[ 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: 108 KB, 537x804, 1417875907987.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6887132 No.6887132 [Reply] [Original]

Imagine 3 kids, A, B and C.

>Child A
He will only read fictional works his entire life(Divine Comedy, Iliad, The Brothers Karamazov etc..)

>Child B
Will only read academic works his entire life( Euclid's Elements, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, On the Origin of Species, Das Kapital etc..)

>Child C
Will read a mixture of both

By the end of their lives, which one you would consider smarter? A, B, or C? And why?

>> No.6887139

Child A because in his spare time he builds quantum flux capacitors in his garden shed, the technological advances gained from this ushering in a new wave of planet-wide peace and prosperity. All hail Child A, saviour of the human race!
Select all images with bread.

>> No.6887140

>>6887132
C
The others would be physically incapable of passing their courses.

>> No.6887143

You can't really get smarter by reading books.

>> No.6887147

>>6887143
Sure, reading a book on sociology or wathever will literally add nothing to your knowlegde...

>> No.6887152

>>6887147
No, more educated maybe, but not smart as in intelligent.

>> No.6887153

>>6887132
who is this underage wondermage

>> No.6887154

There really isn't much scientific value in reading the Origin of Species at this day and age.

>> No.6887156

>>6887143
Every single synonym of smart - you're absolutely right, Anon - must be reduced to IQ and processing power. Because intelligence is just like strength; we inherit it - and don't have to do anything after that because we've inherited it. Just like strength.

>> No.6887157

>>6887152
Reading presents you with more complex issues than you're likely to come across if you're doing something else, so you do get smarter by reading. It's not unlike exercise for the brain.

>> No.6887160

>>6887132
The kid with the most diversified knowledge portfolio will receive the best returns on average.

>> No.6887161
File: 182 KB, 640x960, 1419351419277.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6887161

>>6887152
Yeah sure, but when people say things like "smarter" they don't mean in the strict definition of intelligence

>> No.6887163

>>6887152
Intelligence is partially inherited and partially trained.

>> No.6887165

>>6887157
>It's not unlike exercise for the brain.
There is no evidence that suggests solving problems will make you inherently better at solving problems aside from gaining knowledge of that type of problem.

Likewise with "tackling complex issues" etc.

>>6887156
You're correct.

>> No.6887170

>>6887165
>be bad at math
>practice
>become better at math

>> No.6887171

>>6887132

My guess would be A. Child B probably thinks he's smarter than he actually is, and I wonder if he has the ability to really think for himself. I wouldn't be surprised if he tended to believe things at face value more often.

Child A probably has a more complex, interesting view of the world

>> No.6887183

>>6887170
That's not really true though. People who are bad at math tend to stay bad at math even though they practice hard.

I'm not talking about training multiplication or addition here, sure you can get better at that, but only because you solve the same problem over and over. If you then move on to trigonometry or calculus you will have an equallly hard time solving this problems, because doing a lot of multiplication doesn't change your basic thinking/reasoning skills.

Admittedly it's not 100% inherited, but most reliable sources - based on IQ tests - suggest it's to at least 95%

>> No.6887188

>>6887156
your brain is actually a muscle. and you can work it out to make it stronger in regards to memory etc.

I would consider child c as the most balanced of course. I wouldn't wonder about who was the "smartest."

>> No.6887189

>>6887165
>There is no evidence that suggests solving problems will make you inherently better at solving problems aside from gaining knowledge of that type of problem.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8447247
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009265660500053X
http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/comm.2009.34.issue-4/comm.2009.025/comm.2009.025.xml
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885201409000835

>> No.6887200

>>6887132
C, obviously.
A would be a shitposter on /lit/ bragging about his elite taste from the corner of his mother's trailer and B wouldn't have an original thought in his head.

>> No.6887212

>>6887189
Do you even read your google results before posting them on here?

Two of those articles deal with empathy and one with preschoolers.

>> No.6887233

>>6887212
Yes, two of them deal with how reading makes you more empathetic, which is a complex problem involved with intelligence, and the other talks about how pre-schoolers who are exposed to literature rather than television have better theory of mind than those who aren't. There are plenty more google results which further back up my argument if you care to look, I just didn't bother to go beyond page 1 because these were relevant. Even if you disagree, that leaves the 4th one which you've conveniently ignored, despite it dealing directly with intelligence.

>> No.6887234

>>6887154
there's some nice poetic elements in there

>> No.6887236

>>6887183
2/10

>> No.6887261

>>6887233
An abstract of a paper I have no access to, nor any peer-reviewed information on?

I'm not saying it or you are wrong, but that's some pretty lousy sources you employ in your internet battles m8

>> No.6887275

>>6887261
What's your point? The anon I was responding to said there is no evidence of reading making you smarter, so I linked to evidence. The fact that you can't access the minutiae of the evidence itself, despite being able to see that it unquestionably exists, is irrelevant.

>> No.6887283

>>6887275
You think the sole fact that a paper is published in an online-journal is reason to believe its scientific accuracy?

>> No.6887286

>>6887283
Did I say that?

>> No.6887292

>>6887200

>original thought

only a pleb would think like that

>> No.6887297

>>6887286
yes

>> No.6887298

>mfw I've read every book listed in the OP

Elements is shit.

>> No.6887301

>>6887297
I see you don't read much.

>> No.6887306

>>6887132
>which one you would consider smarter? A, B, or C? And why?
the one born with the highest IQ. Also, it's ''the smartest''

>> No.6887311

Given that most of the at least scientific works OP posted are useless nowadays, I'd go with A.

>> No.6887318

>Smarter

Haha.

>> No.6887396

>>6887311
>Given that most of the at least scientific works OP posted are useless nowadays...
Holy fuck you're close-minded.

>> No.6887403

>>6887396
How come?

>> No.6887409

>>6887132
Assuming same quality of works, they'll be about the same in degree.

A's wisdom will be more implicit. Will resort more to anecdotes and emotional appeals to get opinions across.

B will be very articulate. Won't relate as well with other people. His arguments will feel very abstract.

>> No.6887420

>>6887154
Sure, there are many gaps and you could just read a synopsis before moving to less dated work, but it's like "starting with the greeks".

>> No.6887436

>>6887420
Not really. When 'you're starting with greeks', you want to understand earlier forms of thought that more conemporary (or less ancient) writers build up upon.

This sort of inheritence isn't needed for science/mathematics, and if you want to look at the history (of say theories on the evolution of species), scientific/mathematical ideas are concrete and materialistic enough that they can be stated more succinctly in modern textbooks.

>> No.6887438
File: 11 KB, 304x405, Shakespeares Face.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6887438

Let me tell you the truth. A, B and C are all tremendous idiots. As for who is the stupidest, it would have to be C. Whilst C does have the highest potential to be smart, by not taking the clear opportunity, C is the stupidest of all three.

You see, reading doesn't make you intelligent. Anyone can gloss their eyes over Shakespeare, Darwin or Joyce and claim to have read it in immaculate detail. The only proof of true reading and of learning is in writing. Only when a person writes is their intelligence truly shown.

Sorry to break up your petty arguments with the truth.

>> No.6887457

Almost sounds like a houllebecq novel setup

>> No.6887610

>>6887436
A lot of texts in biology are criticisms and revisions, though.

I like when the authors reference an article/book I've read already.

Makes me feel smart.

>> No.6887632 [DELETED] 

>>6887132
Child D: doesn't read, spends his time fucking 10/10s, making loads of money and helping the poor. Also hella fucking cut, looks amazing and can easily bench the other three kids at the same time

>> No.6887639

>>6887632
>nothing personnel, kid

>> No.6887652 [DELETED] 

>>6887132
who is this sexual abuser-kegel inducer?

>> No.6887656

>>6887132
who is this sexual abuser-boner inducer?

>> No.6887663

>>6887183
Looks like you didn't inherit the baiting gene :^)

>> No.6887689

>>6887152
>>6887143

this is obviously true, yet people on here will deny it. intelligence is pattern recognition, not knowledge.

>> No.6887695
File: 8 KB, 464x340, anonymous.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6887695

>>6887298
>mfw I have no face

>> No.6887696

>>6887286

yeah you did

>> No.6887708

>>6887438
>Let me tell you the truth. A, B and C are all tremendous idiots.
jesus christ man. 2 out of fucking 10.
Obviously it's not given whether or not the children are instructed as to how to critically analyze the pieces they're told to read, but it may be assumed, say, arguendo.[/spoiler[

>> No.6887713

>>6887139

epic!

>> No.6887716

>>6887632
I'm surprised this reply arrived so late into the thread.

>> No.6887774

A>C>B
You can't learn too much by reading academic works without aditional content, whereas fiction can teach you a lot about different subjects.
Kid C will have the largest worldview, but I chose kid A as the smartest because a specific knowledge is rarer, and therefore a more special thing, in my opinion.

>> No.6887796

>>6887774
*additional

>> No.6887824

>>6887689
Right, but reading is an exercise in pattern recognition. This is why reading fiction, books without facts, is still better for you than not reading.
Besides which, when you gain factual knowledge and new ways of thinking or looking at the world, that helps you see patterns too, ones that you wouldn't otherwise have picked up on.

>> No.6889036

>>6887438
shut up

>> No.6889056

Child D. The one that fucks a girl.

>> No.6889087

>>6889056
ayy lmao

>> No.6889090

>>6887132
>euclids elements is an academic work

>> No.6889104

>>6887132
None of them having read the Bible, they will all be damned for eternity and the point is moot.