[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 21 KB, 593x517, frog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23478520 No.23478520 [Reply] [Original]

is it true books make you smarter or is it just a stereotype?

>> No.23478535

didn't work for me :(

>> No.23478574

>>23478535
im sorry anon

>> No.23478619

>>23478520
Depends on the kind of book and how you define being smart, I suppose. I assume you are talking about prose here and not math textbooks or something. Prose does not tend to give hard knowledge. But if you read a book that takes place in renaissance era Germany, then you will know more about renaissance era Germany. If you read a book about a fisherman, you will know more about fishing. In that way, reading gives you knowledge, which makes you smarter. But you gotta pick good and accurate books, of course.

Also, a book ideally presents concepts in such a way, that it makes you think about stuff and thinking about stuff makes you smarter. Books contain tons of belief systems and philosophies, that you may or may not agree with, which widens your horizons, which, again, can help you get smarter.

Though, I am mostly talking about good books here. But even bad books can show you different perspectives, even if they suck. If you read a bad book, you will know a bit more about bad books.

Also, while reading, you train stuff like reading comprehension and expand your vocabulary, but that goes without saying.

>> No.23478646
File: 29 KB, 741x568, confused .png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23478646

Does reading /lit/ make you smarter?

>> No.23478663
File: 52 KB, 850x748, Groyper-an-illustration-of-Pepe-the-Frog-which-was-present-in-several-hateful-users.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23478663

>>23478646
I, like all advanced readers here, almost exclusively read /lit/ and and have been doing so for years now whilst only, occasionally, reading actual books.
I've read 2 books so far this year. I read /lit/posts on average for 3 hours a day (equivalent of maybe 25 books worth of posts since the beginning of the year) I pull from a higher level of abstraction. I'm like the CEO of a company and you, my /lit/posters are like my little worker bees working hard in the flower fields drawing knowledge from the books and bringing it back to the hive. I'm the queen who feasts on the honey all day all form the easy comfort of the hive.

>> No.23478678

>>23478520
Books cannot make anyone smarter. Intelligence is an immutable trait. Not once in the history of mankind has a book ever increased someone's ability to reason or understand. That's not what they're for.

>> No.23478685

>>23478663
if it's easy and comfortable, you're losing. If it had to be clawed together, you're winning. Nothing good comes easy nor survives test of time.

Go read Art of War, Bible and Mein Kampf. Military books build discipline and fear of god builds morale basis.

>> No.23478695
File: 632 KB, 1000x1000, clicking-3056005336.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23478695

>>23478685
Get back to work

>> No.23478789

>>23478663
*applies propolis*

>> No.23478798

More like smarter people read books, its a causal misapprehension exemplified in such soulless quotes as money makes you happy, a wife and children makes you fulfilled, meditation calms the mind, travel broadens your perspective, and other retarded normie talking points that they prescribe to everyone they meet because they assume everyone is like them and should be like them.

>> No.23478806

>>23478520
Reading maybe not so much. But writing definitely makes you smarter. Even keeping a journal will do.

>> No.23478812
File: 119 KB, 480x541, bzzt.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23478812

>>23478663
Fitzgerald doesn't criticize Tom Buchanan for his bigotry but for being a mediocrity.

>> No.23478819

it help cultivating your own universe

>> No.23478980

>>23478520
>>23478646
>>23478663
>>23478695
>>23478812
thanks for the frogs
going directly to my frog folder

>> No.23478993
File: 21 KB, 804x743, reading.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23478993

>>23478980
Have another, friend

>> No.23478995
File: 841 KB, 1044x1043, 1656632855538.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23478995

>>23478520
It's more likely that smart people are more likely to be interested in books to begin with

>> No.23479022

>>23478995
but why?

>> No.23479026

>>23478520
Yes and no. I feel smarter because of it but know that I also am not.

>> No.23479028

>>23478520
if you define getting smarter as increasing general knowledge, then yes

>> No.23479040

>>23479028
isnt general knowledge just midwittery?

>> No.23479051

>>23479040
it will eventually come in handy, i don't leave my house without it

>> No.23479067

>>23479051
I doubt it would be all that handy
most general knowledge probably will never be used

>> No.23479105

>>23479067
getting exposed to new words and ideas is pretty useful for more reading however

>> No.23479163

>>23478678
Source?

>> No.23479212

>>23478520
More analytical, yes. Able to think from a to b to c etc, yes. Smarter? Jury is out on that one

>> No.23479216

>>23479212
what do you define as being smart?

>> No.23479249

>>23479216
Able to address a wide range of subjects with some authority

>> No.23479268
File: 987 KB, 406x720, 1706986653881121.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23479268

>>23478520

>> No.23479286

>>23479249
how much authority, would you say?

>> No.23479371

>>23479286
Enough not to sound like a complete dumbass in conversation

>> No.23479378

>>23479268
This motherfucker is pathetic and I wouldn't listen to anything he has to say about anything

>> No.23479501

>>23479371
this is kinda easy tho

>> No.23479600

>>23479501
Then you're in your way

>> No.23479601

>>23478520
Whatever makes you smarter is useless because your son can't inherent it.

>> No.23479736

>>23479601
this will be one of my son's own battles, not mine
imagine if I decided not to lift because my son won't be born with huge biceps
>>23479600
but there has to be more than that

>> No.23479748
File: 717 KB, 828x1067, IMG_0338.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23479748

I would say it’s the context of litature that can make you smarter. If you’re reading a bunch of academic or textbook literature. You’d be significantly more ahead of someone reading fiction or fantasy novels. That’s not to say improving reading comprehension can make you above average in communicating ideas and understanding language more effectively.

>> No.23479761

>>23478520
It depends. Retards think being able to talk about obscure facts makes you smart. Anglos think being a human calculator makes you smart. You decide.

>> No.23480078

>>23479761
what do you consider to be smartness?

>> No.23480261
File: 38 KB, 1036x1036, woof.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23480261

>>23478520
books most often just make me feel dumb. the most recent one was Elementary Particles, I felt I had certainly read something profound, but couldn't figure out what the point was. It went back and forth between a fairly straightforward biographical narrative and philosophical or pseudo-biopsychological pontification and I couldn't make sense of what it was all trying to say, whether in part or in whole.

Before that, I attempted Thucydides and could barely follow it. I found myself rereading sentences, paragraphs, and entire pages but still failing to follow what was happening. I gave up only 30 pages in. I was further dismayed upon finding that it's recommended as a "starter" book for Greek literature.

The only book I've read recently and enjoyed was All the Pretty Horses. Even though, once again, I was convinced that I had somehow missed the point of it. I liked the story it told, but there were points where I wasn't sure what he was saying (not the words on the page, those were clear enough, but what McCarthy was actually trying to get across).

I fear I will never truly appreciate literature because I'm not smart enough. I'm reluctant to attempt more dense or philosophical works because it seems it'd be a waste of time. The words would run through my head by leave no impression. I'm not sure if there's a way to improve my comprehension, if there is I don't know it.

>> No.23480270

Books do increase your level of knowledge, and reading improves your ability to read and learn. Both are different facets of intelligence.

A great deal of education is not focused on simply learning rote facts but on improving your ability to learn.

To find, absorb, and synthesize information. To recognize patterns and perform critical analysis. Even reading fiction improves your English and reading ability.

>> No.23480278

>>23478520
Not really. It's largely a myth pushed by librarians and teachers. You can enhance your knowledge in certain areas by reading good books as >>23478619 says.

You will remain a brainlet if you read bestseller slop, however.

>> No.23480287

>>23480261
If you studied literature in university you would be able to talk to your professor, your fellow students and you would use supplementary secondary sources. It's not necessary to understand everything by yourself just from primary sources.

>> No.23480291

>>23479378
Just because he's a brainlet with a severe case of dunning-krueger doesn't mean he doesn't have a point

>> No.23480305

>>23480261
Sometimes you have to understand how people were thinking at the time to see what made an ancient author special. Thucydides was one of the first people who described human conflict through human motivations, without over relying on anything supernatural. It might seem banal now because that's the common sense way in which you write history but that's what often happens, when an author is successful his ideas become common sense.

>> No.23480310

>>23478520
It makes you more articulate and quick witted but absolutely does not increase your raw IQ

>> No.23480318

>>23480291
True, there were some philosophers who emphasized action over theory. Nietzsche said that reading a book first thing in the morning is evil.

>> No.23480391

>>23478520
reading books doesn’t make you smarter but smart people tend to read a lot

>> No.23480547

>>23478520
Application of knownledge makes you smart.

>> No.23480663

Considering the absolute state of this generation, which would rather browse tiktok than pick up a book, I'd say it does to an extent.

>> No.23480700

>>23478520
Reading has made me realize I'm a retard. I'm not sure if that makes me more or less intelligent than I was before.

>> No.23481353

>>23478520
No of course not. And you'd know that already if you had read more books.

>> No.23481364

>>23478520
Nonfiction does. When you engage with a book, you wrestle with its ideas and sharpen your logic. it makes your thinking clearer and less unconscious. Math and physics books especially helps with training against taking logical shortcuts

>> No.23481935

>>23481353
how many books did you read?

>> No.23482420

>>23481935
Nta but I've read thousands. I'm pretty old compared to you guys. I can say it didn't make me smarter, but more analytical, yes. Aware of the world around me, yes. There's a lot of benefits to reading a lot, fiction and non, no matter how lit feels about fiction

>> No.23482561

>>23482420
How being analytical differs from being smart?

>> No.23482637

>>23478520
only peer-reviewed non-fiction does

>> No.23482647

>>23480278
name a good book then

>> No.23482843

>>23482561
Being smart is like you're capacity to learn new things. Being analytical is the ability to use it in a productive manner

>> No.23482849

It makes you more smug and incompetent in a way that will tend to have seriously negative results for you and anyone around you.
The only reason women can vote and the civilized world is burning is because some retarded peasants read in a book that this would be great. They didn't even understand the book.

>> No.23482900

>>23478520
A little bit but it's not a scale breaker
Smart people are attracted to reading so there's a false correlation.

>> No.23483063

>>23482843
so smart is potential and analytical is to use the knowledge you already posses in pragmatical ways?

>> No.23483236

>>23480261
>but there were points where I wasn't sure what he was saying (not the words on the page, those were clear enough, but what McCarthy was actually trying to get across)
yep, that's typical McCarthy alright

>> No.23483297

>>23482900
>Smart people are attracted to reading so there's a false correlation
and why is that?

>> No.23483317

>>23478520
Reading doesn't make you smarter, but not reading certainly makes you dumber.

>> No.23483432

>>23482561
If smart means intelligent, then smart is “abstract thinking”. Don’t let yourself get fooled that intelligence is pattern recognition or some shite, listen to the cognitive neuroscientists: its abstract thinking, and there’s no discussion about it being measurable or not. It’s very much measurable fyi.

If analytical means deduction, then analytical means good at logical inferences.

Not the same thing.

>>23482647
Istvan Hont - Jealousy of Trade

>>23478520
I’m sure of it. One of the most beautiful and insightful things that I never had expected to think of as making me more smart is reading authors make some quick reference or comparison to other authors that I’ve read and never expected them to find somewhere else (specifically, the first time this happened, I was reading about ortega y gasset in Mills’ Power Elite). Sometimes these unexpected nuggets appear which for some reason blow my mind. With ortega y gasset it happened twice funny enough (also in the preface of dialectic of enlightenment, fyi). Now, I don’t mean the in depth exegetical exercises, when the topic has a certain canon (like Hont’s book). I mean really just that quick something mentioned on the side; that the author makes a small mention that he read the book of the other author and has some thought about it. I love that. It always urges me to go back and reread the parts of the book to which the remark relates to try to understand it through the eyes of the author who referenced it. I have the feeling that these kinds of things really make me smarter, because all of a sudden it feels like some hidden structure unfolds that says something deeper than just the argument of the book or chapter.

>>23479268
lol I’ve been told that I look like him twice on separate occasions by strangers I was talking with. I did not know the guy the first time I was told this, but I think its pretty funny when I looked him up, because I’m a gigantic nerd

>> No.23483439

>>23478520
reading smart people will probably make you atleast somewhat smarter

>> No.23483442
File: 287 KB, 1079x688, bass pro pyramid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23483442

>>23478520
If only there was some way to take in large complicated ideas as slowly or quickly as you were able. Training that would probably make someone smarter huh

>> No.23483454

>>23483439
Why? Won't it just confuse you? There's an apparent difference in IQ from being exposed to TV that gives some training in very basic reasoning but that seems to be it. We apparently exploit the entire effect by watching cartoons when we're young.

>> No.23483514

>>23483063
That's almost exactly what I said

>> No.23483640

>>23483514
Yes, I was just trying to figure out EXACTLY what you meant in other words to avoid misinterpretation from me

>> No.23483645

>>23483640
Understood. I wasn't criticizing you

>> No.23483650

>>23483432
>Don’t let yourself get fooled that intelligence is pattern recognition or some shite
couldnt it be associated with abstract thinking anyways?
>If analytical means deduction, then analytical means good at logical inferences.
as asked before, couldnt it then be associated with pattern recognition?
>It’s very much measurable fyi.
how so?

>> No.23483677

>>23483297
Thirst for knowledge and comprehension of its contents/concepts. Same and similar reasons why someone with a great memory would get more knowledge and understanding out of a book then an average person memory’s.

>> No.23483706

>>23483650
>how so?
Yeah I won’t go into it, but it’s cognitive neuroscience. If you’re interested, libgen a recent version of contemporary issues in cognitive neuroscience, and you can dive in from there.

>associated with
Sure, but pattern recognition is called induction: white goose; white goose; white goose… thus all geese are white. There’s more abstract form of induction, but it’s because it’s abstract it means something for intelligence. Deduction is also associated with intelligence, but again, some math proofs are very abstract. Though when discovered, utterly logical and purely deduced from the axioms. Because it has to do with the mind doesn’t mean you have to be smart to do it.

You would not call a computer intelligent, but it does both deduction (your standard expert system), and induction (“AI”, neural networks, etc). The last one people are sometimes saying is intelligence, but I deny that with vigour. Its pattern recognition and it is applied statistical math and nothing more. The ai faggots may be yapping about “emergent properties” and whatever but they should not overstep their bounds and claim it to be intelligence, it’s ONLY induction. AI != I. It cannot do abduction or deduction, although it may appear to do that every once in a while, it is not intelligent as in abstract thinking. Maintaining discussions of multiple layers of abstraction and coming back from it without losing the original subject “going meta” or “meta meta” is where I discover who is dumb. I have had talks with people in which there’s disagreement and I try to explain how I think I see what went wrong in the conversation by reflecting on how we’re talking about it. The real dumdum will not admit too much abstraction, he’ll talk in circles and stick to it.

>> No.23483730

>>23478663
aren’t you my fellow polyglot? you’re my favorite poster on here

>> No.23484617

>>23483706
I guess the reason people would disagree with is because they would need to first accept intelligence as abstraction

that aside, I guess it is a meaningless discussion trying to establish if AI is a real intelligence or not, at least in the time being. AI commits so many dumb mistakes as it is just parrotting whatever taken from the sources they steal, mistakes that could be avoided with the most basic critical thinking AI doesnt possess

Thus, AI is just a parrot