, deep intelect, is only possible if you read, which is blatantly false and further an insult to thos people and those culturess who do not read but are still able to attain such wisdom (and in my experince to a more genuine degree) than a bookworm by meaningul interaction with othre humans and the world. the fact that the author asserts that readin can somehow make you reallly understand what its like to be othre people, such as being the opposite gender, or realy undersstand suffering seems to be symptomatic of the inability to geniuninly understand people and being limited to onlly one dimension based on books alone - i can read alll i want but i know i would nevre have the arrogance to say that i remotely understand the human or animal spiritt or spirit of the world based on that alone, writing is only vague shadow of any subject

[Wren of the Brown]

Confirmation bias, y'all. We all want to feel better about our tribe.

 

It is good to be a bookworm but it's not a mark of distinction.

 

*joins Taltos on the Grumpy Couch*

[Elgee]

What the hell do you TALK about to someone who doesn't read? How can you expand your mind and your imagination, if you don't read?

[Guest]

i kno people who cant read andd i have no idea how somehow that meanns they have nothing to talk abuot and that they must have small mind and imaginationn, and i get defensive when i see people who can read and write esentially calling them stupid and little-minded in a way they couldnt defend themslves in. we talk abuou daily life together - what saw that day, what we heard, what we did - which is lots of stuff in and of itsellf (and i generaly find those who can't read usualy pay lot more atention to the details of things immediately around them than those who can but might allso have culture to do with it), but we also talk abuot plenty of abstract subjects - they may not kno who marcus aureliuus is besids what i mention to them, they may not know who carl jung is except what i mentionn, but they still have their own opinions on naturall philosophy and diferent sociological topics which theyve arrived at through observing and just thinking and they can put in an opinionn on subjects from books i describ to them. they have lot better imagination and memory than lot of people who read that i know - theyy can make elaborate stories spontaenuosly and tell them with a lot of feeling, and i can ask them to tell it again somtime later and they will tell it again in about the same way as before. sure, they have big avenuee of informaton closed off to them, but thats definitly not only one that exists

 

having large mind and lots to talk about has nothing to do with whethre you can or cant read, i have seen - its about whethre or not you naturallly have an open mind (which most peple dont) and are willing/eager to learn, and there are many ways to learn, most of themm far older than writing and books, with books bein most inferior in my opinion. also has to do with having those gifts i talked abuot earlier which makes the individual a very unique and interesting person. ive known peple who cant read who aer dumber than a brick, but so what, ive known many more people who can read and who evenn do suposedly read alot who are dumber than a brick too - they both had in common that they had narrow and limited thinkin, they werent very receptive to learning, and they were dull and uninteresting people (though overall ive found those who cant read on the "dumber-than-brick" level are mor interestin than those who can read on that level becuse they have an interesting story behind why theyy cant read), so didnt matter how much they did or didnt read, was no help to them.

[Elgee]

We're not talking about people who can or cannot read, we are talking about people who will or will not read. Someone who's not in the least interested in reading, are in general also not in the least interested in learning and expanding their minds.

[Guest]

ive nevre noted that correlation in my exprience - ive know peple who are very interestedd in reading (same peple who proudlly brag abuot reading a hundred books in a year or soethinng) but readin for them is primarilly about entertainment and escapism, rarely use it as a tool for learning, and some get extremly offended when you start exhorting them to use their brain to think about complex issues. then i know some peple who are completly contemptuous of reading, but they are pretty open for their views to be debated/chalenged and learning throgh other means.

 

i know i havnt met everyon in the world, an thats why, unless i think it can helpp me in an argument or its useful heuristicaly, i stay way from generallisations, including one where say that those who dont read, for what evre reason, generaly have nothing to say or dont want to learn while therfore inverse must be true, that those who do read hav lots to say and love learning, when i know in my experince thats  not the case. for my own experience (with the exception of scholars like i mentiond earlier), i usualy find i have not much of anything to talk abuot with those who claim they are avid readers (becuse they are usualy avid escapists and like talking about made-up lands and bugaboos) while those who dont read much, very selective, if at all have more of consequence to talk about. but of course thats not true in all cases while and i often dont know how much certain peple read, but given how i meet what i think are pretty stupid people in majority of encounters, and at least part of that majority are probably (and at times certainly whenn i know they do read lot) moderate to avid readers, doesnt seem to speak well of reading lots being the key to appreciably higher intelligence, creativitty, empathy, etc. or being an interesting person

 

ive met dumb or close-minded people all across the board, reader, non-reader, didnnt matter, which is why i dont draw any conection to the willingness to learn or intellect or empathy to the abillity or willingness to read. 

[dawnflower8]

What the hell do you TALK about to someone who doesn't read? How can you expand your mind and your imagination, if you don't read?

You just try to convince them to read, while they think you're the world's biggest geek. That's from my experience.

[Loranflame]

Hahaha... I totally replied to this article. *grins*

I said:

 

The author of the post has some good points to make, but readers are not better people. A person is not defined by the number of books they read, or whether or not they can read books in the first place.

It is true that you can gain compassion, insight, wisdom, and lots of knowledge from reading... but it is and always will be a second hand experience. I can describe chocolate to you but it will never compare to eating it. I can describe the weather in the Netherlands, but it will never compare to being here and experiencing it. I can describe my house in detail, but it will never compare to seeing it yourself.

None of that invalidates the value of reading, but it is ignorant to claim that reading defines a person more than their life experiences. Reading is itself a life experience, and for some readers it does indeed define who they are.

I also had these questions for the readers who thought they were superior haha.

 

How often do the characters you read about, read books, in the books you are reading? Are book characters defined by what they have read? Do you decide not to read a book if the protagonist is illiterate? Is a book less valuable if the protagonist doesn't read books? Are the experiences of most book characters shaped by the books they have read? Is the value and pleasure gained from a book due to the characters literacy? Do the number of books read dictate the worth of a character? Is a book better if the characters read?

Quite a few WoT favorites read... but these questions can still be applied to many of them haha.

Ultimately, I agreed with many points made in the article... and I was all nods and smiles while reading until the author started yammering on about readers being "better people". That was a bit disappointing to read...

Elgee!! *Wags admonishing finger.* You live in South Africa... you should know people can be very wise, compassionate, interesting, and all around amazing without being avid readers.

Besides... this is the 21st century. We have movies, television, documentaries, anime, youtube, audio books e.t.c and therefore people who don't read can still be imaginative, creative, interesting, knowledgeable, compassionate e.t.c

But yeah... Reading is Awesome!!! And readers are totally awesome too... most of them anyway!

 

[The_Fnorrll_Reborn]

Where the hell have you been?

[Aiel Heart]

I was wondering what had brought Fnorrll to this thread XD

[Loranflame]

*Grins at Fnorrll* I've been here and there... but it has indeed been a while since I checked up on DM.

*Looks around.* It seems things are doing ok over here, though it is a bit quiet at the moment... or is this how it usually is these days?

*Chuckles.* I guess Fnorrll doesn't usually bother with such posts then?