Does reading actually have a relationship with intellect?
To an extent
0.0%
0
I have to make the poll later no time atm
0.0%
0
0 votes
| I don't really read since my imagination is dogshit, so the author has to really grip me from the very first sentence for me to want to bother with it. I am also very dumb, but it's hard to know if I'm stupid because I don't read or I don't read because I'm stupid. |
 |
| No. The type of media you consume doesn't determine how smart you are. And you can't generalize books, either. There are a lot of trash books out there. There are no stupid people, only slow people. |
If life ain't just a joke Then why are we laughing? If life ain't just a joke Then why am I dead? |
| Yes, and your coworkers were pretty much right on the money. Looking down on someone who reads and clearly way smarter and capable than you is a sign of chronic stupidity. |
THE JAPANESE SHOULD STICK TO MAKING CARS AND ANIME - GARY K. JOHNSON |
| It of course depends on the type of material you read. I personally do not read for entertainment and instead purely for learning and thus I only stick to reading ancient classics, various mythology/holy texts and also more modern influential works like the wealth of nations or stuff like on the origin of species among others as well as tons of history books. Although when it comes to history by and large I believe the stuff produced by the great courses has far more content and better quality than any random modern history book on a topic and also podcasts such as Mike Duncan's history of rome and also the History of China and history of Japan podcasts are great and of course these are not "read" per say but have equal amounts of value when it comes to content. So yes if you do not dedicate the time to "reading" this type of content you'll of course be lacking a knowledge base that can only be gained by this type of self-study and/or by completing a humanities degree [and even degrees can only cover so much, low chance you would find 100+ hours of content purely on rome in a history major or even less likely to find 300+ hours on Japanese history which is the length of the history of Japan podcasts.] Of course ones core cognitive ability will be the same regardless of one's knowledge base however the knowledge base is needed for someone to have more than just solid general intellect which requires you to "read" at somepoint. But of course if the guy you worked with was saying this in regards to fiction then yeah reading fiction has zero relevance to intellect lmao |
 |
| You only need one book : The one that's going to kindle the fire of life in you, whatever it is. The others are not so important, too much culture can corrupt a sane mind into intellectualism. |
 |
| Can comfirm I've never read a book in my life and I'm stupid. |
| Does not watching TV = stupid human? If the answer is no, then it should be the same for all other sources of information and learning methods. |
| The reason people say this isn't the act of reading itself, it's the different types of people, different worldviews, and the stuff you can learn. The saying probably comes from the past, where the only way to learn new things was through books, since TV, the internet, and other media weren't around back then. So, no. If you feel like you learn something every day, then you're not missing out by not reading text on paper. |
  |
If reading Jake Paul’s book, “You Gotta Want It” make you any smart, well…… we’ll see. |
 |
| Not reading books does not indicate intelligence or stupidity. |
 |
| Exercising your brain actively helps creating new neuron connections and to help preserving the existing ones as well. So in a way, that's a way to be a bit smarter, or to stay smart if you are, I suppose, but it's not the only way to do it, and it's not the best way easier, since reading is definitely more passive than some other stuff out there. What reading books will make you is more knowledgeable (well, depends of books, but usually it will), rather than smarter. The confusion probably comes from the fact that high functioning brains are usually attracted towards activities like reading, so many smart peoples like reading. But it's not really reading that made them smart. |
 |
| The reason that opinion is prevalent is because reading exercises the imagination in ways watching tv/videos does not. I'm not saying that people who don't read books are stupid, but they're definitely limiting their potential. Books are a gateway into another frame of mind and enable you to reach higher than those who shun literature. Depends what you read, but all books have something to offer for the most part, some offer bad opinions. |
 |
| there's a positive correlation, but it's not 1 if that's what you're asking. |
| "my life at this state could be transposed into a pretty massive biography" - Cneq, "the guy who was literally using BTC in 2012 to make deals in the first main instance of a digital itemized economy forming naturally in all human history (also the precursor of NFTs) and who had 20k+ total trades.", 23 years old MAL's most prolific antivaxxer, Noboru. |
| A book can give you a lot of knowledge but what determines your smartness is how intelligently you use that knowledge. |
 |
MilkMonster said: Alot of people seem to think too highly of reading books. They think that the more you read the smarter you'll be. Ofcourse that isnt true but what are your thoughts? From my perspective and experience it is true, the more you read of valuable books (cause there are shit books which are not worthy of reading or wasting time on) the more maybe not "smarter" but you receive the more wider view on some stuff and you're getting more opinions on such stuff, not to mention that you can increase the amount of your vocabullary and skill of simply reading with understanding which is not very popular x). Cause if you'll read only books such as 50 shades of Grey etc. than you might only increase your view on kinky stuff and that's it, in other side if you'll read only books such as Евгений Онегин -> Eugene Onegin, Plato's dialogues, Byzantines/Roman Tactica or other stuff like that you'll increase your own knowledge and with a proper use of that you might also filter what is filled with propaganda, what is filled with a lesson and moral, what is a lie/fiction and what is censored x) It all depends on how you use it and what you read. And to finish it off, not reading books does not mean that someone is completely stupid or worse than someone who's reading, reading just gives you opportunity to make you smarter but it all depends on the user not the tool x). |
Verthandi11 said: as for tv being equivalent to reading, only when script writers are as brilliant as shakespeare, eloquent as conrad and witty as austen. The point is that it doesn't matter if you learn about the satellites of Jupiter from an encyclopedia or from a documentary. As long as the information is the same, it is just a matter of personal preference. The same goes for fancy words. It doesn't matter whether you learn them from a Shakespeare poem or an Eminem song. The rest is elitist nonsense. All the knowledge that can be acquired from books can be also acquired from any other medium. |
149597871May 6, 2022 11:14 AM
| The amount of useful knowledge you gain depends entirely on what kind of literature you consume, but generally, someone who is well-read knows a thing or two at least. Not reading books and being stupid are like two sets in a Venn diagram. We're also in an age where you have a metric arseton of ways to gather information, which is not to say that books are at this point redundant, but you certainly have more options now. |
 |
| i mean it is not like not reading makes you stupid, but reading helps a lot about constructing better ideas and processing stuff. i feel quickier after cracking some theorical stuff or learning about some topics through books. i also feel like acquiring knowledge through books is optimal, but that would be my dumbass that cant but skip at people filling time with bullshit redundant stuff and then get lost because a portion of that useless filler was actually useful so i waste a lot of time that could be easily solved in minutes by a book or an article |
149597871 said: Verthandi11 said: as for tv being equivalent to reading, only when script writers are as brilliant as shakespeare, eloquent as conrad and witty as austen. The point is that it doesn't matter if you learn about the satellites of Jupiter from an encyclopedia or from a documentary. As long as the information is the same, it is just a matter of personal preference. The same goes for fancy words. It doesn't matter whether you learn them from a Shakespeare poem or an Eminem song. The rest is elitist nonsense. All the knowledge that can be acquired from books can be also acquired from any other medium. No, no, you simply have no idea about literature, that you confuse with acquiring knowledge on the dinosaurs in an encyclopedia or on Arte. Confusing style and fancy words... Read Céline before you talk next time. There is even a beautiful Japanese edition (why are they so ugly in the West?!...):  虫けらどもをひねりつぶせ (Why no kanji? 虫螻どもを捻り潰せ looks better and scarier!) is a nice translation for Bagatelles pour un massacre (Trifles for a Massacre). 城から城 is also not too bad for D'un chateau l'autre (and miles better than Castle to Castle). The vocabulary in a song by Eminem is rudimentary, and anyone who learns English vocabulary in one of his "songs" should go back to primary school. As expected, those who hate art—or more simply, do not understand it—will call elitist anyone who claims that some works have value. Since everyone writers and reads (more or less), one has the tendency of thinking that anything is literature as if your random scribbles were at Picasso's level... Great literature illuminates one mind as Pasolini's movies do. Star Wars and Sword Art Online, on the other hand, are good for the cabinets... 149597871 said: Does not watching TV = stupid human? If the answer is no, then it should be the same for all other sources of information and learning methods. Meaningless comparison for many writers (like Céline and Pasolini in the 1950s and the 1960s) wrote against the television and how mass media consumption would only make the masses more stupid... We know that most people do not learn about the secrets of the Universe. Besides, the TV can only tell you about popular science, i.e. trivial aspects of science that the layman can understand. Nothing to do with reading The Large-Scale Structure of Space-Time... The knowledge that one can acquire on television is mostly superficial. |
MeusnierMay 6, 2022 12:50 PM
| You don't need to read a book, nowadays you have youtube videos, there you can watch and listen things that can be present on the books. ;) |
| Nah. As long as you're stimulating your mind and learning somehow, I don't really think you have to worry. Besides, reading a lot doesn't automatically make you some kind of intellectual. You get 30-something Disney adults who exclusively read YA, after all. |
Take care of yourself |
| Not flexing your brain equals dumber humans in general. |
| No, I was in an AP Literature class in high school and there were still some total dumbasses in there. Including me. |
 |
| Definitely not. There are tons of trash books out there. Are you smart if you read cookbooks? The 50 Shades books? I read scientific papers on the internet. Are those inferior to books? Fiction is for fun and should be consumed however makes it the most fun for you. You like trash video games? Sure why not? For scientific topics, it's hard to be well versed without textbooks. I talk about physiology (training and athletic performance) with friends. Youtube and Wikipedia will give you a quick splash of a topic. But to really get into things, you start with anatomy textbooks, hs & uni courses, move onto sci papers, and then work your way into the modern & applied stuff. I'd imagine most other topics are more complex than a 30 min YT video can explain. So yeah, books in this context does make you smarter. |
barsoapguy219 said: 100% agree with thisFor scientific topics, it's hard to be well versed without textbooks. I talk about physiology (training and athletic performance) with friends. Youtube and Wikipedia will give you a quick splash of a topic. But to really get into things, you start with anatomy textbooks, hs & uni courses, move onto sci papers, and then work your way into the modern & applied stuff. I'd imagine most other topics are more complex than a 30 min YT video can explain. So yeah, books in this context does make you smarter. While it is good there are some quality youtube creators out there covering some more complex topics the reality is that almost anything complex that exists out there simply cannot be explained nor understood by a 30 minute [which is the usual length of most of them]. Once you get down to it even the most smallest of topics of a whole can span hundreds of hours just in themselves to get deeply into the subject and for youtube videos that try to explain something as massive as let's say Roman history within 30 minutes it's literally impossible for anyone to come away with actual understanding lol Which leads people to a false sense of "understanding" and kind of makes people complacent in their ignorance and not feel the need to go out and spend the hundreds of hours to actually learn about something since they are under the false impression that they "get the gist of it" when in reality they are missing critical pieces of information lol |
|
| @MilkMonster why no interest? Yes indeed, good catch. Its from the intro, classic anime. |
|
| If you dont read book are dumb, thats simple facts. |
| @Meusnier Reading: Visual images: Although some intellectuals will keep saying how "superior" the former is, the majority of sane people would agree that the latter is clearly much easier to understand. In a sense, reading adds an extra step to the process of acquiring information, which is an obvious disadvantage. Of course, by "TV," I don't mean all the vacuous TV programs out there compared to some of the best writers of all time. (Not too mention that this argument can be quickly reversed. A scientific show with Carl Sagan will be better than reading a chapter of Twilight.) What I'm saying is that all the information you see in a book can be converted into a movie or presentation format, and most of the time, that would only make it more palatable to the human brain. So no, overall, reading is not required for intelligence. |
| These are crimes against humanity you see above. |
| reading books is for nerds who need to be shoved into more lockers (I wish I could read books like I used to as a teenager ngl) |
infinite money glitch click here for money free mony click here real |
Verthandi11 said: I don't think I can agree with this and as someone who's academic background is so closely tied with information science I believe this focus on "reading" being the only means of knowledge acquisition is antiquated.149597871 said: yes knowledge can be acquired from other sources but reading a book gives u more knowledge n skills compared to say the visual medium at the moment, for many reasons. firstly, reading is much more actively engaging than watching and listening, it helps u process the information much more easily esp since revisiting the info n thinking abt it at ur own pace is much easier than having to go back n watching something multiple times. secondly, books contain more info than shows/documentaries right now. an 800 page book when adapted will usually be condensed to an hour long show with the meat missing (even charlie kauffman made fun of the necessity of fluff in visual media compared to books in adaptation). thirdly, when engaging with literature, its not abt learning fancy words but opening up to new ideas that those fancy words introduce to u (im sure u know that language helps build ideas/concepts) n again, right now, the state of visual media is such that u can only learn a fraction of the language u wud learn from reading books. furthermore, reading helps develop analytical skills like inferring, predicting, drawing conclusions, etc that may or may not be acquired through the visual medium. like i said that until u have material equivalent to literature in other media in breadth, quality n scope, reading will always give u an edge when it comes to acquiring knowledge n thinking skills. ppl who do not read can n r considered competent in many areas but very few of them earn the moniker of intelligent without readingThe point is that it doesn't matter if you learn about the satellites of Jupiter from an encyclopedia or from a documentary. As long as the information is the same, it is just a matter of personal preference. The same goes for fancy words. It doesn't matter whether you learn them from a Shakespeare poem or an Eminem song. The rest is elitist nonsense. All the knowledge that can be acquired from books can be also acquired from any other medium. Information Technology and the quality of material available online has drastically changed just in the last decade and the amount of seriously high quality audio books/and or audio/visual based lectures [i.e from the great courses] is honestly a miracle and I'm surprised it hasn't caught on for most people yet. Not to mention when it comes to audio books the run times are set in stone and thus while you may skim through a book too fast by habit [and thus inadvertently fail to cement some of what is written] when it comes to audio formats you are forced to listen to every word and when coupled in a quiet environment with headphones and the same mindset of a student attending a University class I'd say the chance of cementing said knowledge is the same if not higher than if you were to simply read it yourself. Not to mention most Universities have their material made up of mostly lectures [visual and audio] and while sure there may be a few or quite a few textbooks depending on the nature of your field by and large it is clearly proven lectures do help people to take in knowledge. And when said lectures are recorded and there is no limit to how many times you can listen/watch them over once again this is easily a replacement for general reading. When the content is exactly the same just being read aloud/and or the content is ONLY available in audio/visual form [i.e University lectures] by and large it should be taken as seriously as reading and if anything focused on due to the clearly larger breadth of high quality material out there nowadays [which is always increasing] especially when you consider most Universities such as MIT just throw entire old courses up online. |
|
| Well, just to be clear, I don't want this to become a reading-book-kinda-hate point. I love reading, I always did. It's just that I don't think it's a good idea to force it on people, it will mostly develop a disgust for it, it's counter productive. And also stuffing hundreds of books in your brain like a learning machine isn't what produces the sanest or most original of ideas in my opinion. You know a lot of other people's mindsets that enrich your thoughts, but you have to create and experience your own theories too after that, no just repeat what others have said. A lot of people never use the things they learn from reading, they see it as something really abstract, some nice theorical distraction, while some others will read just a couple of books that will change their experience of reality completely. You can learn and experience through a lot of other stuff, reading is not the holy grail of culture. It's just that it is something worth considering for some who have a taste for it, a good book can feel amazing to discover sometimes. This is what I enjoy in them, letting myself be lost in someone else's mind, and end up being changed from it. I'd say you should read the same way you watch movies or anime : Out of curiosity and enjoyment, not out of duty ;)  Edit : @MilkMonster Thanks, my pleasure ;) |
MoonspeakMay 7, 2022 4:08 AM
|
Moonspeak said: Oh excellent excellent. Splendid indeed, what a wonderful view you have on this. I agree, and You have made me happy.Well, just to be clear, I don't want this to become a reading-book-kinda-hate point. I love reading, I always did. It's just that I don't think it's a good idea to force it on people, it will mostly develop a disgut for it, it's counter productive. And also stuffing hundreds of books in your brain like a learning machine isn't what produces the sanest or most original of ideas in my opinion. You know a lot of other people's mindsets that enrich your thoughts, but you have to create and experience your own theories too after that, no just repeat what others have said. A lot of people never use the things they learn from reading, they see it as something really abstract, some nice theorical distraction, while some others will read just a couple of books that will change their experience of reality completely. You can learn and experience through a lot of other stuff, reading is not the holy grail of culture. It's just that it is something worth considering for some who have a taste for it, a good book can feel amazing to discover sometimes. This is what I enjoy in them, letting myself be lost in someone else's mind, and end up being changed from it. I'd say you should read the same way you watch movies or anime : Out of curiosity and enjoyment, not out of duty ;) |
| Read it and weep. Your ethnicity and culture are weak. |
| Do not judge the tool for what its worth, for it is always the user who ultimately decides on the outcome. Digest and consume with whatever method works best for you. I highly encourage trying new things and expanding your views as much as possible. Never lock yourself into a single option. After all, your books will always welcome you with open arms anytime, should you wish to enjoy a more classic approach. |
  Patchouli: Why do you want to be a librarian? Koakuma: I like people. Patchouli: What do you like about them? Koakuma: (whispers) I like telling them to shut up. |
| Yes. Same with not playing chess = stupid human |
| I'm not that big into calling people intellectually inferior over these things, since there are many areas they could be a lot more smarter than someone who is bookish. Beside there is literature people tend to label as "lesser" or for, well, dumb people. On academic knowledge I personally value more about acquiring information from various sources. Literature that I have for professionals/students are about ecosystems, agriculture, entomology and botany. But I also attend lectures, have had contacts to people who are more well versed in some areas, read newer studies by students or organizations and do watch documentaries related to my field of interest. These though depend also on the field what source is more commonly used for spreading new information, so we can't assume every information is available in audio or visual form. There are some things reading a book improves on, like orthography, lexicon, memory and imagination especially as you get older. But lacking in some of those doesn't make someone automatically idiot. Beside you should still read books in critical mind, even if some novel is period drama it is more likely it fails at (and maybe even doesn't try to) portray the society and culture in 100% accuracy. |
 |
More topics from this board
» High School Graduation.bubba460z - Jun 21 |
29 |
by Kwanthemaster
»»
15 minutes ago |
|
» How to not be worried about somethingvasipi4946 - Jun 20 |
28 |
by Kwanthemaster
»»
19 minutes ago |
|
» Which Dere Type Would You Most Want To Date ?Crystepsi - 7 hours ago |
4 |
by Kwanthemaster
»»
20 minutes ago |
|
» How many pizza slices can you eat at a time?tsukareru - Yesterday |
34 |
by Kwanthemaster
»»
21 minutes ago |
|
» What are doing this weekend?tsukareru - Yesterday |
17 |
by Kwanthemaster
»»
22 minutes ago |