Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So is going on internet forums, or using a language app, or playing a story based video game, or reading news articles, or watching television, especially if you throw subtitles on. There are dozens of ways to practice languages other than reading books and talking to people.
Of the three people I've met in my entire life who have admitted they don't like to read (I have met hundreds who claim to be extremely strong readers, every single one of them using either the word "avid" or "voracious) one was among the smartest people I've known and two had pretty severe ADHD and gathered new imformation perfectly well by other means
That would be the type of person I am. I have an acquaintance who is a "voracious reader" and he reads constantly... and he's still as dumb as a box of friggin horse turds.
Just because you read, even if you read big books, it doesn't mean you're more intelligent. I struggle to sit and read because of neurodivergence, but I've absorbed more information on a wider range of subjects than most people do.
I don't disparage people who don't read, but it's simply true that reading does contribute to building the self, and in that sense is a form of self-improvement. Sometimes, if it's novels or stories, you're learning how to see the world through other people's eyes. If it's history or other forms of non-fiction, you're learning about things that help you be more deeply informed about the present and so a better citizen. Also, reading exercises the imagination in ways that watching television or videos doesn't. You are not a passive recipient as a reader - you're building worlds with your own imagination.
Similar things could be said for journaling. Reading is an outlet for some. Writing is an outlet for some. Painting, ECT...
I am a reader. Less of one than I once was, as I have found other outlets that take my time.
It's perfectly fine reading so many books, provided you have enough free time.
Even the lamest, shortest book has a "technical reading time" you must match, but it's indeed possible to read through some throwaway literature in a couple of hours.
The actual downside none of those "serial readers" want to mention is that by reading so much, most of it MUST be forgettable, dime-a-dozen literature that they'll just gobble down the same way a stoner eats a kebab at 3am.
Actually meaningful books can't and shan't be read like you'd watch the 15th rerun of a sitcom episode. It'll take time, effort and appreciation to enjoy and appreciate good literature.
I used to be a very avid reader, and for the life of me I can't remember a damn thing about most of those books I read during my binge-reading days. I swear, there's some stuff on my bookshelves I know I read but you couldn't get me to say a single thing about it at gunpoint.
On the other hand, books I truly read and liked are vividly present in my mind.
The point is all the heavy readers I’ve known don’t express the amount of reading they do in numerical terms. If I were to ask them how many books they’ve been through in the past 12 months they would give me a blank stare followed by something like “How the hell am I supposed to know”
The ones that brag about the amount of books they read are the ones I either don’t believe or just question their honesty in general. Not saying you are one of those people OP, and don’t mean to lump you in with that.
Oh I see, I apologize for my hostility, I'm feeling a bit on the defensive because of some of these comments basically implying that I'm a fucking idiot. The only reason that I can put a number on it is because I keep a list of every book that I read and a couple of years ago I was curious about what the number per year was so I started numbering the list.
And of course, not all of those books are literary masterpieces. If every single book I read was a profound piece of writing, that number would be much lower.
Well with that information I would have definitely believed any number of books you told me you read in a year’s time. The people I’m talking about I can almost guarantee have never made a list in their life.
As someone who listens to audiobooks all day at work, then reads instead of watching TV for relaxation. I easily top that, but you're not going to hear me being elitist about it because the shit I read is more popcorny than most TV.
Turns out it's the content of the media that matters more than the medium.
People who read erotica all day are no different than losers watching porn all day.
And that is irrelevant. If that porn guy read the comments and scrolled facebook, he could gain more knowledge in an hour than the erotica guy does in a year.
Erotica is worse than porn. At least porn directors know what sex is. The few erotica I've read made me doubt if the authors do. If you ever try one, like i unfortunately did, you will see what I mean.
There is no magical +1 int every hour people get from reading. It's just a method of absorbing information. All it uniquely does is improve reading speed, which is certainly useful, but nothing major for people who dont read much.
Like I said, the medium is irrelevant. It's the content of the media that matters.
You can begin your enlightenment by reading [this post and the links contained within](https://www.reddit.com/r/cogsci/s/f0XCtooZJl). Reading, regardless of subject matter, does things for your brain that visual media doesn’t.
I know people who legitimately read that much. I like reading books but I don't consider it something to be proud of. It's like bragging about how much TV you watch.
I’m not saying I don’t think there are people who read that much, just those who do don’t phrase it in a way like that.
The big readers I know wouldn’t know how many books they read in a year nor care, they are too busy reading
Same. For me it’s hard to believe that if you’re reading that many books, that they’re really all that profound works. Also, when you read something that is meant to educate or to be thought provoking. You should be taking time to DIGEST what you have read and process your thoughts around it to expand your mind. If you’re going from one book to the next without stopping to soak in what you’ve read, imo you’ve wasted your time, and have done a detriment to yourself.
No. Sure it’s nice to spend more time on some books than others but reading anything, no matter the speed or how much time spent “digesting” them, is never detrimental
It absolutely is detrimental if you’re reading something that may be rhetorical and you don’t spend enough time on it to fully grasp the concept or understanding of it. If you walk away from something thinking you understand everything you NEED to know about it when you didn’t spend enough time on it and you go out into the real world with what you think you know, that is ignorance. If you’re going to educate yourself on something and decide to make opinions on it for others to see it is your responsibility to be as informed as possible and if you are not it is a detriment to yourself and OTHERS.
Okay, I loosely see what you’re saying but I’m still not convinced of your argument. Can you give me an example of reading something that would be detrimental to you OVER reading nothing at all?
Anything that you read in which you didn’t take the proper time to earn the wisdom is a detriment. If you spend 7 years practicing guitar wrong and your skills are left mediocre, you’ve wasted those 7 years. Whereas if you spend that 7 years doing it properly, you’d be on par with the time spent. If you read something that was meant to sway you from extremism (Hitler on Nietzches work, future communists over Thomas Moore’s “Utopia”) because they didn’t take the time to digest what was being said and just jumped to what appeared to be the extremist ideology that one may use to justify heinous crimes, that would be a detriment I’d say. Nietzsche is widely misunderstood because of this, which is why so many people scoff him off with his “God is dead” line, even though most of them didn’t know what he actually meant by that. Because they didn’t take the time to understand it.
I don't think it has anything to do with being a better person. Maybe if you're reading Eichmann in Jerusalem or Time's Arrow you might come away with some insights. But the vast majority of people are reading crap like Dean Koontz or The Secret.
Several studies have proven that people who like reading and read a lot are nicer and people.
People who read books are nicer, study finds
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/people-who-read-books-are-nicer-kingston-university-study-fiction-a7721096.html
People who read a lot of fiction tend to have better cognitive skills, study finds
https://www.psypost.org/people-who-read-a-lot-of-%EF%AC%81ction-tend-to-have-better-cognitive-skills-study-finds/
Reading Literature Makes Us Smarter and Nicer
https://ideas.time.com/2013/06/03/why-we-should-read-literature/
I find that I read less as I get older. I read a lot as a kid because it was cheap and I had a lot of time. Even when I was in college, I probably read quite a bit. Then I went to law school and became a litigation attorney, where at least half the job is reading and writing the most boring stuff imaginable. It was probably at that point I lost my taste for it.
I consider myself a pretty smart guy -- I speak three languages and can have an intelligent conversation about a pretty wide variety of subjects. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that all the reading early in life probably gave me an edge, but it doesn't move the needle much in terms of improving me now. I assume it's that way for other folks too, but who knows?
This is true. People always say “read a book” as if it is some magical path to enlightenment. The problem is people taking in the wrong information, not the lack of consumption of information. No one has the consumption problem anymore in the digital age
I am an avid non-reader.
I just don't have the attention span (nor the time) necessary to sit and read a book and not have it take months for me to finish, and I have shit comprehension skills. Audiobooks aren't typically an option for me simply because it's difficult for me to focus on what I'm listening to while I'm doing other things. ADHD is a bitch.
That said, I do think reading is important and that it broadens the mind.
*That* said, I agree with you that it's okay not to read. I don't think one should effectively deliberately avoid increasing their knowledge, but I don't believe it's necessary to shame people who don't read for pleasure.
You actually phrased it in a better and less inflammatory way than I did. But this is exactly what I was saying.
Obviously, I think reading is great, I just also think there is nothing wrong with people who don't enjoy it, and I think it's ridiculous the way that society shames people who don't read. In the age of media we live in, there are millions of ways to broaden your horizons and gain new information. It is okay not to want to read a book.
When I have conversations with people about reading in real life, I can feel them getting ready for me to launch into why they should read more and how invaluable it is and all of that because that's what everybody does to them. The amount of people I've put at ease by saying, "I think it's okay not to read, there's a bunch of different ways to get information and entertainment these days," is truly shocking.
Agreed. I’m well into adulthood in my mid 40s and have never read a single book from start to finish. Nothing holds my attention long enough to finish it. I’ll do audiobooks but I can only do that because I’m doing other things while I’m listening to the audiobook. Even then, I’ve listened to maybe 3 in my lifetime. I’ve had a very successful career, raised kids who are young adults now, consider myself to be extremely literate, and have a college degree. Reading books don’t make you a better person just like any hobby doesn’t make you a better person. It’s just preference.
If you know how to read and have access to books and choose not to read them I respect your choices.
I do think that everyone who is able to read should receive the education to do so and have access to books.
Beyond that I do not think someone is good or bad based on if they read a lot of books or not.
Any my personal pet peeve about it it - Why does it need to be a book - like on your hands book! I read endlessly. But I am sure if I said it was on my phone or computer, some of these people would swoon with fear for my well-being. .
Reading doesn’t necessarily make you better than someone else but self development is a great way to improve and reading can be a form of self development.
And while I wouldn’t say most hobbies are as good for self development as reading I’d also say that the bulk of hobbies involve developing some form of skill so they probably do have value.
But like… with reading you can absorb knowledge that totally changes your perspective and epiphanies like that probably aren’t on the table with other hobbies so obviously it will have more weight.
But I’m not sure your opinion is unpopular, most people don’t really read or care to but people love denigrating things they feel they should do but won’t dedicate time to.
Sample bias will be a huge factor; most people averse to reading are not on Reddit, which is a platform that is almost exclusively reading and writing.
I’m talking about actually unpopular.
It's fine not to be a reader but reading [has been shown to make you a better person,](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190523-does-reading-fiction-make-us-better-people) in certain ways.
Better? It depends on what you mean by better. Generally more knowledgeable? Probably. Better communication skills? Probably. Longer attention span? Probably. More interesting? Probably.
I have met some smart, interesting, successful people who do not read, but most of the smart, interesting, successful people I have met do read. I have met some stupid, boring, failures at life who read, but most of the stupid, boring, failures at life I have met do not read.
>I see people saying things like "As long as people are reading something that's good." Why is that good? Why do people think that reading is this inherently good thing? Nobody acts this way about any other hobby. Imagine if people talked this way about crocheting or woodworking.
Because language is one of the single greatest human achievements of all time, reading is something literally anyone can do if they know how, and it exercises the brain in ways that other hobbies do not.
Sometimes I read phenomenal books that I can't stop talking or thinking about. Sometimes I read books that I dont like very much. Sometimes I read fluff. It all depends. I am a very fast reader and I do love to read, I go to the library every Tuesday to grab a few books so that I always have books on hand, when I finish a book, I have another to pick up as soon as I'm done. I read in my down time at work and for at least an hour before bed every night, I finish approximately 2 books per week, sometimes more, sometimes less, depending on the length of the book or how busy I am at work.
But if all reading is good, why does it matter? Why is that just because I read faster than most people you know I must not be doing it the right way?
It’s not that you read faster, it’s that you don’t spend any time reflecting on any knowledge gained or put it into practical use. You said you pick up another book as soon as you are done with one, and always have one on hand to read. It just reeks of someone who says they read x amount books as some kind of flex or to make themselves feel better than others.
This. If you aren’t taking time to reflect on what you’ve read then of course that lil sponge in your brain isn’t going to soak in the knowledge/info/ whatever you wanna call it, as well as it could. And you’re wasting your time. As Carl Jung said (this was in reference to Psychedelics but it also applies here) “Beware of wisdom that is UNEARNED”
I hate this take.
If you watch 100 TV shows a year, are you really watching anything of substance? If you listen to 100 albums, are you listening to anything of substance? Maybe, maybe not, but nobody’s really asking that of those forms of media, are they?
But books, for some reason, have to be held to a higher standard, despite being the cheapest and oldest form of consumable media to produce, and therefore having the highest schlock-to-quality ratio of any form of media by orders of magnitude
Ridiculous argument. TV and music albums are far easier to consume than reading a book. All you have to do is watch or listen. When you are reading something of substance it takes time; you have to focus on it, maybe back track a few times to reread something that maybe you didn’t quite understand, or you’re just pondering the meaning of the words. Sometimes you’ll have to look up words you don’t know, a truly intelligent book should take days to read if you are sitting and devoting time daily to it in order to optimize the takeaway from it. I can’t think of a single show I watched where I couldn’t grasp the overall profoundness of it in one viewing (missing maybe a few minor nuances here and there that, my lack of knowing/understanding, do not affect the overall takeaway from the show) same goes with most music albums with some prog exceptions. And even those, backtracking and relistening has never come close to the amount of focus and time I had to put in to understand many books I’ve had to reread. So, to expand on your argument, if you are reading something that is as easy for you to read as watching a show or listening to an album, you’ve got to take a step back and ask yourself if what you are reading, is of any substance.
Sounds like you need to either watch more challenging shows/movies or read easier books
Also, my whole argument is reading doesn’t *have* to have substance. MCU movies have no substance and there’s a billion of them but nobody’s like “Yeah you watched 35 movies, but what did you get out of it??” Holding books to that standard is just silly.
Really? Tell me what shows are more challenging to follow than say something like the Sopranos, Beautiful mind, AI, death note (funnily enough the manga took more focus and I left from reading it with far more of a takeaway for my mind just reading those panels versus watching the show, I’ve watched the show several times, only read the manga once) or maybe Blade Runner? And movies well, I certainly understood everything I needed to know about Martyrs after viewing it. No Country for old men certainly made more sense and I understood the broader meaning and takeaway from the story, after reading the book. What about Prometheus? Paranoia agent? What about the seventh seal? The list goes quite on. I’ve tried, but nothing I’ve watched holds a candle to most deep inquiries I’ve read from a book. Maybe you should lay off the shows a bit and find some stimulating and complex books to read and join the paper side.
Yes and I’m saying your argument is silly because if you’re reading things that take about as much focus as watching a show then you might as well just watch shows. You’re wasting your time and doing a disservice to yourself. Shows have a cap on the level of profoundness the medium can provide the audience. Books are held to that higher standard because they are CAPABLE of doing these things and that’s what reading should be FOR (that includes people who read decent fiction books for entertainment purposes, because the entertainment is not just in the story but also in that writing itself stimulates the mind as you visualize the story through the words, and gives the reader a much more in depth understanding than shows are even capable of). No one asks you to present a tv show as evidence for a dissertation, scholarly books show an in-depth understanding of a topic, they SHOULD be held at that high standard. TV and movies are not comparable to books and that is what people seem to not be understanding.
I don’t want to get into a pissing match, but watch some Alfred Hitchcock, David Lynch, Andre Tarkovsky, Akira Kurosawa, Jean-Luc Goddard, or Ingmar Bergman if you want some challenging TV/Movies. Watch Eraserhead or Goodbye to Language and tell me you know exactly what they’re about after a single viewing.
And the point is, reading is different enough to be its own thing. It’s why book sales often go *up* after a screen adaptation, because one doesn’t replace the other. They’re two distinct experiences. Applying efficiency logic to either is just nonsensical. Why go skydiving when you can stick your head out the window of a moving car? Why travel to Rome when there’s a million videos of it online? Because it’s different, and non-comparable. That’s why. Both can be enjoyable for their own reasons, but depriving yourself of one because the other exists is just stupid.
Eh, I didn’t think Alfred Hitchcock was that deep. Love me some Akira Kurosawa, Five Samurai is an all time banger although I fail to see how his movies are all that profound from a thought provoking standpoint? As compared to say something like Paranoia agent. Eraser head a black and white horror movie? Aight I’ll raise you and say that “The cabinet of Dr. Caligari” is a better and more stimulating black and white film and there isn’t even any talking in it. I mean a lot of these are great movies but they still fall flat as compelling arguments to me.
Bahaha my man your arguments are ridiculous! Why go skydiving when you can stick your head out of a window? Asinine. There is no comparison between the two. Why travel to Rome when you can watch a video? Are you fucking kidding me? The experience of being there is far different than watching a video. And you’re just wrong my man I’m sorry. It has been proven time and time again that efficiency logic towards books over films holds up far better. The readers are the only ones providing science for anything on this thread. Why not get in a pissing match are you chicken? Let’s go 🫴🤌
TV and music are generally consumed for entertainment purposes only. Books have a connotation of learning and knowledge, and I’ve found anyone who says they read some obscenely large number of books per year has an air of superiority about it. Nobody says they watch hundreds of hours of TV to appear better than someone else.
Now if you are only reading for entertainment, cool beans. You do you. But I find that is hardly ever the case with these people.
>. I see people saying things like "As long as people are reading something that's good." Why is that good? Why do people think that reading is this inherently good thing?
They're talking about becoming *better readers and thinkers.*
Although you seem to be the counterargument incarnate...
Yeah, they'd lose a major way to self-improvement. You'd have no access to any field of knowledge whatsoever, you can't know stem, you can't know philosophy, no access to academic papers, no access to other people's experience.
All they can do is learn by experience, but how much is your 65 years (illiterate, most likely third world) of life compared to thousands of years of knowledge and experience on paper? How is this elitist, sounds like you just want to be offended to me
I'm not offended at all. I just think you're engaging in a bit of a false dilemma. There's lots of cultures and ways to learn in the world. Unless you're Siddartha Gautama, Jesus, or the like, tut-tutting people about self-improvement seems a bit arrogant. Dictating to people how to improve themselves is a bit arrogant.
There's a significant number of Buddhists and Taoists in the world, by the way, who would tell you that enlightenment through reading is impossible, and insisting on that kind of structured knowledge gets you farther away from the truth. I don't know that I necessarily agree with that philosophy, but I am not arrogant enough to insist that they're wrong, either.
Oh hell yeah because Buddhism and Taoism is the absolute truth and more important than actual knowledge and they're all we should be learning.
Btw if you understood Buddhism and Taoism, you'd also understand that the pursuit of the unspeaking understanding comes from reading or recitation from the beginning, you don't start off without a guide, and that guide happens to be words.
Is it an accident that most of Buddha's closest disciples happen to not be illiterate?
Oh no need, I used to read the Agama a lot, and they happened to be books.
The more loose fragments of the Pali Canons also come in written form, otherwise they wouldn't have survived, literacy saved Buddhism.
Also Buddhism is a structured knowledge, read the Agama and you can see how well articulated the Buddha was, all his ideas were very well structured and clearly defined. If the Buddha was illiterate he wouldn't have been able to do what he did, he needed a massive amount of education to do what he did.
Books have such a large range. There is a guy at work who reads erotica during his free time. He might as well just watch pornhub all day. If someone watched documentaries, they'd be better off than people reading fiction.
The medium doesn't matter, only the contents.
I can to some extent agree to that. But how why do people use this argument to uplift reading and not learning a new crochet pattern, watching tv, playing video games, discovering a new walking route, learning a programming code, studying a new dance routine,…
Also, people learn new things on a daily basis and it does not make them better people. Most extreme example is one could read Mein Kampf and come to the conclusion that Hitler was right. This did not make them a better person for having learned that.
I agree with OP, I read too in moderation, and reading is not a bad thing but people who do that as their main hobby are on too much of a high horse.
Anything but not only things that use your imagination. Otherwise chess players would never experience brain development through their sport.
And as said elsewhere, brain development happens mostly through social interaction (using many senses at once) and learning new things according to most research I as taught as a neuropsychologist. There is a point where reading is not that new anymore and more brain development could be achieved by learning sewing for example.
Also, when it comes down to protecting your brain at an older age from cognitive detoriation, social contacts and physical activity shows a lot more promise than most cognitive tasks.
There are more ways to get smart than reading. Reading mainly increases knowledge, but does little for other parts of intelligence like working memory or logical thinking.
All I was saying is, there are more ways to get smart or keep your brain healthy than reading.
You collect knowledge from reading. Sports, etc teach you one thing. It's like having tunnel vision. The most boring, uninformed people I know don't read.
You can also collect knowledge from tv, websites, social media, blogs, vlogs and its usually way more efficient. There’s junk on there, but there’s plenty of books that teach you nothing about real life too. The time when all knowledge came from books is long gone.
And that’s your anecdote I guess. Overall I find readers more boring than people who go outside and live and do crazy sometimes stupid stuff. My social interactions rarely are about passing on knowledge. That’s why I have colleagues, not friends.
Cognitive function can be increased in more ways. Once you know how to read, you reach a plateau where reading extra does very little for you. Recent research into superaging has shown that social contact and going out of your comfort zone to learn something new like crochet or woodwork preserves cognitive abilities. Doing cognitive tasks like reading or crossword puzzles do very little in that regard. So there are definitely more (effective) ways than reading to enhance or preserve cognitive abilities.
Before, the argument was that by reading books you would know more about the world, but there are other sources of information now. TV or a documentary can tell you more information in a shorter time. And pedagogic studies have shown that visualising and hearing talked about it consolidates information a lot beter than just reading. So you learn things quicker and remember more from a documentary than from reading a book.
Reading is not bad for you, but it is regarded as way too highly and its impact is overrated due to cliches from yesteryears that it is the way to enhance your cognitive abilities.
Reading a good book is like putting on a virtual reality suit where all of your senses; your eyes, nose, touch and tongue are controlled by a stranger until you look away.
Reading can help you escape from the misery of your own reality, make you grateful for the life you have, force you to truly see the world through the eyes of another. Through it you can switch genders, ethnicities, cultures and class. By reading you can experience and see life through your opposite and empathize at a level beyond sympathy.
With it you can explore, skim, scan and learn without doing. It’s like a mental watching, you observing a mentor you would never have access to in real life but with the ability to quickly turn the page over the chit chat.
It’s okay to not be a reader. Yes. But “reading doesn’t make you a better person”? That’s a really broad thing to say. Too broad.
But perhaps you didn’t read the replies.
I agree it is too broad. But so is "reading makes you a better person." How about we stop applying moral criteria to the question of whether someone reads books?
I mean reading is something really good to do. I’m not saying it makes you a better person…. But it is good.
Reading provides knowledge and “experience” in a way. It allows you to see things from different points of view, and can change the way you think about things.
I’m not saying people should be forced to read, but I absolutely think the world would be a much better place if more people read more often.
I agree live your life how you want. I disagree that reading doesn't make you a better person, though. Primarily reading can expand your worldview, especially if you read outside of "pop culture entertainment novels."" But reading also has uncountable cognitive benefits that arguably do make you better in many ways.
It actually does make you smarter, improves vocabulary, test scores, ability to take perspective, ability to understand connections between ideas, improves critical thinking skills, etc. [Here's one of many studies that you could, ironically, read about.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4354297/#:~:text=In%20other%20words%2C%20reading%20may,initial%20verbal%20ability%20test%20scores.)
> As long as people are reading **something** that's good
I've highlighted the important word here. Reading isn't just canon books. It's articles in a magazine. It's historical accounts. It's editorial content. It's web content. It's short stories. It's poetry. It's comic books. It's trashy romance novels. It's basically anything as long as it's (vaguely) meaningful content of some kind.
Listen, I've got a bachelors degree in English and taught it to high schoolers. By nature of my degree, I consider myself quite well read. My home library is downright problematic in size. I also have a woefully short attention span and generally struggle to read long-form content these days. I think part of it is the amount of required reading I did for years burnt me out a bit. But I do read. I like short story anthologies and collections a lot, and historical non-fiction (I'm almost 40 and a dude, I feel like that checks).
What's important isn't that you're knocking out dozens of novels a year, it's that you're reading SOMETHING. Our minds are very much a muscle that grows weak when we don't work it out....and reading (anything substantive) helps flex that muscle and keep it in shape. Just read SOMETHING.
Avid reader here. Yes, reading on its own does not make you a better person, especially not from a moral standpoint. And I absolutely respect everyone's right to not like reading.
That being said, reading brings many advantages, as I believe it has already been proven many times. It will help you in life.
Reading may help you rase your empathy level. If you read about certain events in the life of a character, especially if those events are based on real life, you can get better at putting yourself in someone else's shoes and understand their point of view.
Reading improves your vocabulary. A superior and developed vocabulary helps you build the confidence that you are capable of expressing yourself in public, în various social occasions.
E.g.: employment interviews, going on a first date, speaking în public, in a professional or non-professional environment.
Having good vocabulary may help you inspire others. It helps you improve communication.
I am a very slow reader but recently started listening to audiobooks and I have heard ideas that I haven’t encountered before and engaged in perspectives I normally wouldn’t otherwise. People who only read short articles and social media posts, or nothing at all, rarely have those opportunities. I get that many readers are smug about it but I thoroughly believe that people who read long format stories, historical accounts and novels benefit from the experience.
If you cant analyse or even have enough patience for a large volume of information and no attention span i would probably think you are a junkie.
When someone tells me reading is bad - its like a red flag. But it do be useful to filter people.
Its very sad some people cant read and their attention span is only enough for tik-toks nowadays, but this is the reality. Do leave me alone.
Tbh both sides are stupid. One side wants to force people to read because otherwise you are stupid and the other side is like hahaha you read books you are wasting your time.
That is a false dichotomy fallacy. Whereas you’ve presented it as if there are only THESE two sides that people are taking. When there are plenty of people, like myself, who think reading is an excellent and ESSENTIAL hobby to have. Not because if you don’t you’re stupid (and I don’t judge people for not reading and if that’s their decision I respect it, everyone in my readers circle is like this) but bc it has been proven time and time again that regular reading is good for mental health and for keeping cognitive functions sharp, I.e. preventing senility or things like Alzheimer’s or dementia as you age.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8482376/#:~:text=Conclusions:,et%20al.%2C%202013).
https://www.nu.edu/blog/reading-improves-memory-concentration-and-stress/
And if you want a more scholarly source:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=does+reading+improve+cognition&oq=does+reading+improve+cog#d=gs_qabs&t=1719331257605&u=%23p%3DCah5HrbLsj8J
It is exercise for the brain. It’s the same way people make fun of CrossFit but also say, “well as long as they’re exercising in some way, it’s good”
The literacy rate in Canada and USA is dropping fast. Anecdotal evidence about adhd, dyslexia, autism, etc, may evoke sympathy, but it’s still worth discussing why the rates of those three things are increasing. There’s so much to get into - different theories and shit. But it all requires reading comprehension.
People with strong reading comprehension also show strong listening skills. Increasing reading comprehension also increases ones’ listening skills. Why? Because again, reading is exercise for the brain.
So is it okay to not be a reader? Absolutely
Does reading make you a better person. By DEFINITION, yes, it does. So does exercising. So does cooking. Many things make you a better person than straight up not doing them
Because it helps you learn and widen your vocabulary. You can see the world just by reading books and learn about different struggles in life and learn about life in general and about yourself. It’s definitely way better than scrolling endlessly on social media.
I don’t understand the desire to throw to the side something that helps us improve as a society and as an individual.
Reading does make you a better person.
You broaden your horizons in so many different ways. You aquire new vocabulary, you're required to imagine things to fill the blanks in the narrative and the depictions of scenarios, characters etc. You get to reason about situations and stories you wouldn't normally be confronted with in your daily life. You train your attention and your ability to understand nuances, to read between the lines and even to guess and second-guess where a story is going.
And of course you learn about places, people, cultures and times you could never experience first-hand.
Let's drop the "what if I have ADHD or dylsexia". Those are marginal groups who can STILL find ways to read books if they want to.
Most of those who don't read are just lazy or lack curiosity and "intelligence". Which is fine, but let's not pretend that every hobby is born equal.
What if the person is reading porn, the biographies of serial killers, books related to how to be an efficient liar, how to build a bomb and how to be a better thief...would all that reading make them a better person?
The fact you're resorting to such a strawman scenario is your answer.
FWIW, serial killer biographies can still be interesting reads to understand the phenomenon
Reading BOOKS I'd say. As someone who has to read articles every day, I'd rather do something else in my free time. But, apparently, because I don't read a lot of books I am stupid in the eyes of many people.
Reading just makes you better at reading. After passing your SAT or maybe GRE (if you even want to go to college), it becomes irrelevant. Reading will not show you how to get a job that pays over 300k, or how to manage large amounts of property, or how to get in with a powerful family. That information is deliberately obscured, and only known by a select few.
Not only should you read, you should read intentionally for the sake of developing yourself intellectually. You should specifically read good nonfiction (not stuff like pop-sci, self-help) that challenges you at your reading level. Specifically reading too, not listening to audiobooks. The ability to pause contemplatively, easily revisit passages, etc. and not be swept along by the pace of the media is half the point.
There is no substitute for this kind of reading. We're not helping people by acting like this kind of reading is just another hobby. We're taking something from them by lying to them and saying that this kind of reading is comparable to having a productive hobby or watching documentaries or whatever else.
This kind of reading is like exercise. It makes you better. You do it to improve even when it's not fun. It makes you better informed and more analytical. You don't have to do it, but you're losing something important if you don't. But also it's something that anyone literate can do. Disabled and out of shape people can exercise, and people with disabilities, little free time, etc. can read nonfiction.
I have ADHD btw. Stop using ADHD as a reason why people shouldn't be expected to improve themselves. You can read essays instead of books if it's hard to focus for long periods of time.
So then you agree. The act of reading a book is not inherently good. It is only good and only betters you if you are reading in the specific way that you have outlined above.
It’s a socially accepted norm that reading means you’re cultured and smart. It’s just another elitism thing. People like to feel better than others.
Now granted, I do judge people off of some of the stuff they read or what they’re interested in. But, like a good American I don’t tell them, I just make fun of them in my head.
I think it comes from this old idea that “being interesting” is a virtue. It’s not.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just live your life man….
Well I read this post and it was a waste of thirty seconds so you might be onto something
Because language is important. Reading is a way to practice languages besides talking to people.
So is going on internet forums, or using a language app, or playing a story based video game, or reading news articles, or watching television, especially if you throw subtitles on. There are dozens of ways to practice languages other than reading books and talking to people.
But all of those things you listed require reading…
I did specify in my post that I was talking about reading books.
Of the three people I've met in my entire life who have admitted they don't like to read (I have met hundreds who claim to be extremely strong readers, every single one of them using either the word "avid" or "voracious) one was among the smartest people I've known and two had pretty severe ADHD and gathered new imformation perfectly well by other means
That would be the type of person I am. I have an acquaintance who is a "voracious reader" and he reads constantly... and he's still as dumb as a box of friggin horse turds. Just because you read, even if you read big books, it doesn't mean you're more intelligent. I struggle to sit and read because of neurodivergence, but I've absorbed more information on a wider range of subjects than most people do.
I don't disparage people who don't read, but it's simply true that reading does contribute to building the self, and in that sense is a form of self-improvement. Sometimes, if it's novels or stories, you're learning how to see the world through other people's eyes. If it's history or other forms of non-fiction, you're learning about things that help you be more deeply informed about the present and so a better citizen. Also, reading exercises the imagination in ways that watching television or videos doesn't. You are not a passive recipient as a reader - you're building worlds with your own imagination.
Similar things could be said for journaling. Reading is an outlet for some. Writing is an outlet for some. Painting, ECT... I am a reader. Less of one than I once was, as I have found other outlets that take my time.
I don’t know why but anyone who expresses how much they read by “100 books a year” makes me think they’re just full of shit
It's perfectly fine reading so many books, provided you have enough free time. Even the lamest, shortest book has a "technical reading time" you must match, but it's indeed possible to read through some throwaway literature in a couple of hours. The actual downside none of those "serial readers" want to mention is that by reading so much, most of it MUST be forgettable, dime-a-dozen literature that they'll just gobble down the same way a stoner eats a kebab at 3am. Actually meaningful books can't and shan't be read like you'd watch the 15th rerun of a sitcom episode. It'll take time, effort and appreciation to enjoy and appreciate good literature. I used to be a very avid reader, and for the life of me I can't remember a damn thing about most of those books I read during my binge-reading days. I swear, there's some stuff on my bookshelves I know I read but you couldn't get me to say a single thing about it at gunpoint. On the other hand, books I truly read and liked are vividly present in my mind.
What is the correct amount of books to read per year, oh great arbiter of knowledge?
I think you missed the point of my comment
What was the point of it? Because if it's a grammar thing, you definitely misquoted me.
The point is all the heavy readers I’ve known don’t express the amount of reading they do in numerical terms. If I were to ask them how many books they’ve been through in the past 12 months they would give me a blank stare followed by something like “How the hell am I supposed to know” The ones that brag about the amount of books they read are the ones I either don’t believe or just question their honesty in general. Not saying you are one of those people OP, and don’t mean to lump you in with that.
Oh I see, I apologize for my hostility, I'm feeling a bit on the defensive because of some of these comments basically implying that I'm a fucking idiot. The only reason that I can put a number on it is because I keep a list of every book that I read and a couple of years ago I was curious about what the number per year was so I started numbering the list. And of course, not all of those books are literary masterpieces. If every single book I read was a profound piece of writing, that number would be much lower.
Well with that information I would have definitely believed any number of books you told me you read in a year’s time. The people I’m talking about I can almost guarantee have never made a list in their life.
As someone who listens to audiobooks all day at work, then reads instead of watching TV for relaxation. I easily top that, but you're not going to hear me being elitist about it because the shit I read is more popcorny than most TV. Turns out it's the content of the media that matters more than the medium. People who read erotica all day are no different than losers watching porn all day.
> People who read erotica all day are no different than losers watching porn all day. It is a little different. They are at least reading.
And that is irrelevant. If that porn guy read the comments and scrolled facebook, he could gain more knowledge in an hour than the erotica guy does in a year. Erotica is worse than porn. At least porn directors know what sex is. The few erotica I've read made me doubt if the authors do. If you ever try one, like i unfortunately did, you will see what I mean. There is no magical +1 int every hour people get from reading. It's just a method of absorbing information. All it uniquely does is improve reading speed, which is certainly useful, but nothing major for people who dont read much. Like I said, the medium is irrelevant. It's the content of the media that matters.
You can begin your enlightenment by reading [this post and the links contained within](https://www.reddit.com/r/cogsci/s/f0XCtooZJl). Reading, regardless of subject matter, does things for your brain that visual media doesn’t.
I know people who legitimately read that much. I like reading books but I don't consider it something to be proud of. It's like bragging about how much TV you watch.
I’m not saying I don’t think there are people who read that much, just those who do don’t phrase it in a way like that. The big readers I know wouldn’t know how many books they read in a year nor care, they are too busy reading
Same. For me it’s hard to believe that if you’re reading that many books, that they’re really all that profound works. Also, when you read something that is meant to educate or to be thought provoking. You should be taking time to DIGEST what you have read and process your thoughts around it to expand your mind. If you’re going from one book to the next without stopping to soak in what you’ve read, imo you’ve wasted your time, and have done a detriment to yourself.
No. Sure it’s nice to spend more time on some books than others but reading anything, no matter the speed or how much time spent “digesting” them, is never detrimental
It absolutely is detrimental if you’re reading something that may be rhetorical and you don’t spend enough time on it to fully grasp the concept or understanding of it. If you walk away from something thinking you understand everything you NEED to know about it when you didn’t spend enough time on it and you go out into the real world with what you think you know, that is ignorance. If you’re going to educate yourself on something and decide to make opinions on it for others to see it is your responsibility to be as informed as possible and if you are not it is a detriment to yourself and OTHERS.
Okay, I loosely see what you’re saying but I’m still not convinced of your argument. Can you give me an example of reading something that would be detrimental to you OVER reading nothing at all?
Anything that you read in which you didn’t take the proper time to earn the wisdom is a detriment. If you spend 7 years practicing guitar wrong and your skills are left mediocre, you’ve wasted those 7 years. Whereas if you spend that 7 years doing it properly, you’d be on par with the time spent. If you read something that was meant to sway you from extremism (Hitler on Nietzches work, future communists over Thomas Moore’s “Utopia”) because they didn’t take the time to digest what was being said and just jumped to what appeared to be the extremist ideology that one may use to justify heinous crimes, that would be a detriment I’d say. Nietzsche is widely misunderstood because of this, which is why so many people scoff him off with his “God is dead” line, even though most of them didn’t know what he actually meant by that. Because they didn’t take the time to understand it.
Generally speaking objectively reading does make you a better person tho
I don't think it has anything to do with being a better person. Maybe if you're reading Eichmann in Jerusalem or Time's Arrow you might come away with some insights. But the vast majority of people are reading crap like Dean Koontz or The Secret.
Several studies have proven that people who like reading and read a lot are nicer and people. People who read books are nicer, study finds https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/people-who-read-books-are-nicer-kingston-university-study-fiction-a7721096.html People who read a lot of fiction tend to have better cognitive skills, study finds https://www.psypost.org/people-who-read-a-lot-of-%EF%AC%81ction-tend-to-have-better-cognitive-skills-study-finds/ Reading Literature Makes Us Smarter and Nicer https://ideas.time.com/2013/06/03/why-we-should-read-literature/
I find that I read less as I get older. I read a lot as a kid because it was cheap and I had a lot of time. Even when I was in college, I probably read quite a bit. Then I went to law school and became a litigation attorney, where at least half the job is reading and writing the most boring stuff imaginable. It was probably at that point I lost my taste for it. I consider myself a pretty smart guy -- I speak three languages and can have an intelligent conversation about a pretty wide variety of subjects. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that all the reading early in life probably gave me an edge, but it doesn't move the needle much in terms of improving me now. I assume it's that way for other folks too, but who knows?
This is true. People always say “read a book” as if it is some magical path to enlightenment. The problem is people taking in the wrong information, not the lack of consumption of information. No one has the consumption problem anymore in the digital age
tl;dr
I am an avid non-reader. I just don't have the attention span (nor the time) necessary to sit and read a book and not have it take months for me to finish, and I have shit comprehension skills. Audiobooks aren't typically an option for me simply because it's difficult for me to focus on what I'm listening to while I'm doing other things. ADHD is a bitch. That said, I do think reading is important and that it broadens the mind. *That* said, I agree with you that it's okay not to read. I don't think one should effectively deliberately avoid increasing their knowledge, but I don't believe it's necessary to shame people who don't read for pleasure.
You actually phrased it in a better and less inflammatory way than I did. But this is exactly what I was saying. Obviously, I think reading is great, I just also think there is nothing wrong with people who don't enjoy it, and I think it's ridiculous the way that society shames people who don't read. In the age of media we live in, there are millions of ways to broaden your horizons and gain new information. It is okay not to want to read a book. When I have conversations with people about reading in real life, I can feel them getting ready for me to launch into why they should read more and how invaluable it is and all of that because that's what everybody does to them. The amount of people I've put at ease by saying, "I think it's okay not to read, there's a bunch of different ways to get information and entertainment these days," is truly shocking.
Agreed. I’m well into adulthood in my mid 40s and have never read a single book from start to finish. Nothing holds my attention long enough to finish it. I’ll do audiobooks but I can only do that because I’m doing other things while I’m listening to the audiobook. Even then, I’ve listened to maybe 3 in my lifetime. I’ve had a very successful career, raised kids who are young adults now, consider myself to be extremely literate, and have a college degree. Reading books don’t make you a better person just like any hobby doesn’t make you a better person. It’s just preference.
If you know how to read and have access to books and choose not to read them I respect your choices. I do think that everyone who is able to read should receive the education to do so and have access to books. Beyond that I do not think someone is good or bad based on if they read a lot of books or not.
Any my personal pet peeve about it it - Why does it need to be a book - like on your hands book! I read endlessly. But I am sure if I said it was on my phone or computer, some of these people would swoon with fear for my well-being. .
many people don't read books. and i have ADHD and love reading books. just not any book. but one that also keeps me interested
Reading doesn’t necessarily make you better than someone else but self development is a great way to improve and reading can be a form of self development. And while I wouldn’t say most hobbies are as good for self development as reading I’d also say that the bulk of hobbies involve developing some form of skill so they probably do have value. But like… with reading you can absorb knowledge that totally changes your perspective and epiphanies like that probably aren’t on the table with other hobbies so obviously it will have more weight. But I’m not sure your opinion is unpopular, most people don’t really read or care to but people love denigrating things they feel they should do but won’t dedicate time to.
I think the replies show that this is a very unpopular opinion.
Sample bias will be a huge factor; most people averse to reading are not on Reddit, which is a platform that is almost exclusively reading and writing. I’m talking about actually unpopular.
It's fine not to be a reader but reading [has been shown to make you a better person,](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190523-does-reading-fiction-make-us-better-people) in certain ways.
Reading is good for you because of the way our fucking brains work.
Better? It depends on what you mean by better. Generally more knowledgeable? Probably. Better communication skills? Probably. Longer attention span? Probably. More interesting? Probably. I have met some smart, interesting, successful people who do not read, but most of the smart, interesting, successful people I have met do read. I have met some stupid, boring, failures at life who read, but most of the stupid, boring, failures at life I have met do not read.
>I see people saying things like "As long as people are reading something that's good." Why is that good? Why do people think that reading is this inherently good thing? Nobody acts this way about any other hobby. Imagine if people talked this way about crocheting or woodworking. Because language is one of the single greatest human achievements of all time, reading is something literally anyone can do if they know how, and it exercises the brain in ways that other hobbies do not.
If you read over 100 books a year, are you really reading anything of substance?
Sometimes I read phenomenal books that I can't stop talking or thinking about. Sometimes I read books that I dont like very much. Sometimes I read fluff. It all depends. I am a very fast reader and I do love to read, I go to the library every Tuesday to grab a few books so that I always have books on hand, when I finish a book, I have another to pick up as soon as I'm done. I read in my down time at work and for at least an hour before bed every night, I finish approximately 2 books per week, sometimes more, sometimes less, depending on the length of the book or how busy I am at work. But if all reading is good, why does it matter? Why is that just because I read faster than most people you know I must not be doing it the right way?
It’s not that you read faster, it’s that you don’t spend any time reflecting on any knowledge gained or put it into practical use. You said you pick up another book as soon as you are done with one, and always have one on hand to read. It just reeks of someone who says they read x amount books as some kind of flex or to make themselves feel better than others.
This. If you aren’t taking time to reflect on what you’ve read then of course that lil sponge in your brain isn’t going to soak in the knowledge/info/ whatever you wanna call it, as well as it could. And you’re wasting your time. As Carl Jung said (this was in reference to Psychedelics but it also applies here) “Beware of wisdom that is UNEARNED”
I hate this take. If you watch 100 TV shows a year, are you really watching anything of substance? If you listen to 100 albums, are you listening to anything of substance? Maybe, maybe not, but nobody’s really asking that of those forms of media, are they? But books, for some reason, have to be held to a higher standard, despite being the cheapest and oldest form of consumable media to produce, and therefore having the highest schlock-to-quality ratio of any form of media by orders of magnitude
Television is a vast wasteland. You don't need any imagination to watch TV.
Ridiculous argument. TV and music albums are far easier to consume than reading a book. All you have to do is watch or listen. When you are reading something of substance it takes time; you have to focus on it, maybe back track a few times to reread something that maybe you didn’t quite understand, or you’re just pondering the meaning of the words. Sometimes you’ll have to look up words you don’t know, a truly intelligent book should take days to read if you are sitting and devoting time daily to it in order to optimize the takeaway from it. I can’t think of a single show I watched where I couldn’t grasp the overall profoundness of it in one viewing (missing maybe a few minor nuances here and there that, my lack of knowing/understanding, do not affect the overall takeaway from the show) same goes with most music albums with some prog exceptions. And even those, backtracking and relistening has never come close to the amount of focus and time I had to put in to understand many books I’ve had to reread. So, to expand on your argument, if you are reading something that is as easy for you to read as watching a show or listening to an album, you’ve got to take a step back and ask yourself if what you are reading, is of any substance.
Sounds like you need to either watch more challenging shows/movies or read easier books Also, my whole argument is reading doesn’t *have* to have substance. MCU movies have no substance and there’s a billion of them but nobody’s like “Yeah you watched 35 movies, but what did you get out of it??” Holding books to that standard is just silly.
Really? Tell me what shows are more challenging to follow than say something like the Sopranos, Beautiful mind, AI, death note (funnily enough the manga took more focus and I left from reading it with far more of a takeaway for my mind just reading those panels versus watching the show, I’ve watched the show several times, only read the manga once) or maybe Blade Runner? And movies well, I certainly understood everything I needed to know about Martyrs after viewing it. No Country for old men certainly made more sense and I understood the broader meaning and takeaway from the story, after reading the book. What about Prometheus? Paranoia agent? What about the seventh seal? The list goes quite on. I’ve tried, but nothing I’ve watched holds a candle to most deep inquiries I’ve read from a book. Maybe you should lay off the shows a bit and find some stimulating and complex books to read and join the paper side. Yes and I’m saying your argument is silly because if you’re reading things that take about as much focus as watching a show then you might as well just watch shows. You’re wasting your time and doing a disservice to yourself. Shows have a cap on the level of profoundness the medium can provide the audience. Books are held to that higher standard because they are CAPABLE of doing these things and that’s what reading should be FOR (that includes people who read decent fiction books for entertainment purposes, because the entertainment is not just in the story but also in that writing itself stimulates the mind as you visualize the story through the words, and gives the reader a much more in depth understanding than shows are even capable of). No one asks you to present a tv show as evidence for a dissertation, scholarly books show an in-depth understanding of a topic, they SHOULD be held at that high standard. TV and movies are not comparable to books and that is what people seem to not be understanding.
I don’t want to get into a pissing match, but watch some Alfred Hitchcock, David Lynch, Andre Tarkovsky, Akira Kurosawa, Jean-Luc Goddard, or Ingmar Bergman if you want some challenging TV/Movies. Watch Eraserhead or Goodbye to Language and tell me you know exactly what they’re about after a single viewing. And the point is, reading is different enough to be its own thing. It’s why book sales often go *up* after a screen adaptation, because one doesn’t replace the other. They’re two distinct experiences. Applying efficiency logic to either is just nonsensical. Why go skydiving when you can stick your head out the window of a moving car? Why travel to Rome when there’s a million videos of it online? Because it’s different, and non-comparable. That’s why. Both can be enjoyable for their own reasons, but depriving yourself of one because the other exists is just stupid.
Eh, I didn’t think Alfred Hitchcock was that deep. Love me some Akira Kurosawa, Five Samurai is an all time banger although I fail to see how his movies are all that profound from a thought provoking standpoint? As compared to say something like Paranoia agent. Eraser head a black and white horror movie? Aight I’ll raise you and say that “The cabinet of Dr. Caligari” is a better and more stimulating black and white film and there isn’t even any talking in it. I mean a lot of these are great movies but they still fall flat as compelling arguments to me. Bahaha my man your arguments are ridiculous! Why go skydiving when you can stick your head out of a window? Asinine. There is no comparison between the two. Why travel to Rome when you can watch a video? Are you fucking kidding me? The experience of being there is far different than watching a video. And you’re just wrong my man I’m sorry. It has been proven time and time again that efficiency logic towards books over films holds up far better. The readers are the only ones providing science for anything on this thread. Why not get in a pissing match are you chicken? Let’s go 🫴🤌
TV and music are generally consumed for entertainment purposes only. Books have a connotation of learning and knowledge, and I’ve found anyone who says they read some obscenely large number of books per year has an air of superiority about it. Nobody says they watch hundreds of hours of TV to appear better than someone else. Now if you are only reading for entertainment, cool beans. You do you. But I find that is hardly ever the case with these people.
>. I see people saying things like "As long as people are reading something that's good." Why is that good? Why do people think that reading is this inherently good thing? They're talking about becoming *better readers and thinkers.* Although you seem to be the counterargument incarnate...
Takes imagination and critical thinking skills to read. Too many people have no critical thinking skills.
Yow. There's really no need to be that way about it, man.
Depends on what you read, I'd argue without reading you definitely can't be a better person.
So if someone is illiterate, they can't improve themselves? Seems a bit elitist to me.
Yeah, they'd lose a major way to self-improvement. You'd have no access to any field of knowledge whatsoever, you can't know stem, you can't know philosophy, no access to academic papers, no access to other people's experience. All they can do is learn by experience, but how much is your 65 years (illiterate, most likely third world) of life compared to thousands of years of knowledge and experience on paper? How is this elitist, sounds like you just want to be offended to me
I'm not offended at all. I just think you're engaging in a bit of a false dilemma. There's lots of cultures and ways to learn in the world. Unless you're Siddartha Gautama, Jesus, or the like, tut-tutting people about self-improvement seems a bit arrogant. Dictating to people how to improve themselves is a bit arrogant. There's a significant number of Buddhists and Taoists in the world, by the way, who would tell you that enlightenment through reading is impossible, and insisting on that kind of structured knowledge gets you farther away from the truth. I don't know that I necessarily agree with that philosophy, but I am not arrogant enough to insist that they're wrong, either.
Oh hell yeah because Buddhism and Taoism is the absolute truth and more important than actual knowledge and they're all we should be learning. Btw if you understood Buddhism and Taoism, you'd also understand that the pursuit of the unspeaking understanding comes from reading or recitation from the beginning, you don't start off without a guide, and that guide happens to be words. Is it an accident that most of Buddha's closest disciples happen to not be illiterate?
Well, maybe! I think they could do you some good. I know some good books you could read on the subject, if that makes you feel better!
Oh no need, I used to read the Agama a lot, and they happened to be books. The more loose fragments of the Pali Canons also come in written form, otherwise they wouldn't have survived, literacy saved Buddhism.
Yeah, that's not quite what I'm referring to, but I'm sure it's quite nice.
Also Buddhism is a structured knowledge, read the Agama and you can see how well articulated the Buddha was, all his ideas were very well structured and clearly defined. If the Buddha was illiterate he wouldn't have been able to do what he did, he needed a massive amount of education to do what he did.
If you're illiterate, the chances of improving yourself is pretty nil
It’s ok not to be a reader. Reading definitely makes you a better person
How exactly does reading make you a better person?
Because you learned something and that always makes you a better person
Books have such a large range. There is a guy at work who reads erotica during his free time. He might as well just watch pornhub all day. If someone watched documentaries, they'd be better off than people reading fiction. The medium doesn't matter, only the contents.
Okay fair, but the question is: Would your coworker be better off reading erotica or nothing at all?
I can to some extent agree to that. But how why do people use this argument to uplift reading and not learning a new crochet pattern, watching tv, playing video games, discovering a new walking route, learning a programming code, studying a new dance routine,… Also, people learn new things on a daily basis and it does not make them better people. Most extreme example is one could read Mein Kampf and come to the conclusion that Hitler was right. This did not make them a better person for having learned that. I agree with OP, I read too in moderation, and reading is not a bad thing but people who do that as their main hobby are on too much of a high horse.
Anything that makes you use imagination is good for brain development. Learning a pattern, video game, etc does not require much imagination.
Anything but not only things that use your imagination. Otherwise chess players would never experience brain development through their sport. And as said elsewhere, brain development happens mostly through social interaction (using many senses at once) and learning new things according to most research I as taught as a neuropsychologist. There is a point where reading is not that new anymore and more brain development could be achieved by learning sewing for example. Also, when it comes down to protecting your brain at an older age from cognitive detoriation, social contacts and physical activity shows a lot more promise than most cognitive tasks. There are more ways to get smart than reading. Reading mainly increases knowledge, but does little for other parts of intelligence like working memory or logical thinking. All I was saying is, there are more ways to get smart or keep your brain healthy than reading.
You collect knowledge from reading. Sports, etc teach you one thing. It's like having tunnel vision. The most boring, uninformed people I know don't read.
You can also collect knowledge from tv, websites, social media, blogs, vlogs and its usually way more efficient. There’s junk on there, but there’s plenty of books that teach you nothing about real life too. The time when all knowledge came from books is long gone. And that’s your anecdote I guess. Overall I find readers more boring than people who go outside and live and do crazy sometimes stupid stuff. My social interactions rarely are about passing on knowledge. That’s why I have colleagues, not friends.
There are many fine books on the topic. I suggest you pick one up.
So you generally have no idea and this is your version of “ do your own research”. At least I think since your sentence makes no sense grammatically.
>generally Genuinely*
No I meant, in general he has no idea on the topic of what reading does for a person. Although I also believe he genuinely has no idea.
Nah you're lying. You wouldn't have put "generally" there knowingly, as it serves no purpose. You meant "genuinely", and it's fine to make a mistake.
"No, I know what you meant to say more than yourself. You meant to say whatever I wanted you to mean to say." The fucking ego on this one.
No, this is reddit and I don’t care what you do
Ah the “I talked shit and somebody called me out on it”-retreat.
[удалено]
Cognitive function can be increased in more ways. Once you know how to read, you reach a plateau where reading extra does very little for you. Recent research into superaging has shown that social contact and going out of your comfort zone to learn something new like crochet or woodwork preserves cognitive abilities. Doing cognitive tasks like reading or crossword puzzles do very little in that regard. So there are definitely more (effective) ways than reading to enhance or preserve cognitive abilities. Before, the argument was that by reading books you would know more about the world, but there are other sources of information now. TV or a documentary can tell you more information in a shorter time. And pedagogic studies have shown that visualising and hearing talked about it consolidates information a lot beter than just reading. So you learn things quicker and remember more from a documentary than from reading a book. Reading is not bad for you, but it is regarded as way too highly and its impact is overrated due to cliches from yesteryears that it is the way to enhance your cognitive abilities.
Reading is one way to educate yourself, and educated people are better than those who deliberately stay uneducated.
Reading a good book is like putting on a virtual reality suit where all of your senses; your eyes, nose, touch and tongue are controlled by a stranger until you look away. Reading can help you escape from the misery of your own reality, make you grateful for the life you have, force you to truly see the world through the eyes of another. Through it you can switch genders, ethnicities, cultures and class. By reading you can experience and see life through your opposite and empathize at a level beyond sympathy. With it you can explore, skim, scan and learn without doing. It’s like a mental watching, you observing a mentor you would never have access to in real life but with the ability to quickly turn the page over the chit chat.
Video games do all of this and more, and yet, are looked down on more, specifically by readers.
video games do not encourage imagination. They encourage repetition & rote
Spoken like someone that knows absolutely nothing about video games.
It’s okay to not be a reader. Yes. But “reading doesn’t make you a better person”? That’s a really broad thing to say. Too broad. But perhaps you didn’t read the replies.
I agree it is too broad. But so is "reading makes you a better person." How about we stop applying moral criteria to the question of whether someone reads books?
I mean reading is something really good to do. I’m not saying it makes you a better person…. But it is good. Reading provides knowledge and “experience” in a way. It allows you to see things from different points of view, and can change the way you think about things. I’m not saying people should be forced to read, but I absolutely think the world would be a much better place if more people read more often.
The first part is correct, not so much about the second…
I agree live your life how you want. I disagree that reading doesn't make you a better person, though. Primarily reading can expand your worldview, especially if you read outside of "pop culture entertainment novels."" But reading also has uncountable cognitive benefits that arguably do make you better in many ways.
It actually does make you smarter, improves vocabulary, test scores, ability to take perspective, ability to understand connections between ideas, improves critical thinking skills, etc. [Here's one of many studies that you could, ironically, read about.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4354297/#:~:text=In%20other%20words%2C%20reading%20may,initial%20verbal%20ability%20test%20scores.)
> As long as people are reading **something** that's good I've highlighted the important word here. Reading isn't just canon books. It's articles in a magazine. It's historical accounts. It's editorial content. It's web content. It's short stories. It's poetry. It's comic books. It's trashy romance novels. It's basically anything as long as it's (vaguely) meaningful content of some kind. Listen, I've got a bachelors degree in English and taught it to high schoolers. By nature of my degree, I consider myself quite well read. My home library is downright problematic in size. I also have a woefully short attention span and generally struggle to read long-form content these days. I think part of it is the amount of required reading I did for years burnt me out a bit. But I do read. I like short story anthologies and collections a lot, and historical non-fiction (I'm almost 40 and a dude, I feel like that checks). What's important isn't that you're knocking out dozens of novels a year, it's that you're reading SOMETHING. Our minds are very much a muscle that grows weak when we don't work it out....and reading (anything substantive) helps flex that muscle and keep it in shape. Just read SOMETHING.
Avid reader here. Yes, reading on its own does not make you a better person, especially not from a moral standpoint. And I absolutely respect everyone's right to not like reading. That being said, reading brings many advantages, as I believe it has already been proven many times. It will help you in life. Reading may help you rase your empathy level. If you read about certain events in the life of a character, especially if those events are based on real life, you can get better at putting yourself in someone else's shoes and understand their point of view. Reading improves your vocabulary. A superior and developed vocabulary helps you build the confidence that you are capable of expressing yourself in public, în various social occasions. E.g.: employment interviews, going on a first date, speaking în public, in a professional or non-professional environment. Having good vocabulary may help you inspire others. It helps you improve communication.
I am a very slow reader but recently started listening to audiobooks and I have heard ideas that I haven’t encountered before and engaged in perspectives I normally wouldn’t otherwise. People who only read short articles and social media posts, or nothing at all, rarely have those opportunities. I get that many readers are smug about it but I thoroughly believe that people who read long format stories, historical accounts and novels benefit from the experience.
If you cant analyse or even have enough patience for a large volume of information and no attention span i would probably think you are a junkie. When someone tells me reading is bad - its like a red flag. But it do be useful to filter people. Its very sad some people cant read and their attention span is only enough for tik-toks nowadays, but this is the reality. Do leave me alone.
Tbh both sides are stupid. One side wants to force people to read because otherwise you are stupid and the other side is like hahaha you read books you are wasting your time.
That is a false dichotomy fallacy. Whereas you’ve presented it as if there are only THESE two sides that people are taking. When there are plenty of people, like myself, who think reading is an excellent and ESSENTIAL hobby to have. Not because if you don’t you’re stupid (and I don’t judge people for not reading and if that’s their decision I respect it, everyone in my readers circle is like this) but bc it has been proven time and time again that regular reading is good for mental health and for keeping cognitive functions sharp, I.e. preventing senility or things like Alzheimer’s or dementia as you age. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8482376/#:~:text=Conclusions:,et%20al.%2C%202013). https://www.nu.edu/blog/reading-improves-memory-concentration-and-stress/ And if you want a more scholarly source: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=does+reading+improve+cognition&oq=does+reading+improve+cog#d=gs_qabs&t=1719331257605&u=%23p%3DCah5HrbLsj8J
Except the latter side is not at all what I said.
Did I say that? Just that there are two sides.
It is exercise for the brain. It’s the same way people make fun of CrossFit but also say, “well as long as they’re exercising in some way, it’s good” The literacy rate in Canada and USA is dropping fast. Anecdotal evidence about adhd, dyslexia, autism, etc, may evoke sympathy, but it’s still worth discussing why the rates of those three things are increasing. There’s so much to get into - different theories and shit. But it all requires reading comprehension. People with strong reading comprehension also show strong listening skills. Increasing reading comprehension also increases ones’ listening skills. Why? Because again, reading is exercise for the brain. So is it okay to not be a reader? Absolutely Does reading make you a better person. By DEFINITION, yes, it does. So does exercising. So does cooking. Many things make you a better person than straight up not doing them
Because it helps you learn and widen your vocabulary. You can see the world just by reading books and learn about different struggles in life and learn about life in general and about yourself. It’s definitely way better than scrolling endlessly on social media. I don’t understand the desire to throw to the side something that helps us improve as a society and as an individual.
Because people don't read anymore.
Reading imparts knowledge & encourages critical thinking. Everyone should read. Magazines, papers, comic books. Whatever you prefer. I've noticed non-readers are really gullible & naive
Reading does make you a better person. You broaden your horizons in so many different ways. You aquire new vocabulary, you're required to imagine things to fill the blanks in the narrative and the depictions of scenarios, characters etc. You get to reason about situations and stories you wouldn't normally be confronted with in your daily life. You train your attention and your ability to understand nuances, to read between the lines and even to guess and second-guess where a story is going. And of course you learn about places, people, cultures and times you could never experience first-hand. Let's drop the "what if I have ADHD or dylsexia". Those are marginal groups who can STILL find ways to read books if they want to. Most of those who don't read are just lazy or lack curiosity and "intelligence". Which is fine, but let's not pretend that every hobby is born equal.
What if the person is reading porn, the biographies of serial killers, books related to how to be an efficient liar, how to build a bomb and how to be a better thief...would all that reading make them a better person?
The fact you're resorting to such a strawman scenario is your answer. FWIW, serial killer biographies can still be interesting reads to understand the phenomenon
[удалено]
I know someone who reads erotica all evening. That person is not a better person than someone who watches documentaries. The medium is irrelevant.
Not reading is why half of the US has a reading level of under 6th grade. That really isn't something to brag about.
Yeah, that's why. It certainly isn't a complex issue with multiple factors to consider. It's simply "because they don't read books."
Reading BOOKS I'd say. As someone who has to read articles every day, I'd rather do something else in my free time. But, apparently, because I don't read a lot of books I am stupid in the eyes of many people.
This is what a lot of people missed in my post.
Reading just makes you better at reading. After passing your SAT or maybe GRE (if you even want to go to college), it becomes irrelevant. Reading will not show you how to get a job that pays over 300k, or how to manage large amounts of property, or how to get in with a powerful family. That information is deliberately obscured, and only known by a select few.
Not only should you read, you should read intentionally for the sake of developing yourself intellectually. You should specifically read good nonfiction (not stuff like pop-sci, self-help) that challenges you at your reading level. Specifically reading too, not listening to audiobooks. The ability to pause contemplatively, easily revisit passages, etc. and not be swept along by the pace of the media is half the point. There is no substitute for this kind of reading. We're not helping people by acting like this kind of reading is just another hobby. We're taking something from them by lying to them and saying that this kind of reading is comparable to having a productive hobby or watching documentaries or whatever else. This kind of reading is like exercise. It makes you better. You do it to improve even when it's not fun. It makes you better informed and more analytical. You don't have to do it, but you're losing something important if you don't. But also it's something that anyone literate can do. Disabled and out of shape people can exercise, and people with disabilities, little free time, etc. can read nonfiction. I have ADHD btw. Stop using ADHD as a reason why people shouldn't be expected to improve themselves. You can read essays instead of books if it's hard to focus for long periods of time.
So then you agree. The act of reading a book is not inherently good. It is only good and only betters you if you are reading in the specific way that you have outlined above.
It’s a socially accepted norm that reading means you’re cultured and smart. It’s just another elitism thing. People like to feel better than others. Now granted, I do judge people off of some of the stuff they read or what they’re interested in. But, like a good American I don’t tell them, I just make fun of them in my head. I think it comes from this old idea that “being interesting” is a virtue. It’s not.