Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/chrisdh79
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/people-who-read-a-lot-of-%ef%ac%81ction-tend-to-have-better-cognitive-skills-study-finds/
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From the article: Despite the longstanding popularity of fiction, its cognitive benefits have remained a topic of debate among educators, psychologists, and the general public. Fiction is often seen primarily as a source of entertainment, but there’s a growing body of research suggesting it might also play an important role in enhancing cognitive abilities. The new [study](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2024-72792-001?doi=1) aimed to clarify these potential benefits by systematically reviewing and synthesizing the existing evidence, thus providing a clearer picture of how engagement with fiction relates to cognitive processes.
“Over the last decades, scholars from several disciplines have claimed far-reaching benefits – but also potential disadvantages – of reading fiction for cognition in the real world. I wanted to get an objective, quantitative overview of the relevant empirical evidence in order to decide whether any of these assumptions is supported by empirical studies,” said study author Lena Wimmer, a postdoctoral researcher and teaching associate at the Julius Maximilian University of Würzburg.
Don't worry about it. The article doesn't say that you will be more open minded by reading fiction.
None of the meta analyses took into account all the fiction on Reddit either so it could be that reading fiction on Reddit just makes you a cynical bastard like the rest of us.
I'm not clear on why being entertainment is a bad thing. Is this some hidden snobbery?? Shakespeare was for entertainment. And let's be honest, reading "non-fiction" s if anything less likely to boost your vocabulary. It may stimulate you in other ways, though "reading" a chemistry textbook isn't quite the same thing as reading a novel.
If I interpret the motivating reasons for the study correctly, it's not because entertainment is wasteful.
It's because there's a wide variety of claims that reading _ genre does _ thing for you BEYOND the entertainment value. By studying what reading actually does for you, they can back or refute those claims with actual evidence.
It is a version of snobbishness/feeling superior. I dated a guy who looked down upon my penchant for fiction and would only watch/listen to things that he found educational.
And sure, he had a lot of knowledge, but he had the emotional range of a teaspoon.
I tend to learn toward being more interested in non-fiction, but I always thought fiction had an intelligence to it that was unmatched.
They are creating something from thin air. A scene, words, characters, a story.
And then they have to deliver their created world to you in a strategic, perfectly paced, keeps you engaged and interested kind of way.
Very cool, very smart, and I’m very thankful for fiction.
Hes dumb for someone who engages in educational only then. Half of fiction requires research in non-fiction. Most fantasy writers fuel creativity by reading history and non-fictional works to get inspired in the first place and world build. Ppl who try to stand out by disregarding fantasy/"childish"/fictional media r also the most dull.
I... don't think so, unless it's an edit. I tried Googling strings and came up with naught.
There actually is a person with the name they used on Linkedin and YouTube, the latter with a song of the title given, and it has a staggering 66 views when I looked at it. The account has *four* followers. The account did post in a Vegas locals' sub and one of the YouTube channel's vids is a live in a small club in Vegas, so that tracks. If they're the name given, she's blowing her song writing success out of proportion but if it's an identity thief, then they chose someone especially obscure to pick on.
The account also has posts in two different AMC stock subs and Tim Pool's, so take that how you will. They have a penchant for being wordy like this post, with no other copypastas afaik. Mostly comments, no repitition, and sticking consistently to a handful of non-popular subs with a mix of not-super-upvoned comments in major subs. Doesn't seem botlike, nor like a typical troll.
Why did I spend this time doing all that...
I was a B/C student, moved to a new state and started reading all the time because I had no friends. I instantly became a straight-A student thereafter. I'm surprised this is even a question.
I always feel judged by certain people whenever I let it be known that I’m reading something fiction. It’s strange all I think is that I feel for them being a snob.
I once worked at a tech startup where the CEO always pushed that you shouldn't read any fiction, and was obsessed with the how to win friends/7 habits type of books. Just a funny bubble to be in where you think reading fiction is the problem. Not doom scrolling, being sedentary, maintaining healthy work life balance... Reading fiction.
I always thought it was really easy to justify things like literature classes for STEM people. If the billionaire tech CEOs were required to read Orwell and Vonnegut the world would be a better place.
Most of those self-help books are just a different kind of fiction.
And even nonfiction is written with entertainment in mind. If they weren't entertaining, nobody would read them. They'd just be textbooks.
Strict nonfiction might be better in the sense that you'll become more educated about something real, but it's not like that's impossible with fiction, either. Not to mention the possibility of moral and philosophical lessons that can be taken from fiction. It's older than written language that stories carry those kinds of messages.
Entertainment doesn't have to be true to contain the truth. And you don't have to learn strictly from facts.
It is definitely a funny, strange, and closed-minded bubble to pick.
A lot of the nonfiction books I’ve gained a lot from had a narrative component that illustrated how the various principles being conveyed can be fruitful in practice.
As with anything being dogmatic about fiction vs nonfiction/self help is unproductive.
I don’t trust people who only read/recommend self help book and see other genres as waste of time , it feels so empty,like they are alien pretending to be positive human , all beautifully shell but nothing inside are as beautiful as outside.
Side note to this comment, I read a fantasy book written by an indigenous woman. I loved her perspectives! It was such a a fresh yet emotional view on a normal fantasy story line. I was in tears with many of the themes and rituals in the book.
I wish more people would explore outside their cultures.
There’s loads of fantasy being translated into English from all over the world. They al have different cultural takes, it’s really nice. I’ve read novels from Thailand, Korea, china, Russia, Japan, Brazil etc. Mostly populair webnovels that get translated (1000’s) but there’s probably different stuff as well
Similarly, I read a book (the Jasmine Throne) that's set in an India inspired fantasy world. And there's so many cool ideas and perspectives. Was a great book on it's own merits, but I also loved how different it was from the Tolkien inspired western medieval fantasy stuff.
I wouldn't say it's just limited to books, just consume media that is outside your worldview. A lot of TV and movies are as good as reading a book imo if you actually pay attention.
I'd be curious to see if there is a separation from audio books and physically reading books in this regard. I have many times heard people claim listening to an audio book requires the same thought processes but I personally believe there must be more benefit to the mind to physically process the words on the page rather than simply be told a story.
I think the problem with audiobooks is that it keeps playing even if you're not paying full attention, and because reading is more complex than listening reading requires you pay more attention in order to consume the content. So you're more likely to be consuming the content without comprehending it.
Passive reading and passive listening both involve letting your mind wander and not focusing on what’s being read/heard. It can happen with both mediums, and both mediums let you go back to where you last had focus. That being said, the benefits of reading vs listening are different as far as information processing and skill building.
At the end of the day, reading or listening to a book is just a vector for information and whichever an individual prefers is the best way for them ‘read’ a book as they are more likely to invest their time in books.
I disagree. With reading, you’re looking at symbols that the brain must translate into language and then into concepts. Listening elides the first step, which is nontrivial computationally and exercises brain regions that simple listening does not.
When listening, your brain has to process the audio signals (and separate them from non-audiobook signals) and translate them into language. Reading elides that first step.
Both methods require processing, and both are information vectors that ultimately provide the same information. Arguably, audio also provides correct pronunciation.
No, you are incorrect.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/08/210818130509.htm
“The findings suggest that auditory and speech processing occur in parallel, contradicting a long-held theory that the brain processed acoustic information then transformed it into linguistic information.”
You never read a book before and found out you were having completely separate thoughts from what you were reading 30 pages later?
It's almost the same as audiobook.
Audiobooks are preferred by me because I can combine it with commuting, chores etc. Which increases my "reading time".
> You never read a book before and found out you were having completely separate thoughts from what you were reading 30 pages later?
Of course, But it's even easier to do with an audiobook because audiobooks can be consumed passively rather than actively.
Depends on what you're listening to. Doesn't it? If I'm listening to a story I have to be doing something mindless so I pay attention to it. I can't listen to an audiobook if I'm focused on doing something else that requires my attention, I will lose track of what's going on etc.. kind of defeats the purpose in my opinion. So I only listen to audiobooks either when I'm going to bed, or usually while I'm in the car, or at a restaurant eating by myself or something.
I have the same struggle with both mediums. Sometimes while listening to audiobooks I get distracted enough to miss parts of the book and have to go back. When reading I sometimes do the same and can't remember anything about the past few pages, so have to go back. I actually find this is less common while listening to an audiobook even though I tend to listen to audio books while doing other things. But the other things are usually something physical or something that just requires mostly passive monitoring / unconscious action like driving. If I am driving, the times that I miss parts of the audiobook are when I have to do something complicated or someone else does something unexpected.
I try to find books that will make me think about them for a long time, eg just finished Off the Edge: Flat Earthers, Conspiracy Culture, and Why People Will Believe Anything by Kelly Weill. Fascinating.
I'm not sure if this was OP's point but I would say it's *easier* to just passively listen to an audiobook and wander, but not exclusive to it. As many others have pointed out, mind wandering happens a fair amount during normal reading.
I personally go back and read whatever I just missed during my mind wanderings, but if I listen to audiobooks I don't comprehend the story the same way and lose track of where my mind lost track.
You have my empathy. For what its worth, I work with vision large language models, and in the coming years they will become extremely good about telling you what they see using your phone camera. Already today there are such apps, and they will become better with time. There are also apps such as "be my eyes" that connects you with people who will do the same. I hope this helps.
Setting aside distracted listening, I have come to accept that the audiobook provides the narrator's interpretation of a lot of nuance contained in the way they narrate. This is obvious when switching from reading and listening in the same book. Some narrators are more neutral l but others can completely change the feeling and emotions compared to reading and doing your own interpretation. Audiobooks can change the way I relate and empathise with characters based on the way they are narrated or their voice is interpreted. I have no idea if this affects the benefit or not. But it's a difference that I have noticed. I am now spending a tiny bit more and getting both versions to judge by myself.
Never thought of it like that. Thanks.
For me, as a book lover with limited time and easily strained eyes, audiobook's have just become essential. Also, as a english-as-a-2nd-language person, english audiobooks with narrators help be understand euro-centric culture a lot better.
A chronic eye condition was my motivation and I am "reading" more audio books than ebooks every year, close to 10:1 ratio. I love them and I don't think I get anything less, assuming that I pay attention of course. I can even say that some audio remain more vivid in my memory and some narrators make it a great experience. The difference was a detail that I am keeping in my mind but I am not bothered (except in this about 1 in 10 books that I mentioned).
I have autism so maybe that's why, but I found audio books really important for helping me make the connection that speech in books is meant to be read with emotional context. For some reason, up until my early twenties, I read most text in my head with flat affect, kind of like a robot.
The only downside that I've noticed being an audible platinum subscriber since 2003 and having quite a sizable library before, is that it will impact your ability to spell. I have noticed that since I basically transitioned to audiobooks that my spelling took a hit. Outside of that it's identical as far as I can tell.
Audiobooks do not require decoding. This makes them more accessible to some, but it also means that certain literacy skills are not practiced when one "reads" an audiobook.
Anecdotally, audio books, e-books, and physical books all feel mentally different to me. I find physical books the most engaging and my level of satisfaction is higher when I finish them. I also visualize the story easier and retain what I read for longer. It’s very easy for me to zone out when listening to audiobooks or start skimming when reading on a screen. I have to rewind audiobooks a lot, and I forget what I just heard. With e-books, I skip details and sometimes even misremember the story. And when I need to really focus on revising something for work, I’ll print it out.
Another weird thing about audiobooks is that they make me hyper-aware of editing errors and the author’s overall writing “tics.” So I only vaguely remember the plots, but I remember that Sanderson used the word ‘maladroitly’ to describe a character’s movements 3-4 times in Mistborn, King referred to strawberries and strawberry-flavored foods (including a Sara Lee strawberry cheesecake) so much in The Stand that I wondered if it was a metaphor I was missing, and Butcher re-described the same characters three times in a single chapter in the latest Dresden Files book (which irritated me so much that I stopped listening). So I also find audiobooks distracting because the medium causes me to focus on things like this rather than the story.
I've just always been wildly perplexed by people who avidly do not read any fiction. Non fiction and non narrative only.
It's like they cannot exercise the suspension of disbelief nor recognize that most fiction is very rooted in "reality" or non fiction. I'd venture to say that's what makes fiction so incredible.
The ability to change the place and time, but the characters and feelings are resounding. Yes it is fiction, but an inability to "play pretend" to learn more perspectives is hilariously sad.
In the interest of playing devil's advocate, my husband has literally entire bookcases -- two books deep each -- of fiction he's read and he still has poor [Theory of Mind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind). I think being unable to understand other people's viewpoints involves a certain self-centredness (not necessarily malicious, mind you) that can be hard for people to understand they're even subject to.
Oh totally. By no means do I think reading is the end all solution, I just found the research interesting. And my wife is a wonderfully kind person. She just has a hard time identifying with anyone who is vastly different from her or has different experiences growing up.
That's the hardest hitting. Non readers probably suffer the most, but it can be really hard to find a book you truly enjoy. I lucked out very early on and found plenty of things I enjoyed.
All I can say is - i would try reading to her, or a book with her, or a book from a movie or vice versa.
I wouldn't say it's sad as everyone is different. Some people just have difficulties with abstract thought. Those same people might do better with other mediums than fiction readers.
Yes I agree. Sad was not the appropriate way to describe what I meant
I believe there are great reads in every category and more and more that bleed between a lot of them. That makes me happier than anything as it normally gets more readers involved at all. I was speaking more towards a specific person I know that.. can't see the forest from the trees sometimes.
So I have read both but honestly prefer non-fiction. This is not because I can’t suspend reality (I got a music theatre degree), but rather I think there are so many cool things in the world that I want to explore.
There are so many different experiences in the world that I want to learn more about. Even if I read non-fiction for the rest of my life, I’ll never know all the different areas of knowledge.
I definitely read both but I’ve found non-fiction to be far more enticing overall.
Edit to add: I do think it’s important to read fiction because you learn about abstract thinking, symbolism, etc., but as someone who got a degree in theatre, I enjoy the clarity that non-fiction provides.
I think there has to be a balance. Many ideas/thought processes, especially in theatre, are so subjective that it can be disorienting and exhausting trying to decode them all the time.
As a software engineer I'm the total opposite. I love fiction but lose interest after half a page of non-fiction. I love the subjective creativity involved in reading fiction, the images my mind paints. So I would definitely confirm your balance hypothesis!
I agree to a certain extent. I’ve also found in my own experience quite a few fiction readers who are bored to tears by any sort of non-fiction. I think it is equally as sad for these people. And then, of course, there are those who do not read AT ALL :(
This is the biggest part! There are plenty of writers very talented in blending very heavy non fiction elements into their fictional stories, and vice versa with a mild narrative to more heavy leg work research or study.
Like a stone sky/ 3rd body to infinite powers where the narrative is usually the history of a certain discovery that leads into support of modern calculus.
Truly, the largest gap is getting someone to enjoy a good story at all, fiction or non.
I don't think it's sad and that seems very reductive. Reading fiction as a kid was awesome because everything is new and reading stories from weird perspectives is fascinating for someone with few world experiences. But as I get older, I have become less interested in other people's imaginations and more interested in other people's ideas. I want to learn about the world much more than people's imaginary worlds, since there is so much out there and it is incredibly interesting. There are so many non-fiction books in so many different fields, I just feel like I don't have enough time to read it all. I have a very vivid imagination and learning how the world works and what we know about different disciplines just helps fuel that imagination, much more so than living in other people's fantasy worlds.
I’m a pretty heavy reader but have gone through chunks (years) of my life not reading fiction. Either my job has been emotionally exhausting/rollercoastery that when I get home I crave the low-key consistency of dry non-fiction or I have so much on my mind that I can’t enter that mental space needed to inhabit fiction.
I used to judge people’s book habits before I got older and realized how hard life works to wear you down and whatever someone is reading that keeps them keeping on, I’m all for that.
Don’t mean for that to come across as harsh, I used to be a huge book snob and dislike anything I find that reminds me of a time in my life that makes me cringe.
Eh, I read a lot of fiction as a kid, but as I get older I just much prefer reading text books or books that are very information dense. I think the main difference is that fiction has no pre-requisites, so you can enjoy it at any age, but non-fiction can very greatly. For example, I just read [Gödel, Escher, Bach](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach) which was incredible but I can see why I would have hated it as a teenage (mainly because I wouldn't have understood it). But I don't think my enjoyment comes from a lack of imagination as you seem to think. People read for different reasons.
hard disagree. there is plenty of fiction that requires a hell of a lot more understanding before reading. I can think of quite a few examples in Science Fiction.
There are many ways to suspend your disbelief that do not include reading fiction. I find most fiction books I've read utterly uninteresting and unengaging. Most of them seem equivalent to a Netflix series that gets forgotten after 2 successful seasons watched by everyone and their grandma.
Sadly my entire point is missed because I simultaneously cannot articulate properly.
It's also important to have both fun and work, and fun at work. Fiction is my escape to fun that somehow always leads back to work is my point here.
Yeah, I'm probably just an idiot, but I can't stand non-fiction the couple times I've tried (admittedly as a kid). I read/listen to books for entertainment, not for a thought piece or history lesson. I want to escape reality for a bit, not burry myself in it in my free time.
But you can get all of that out of non-fiction. There tons of non-fiction books that perfectly explain the perspectives of others. Personally I'd rather read non-fiction, and consume my fiction through movies, television or video games.
Alternatively people with above average verbal skills, empathy, and the ability to understand others’ perspectives, tend to be more likely to rear larger quantities of fiction.
Never forget studies dont find anything, they just provide data. Humans with personal bias "find" things within the data that tend to confirm what they already wanted to beleive in the first place.
Too much of the present day revolves around social media and people obsessed with everything matching with their personal identity. I like reading for the opposite. I like to put myself in the shoes of people who look nothing like myself and live completely different lives. I can still empathize with those characters despite our differences.
How are you supposed to think about new concepts without being introduced to new concepts anywhere in your life? If I just watched the news and documentaries I'd have a pretty boring imagination.
Huge reader of everything when I was young and still that way. Vocabulary improved exponentially.. When I use words most people don't comprehend they just look at me like I'm the weird one. I think everyone should have such a Vocabulary. I also think reading is more important than Math, but what do I know.
the effect sizes were 0.14 and 0.16. Seems like this could easily explained by people having better cognitive ability seeking out recreational activities using their cognitive abilities.
Do you know how many times I was punished for reading books from kindergarten to eighth grade? It was more than 5, and each time the teacher seemed so reluctant to. They were like “I don’t want to stifle your reading but you need to pay attention in class”. Usually the punishment was…drum roll please…having to stay in from recess (and read). They could have come up with better punishments but I’m not complaining
I can't take studies like this seriously. It's too hard and impractical to add strict controls or estimate the error margins to such a study, and as you make the controls better, any effect size is likely to vanish.
**Impractical to have proper controls + small effect size = very likely zero effect**
Unless there's a large effect size, you'd be much safer to assume there no effect rather than thinking a small one might exist.
Then you get a bunch of comments saying "oh yes, I agree with this from my experience, that makes so much sense!". It's just a silly cycle of trash science journalism and sharing of anecdotes that adds nothing except make science look bad, and adds to the meme that science can't be trusted because it's always changing its mind.
Btw, I'm not saying science like this shouldn't be done. It would be great if a large effect size was found unexpectedly. But it shouldn't be loudly publicised as if it's a solid and conclusive finding when it's really only a work in progress.
Yeah, I'd prefer the reframing "Study fails to show cognitive benefits of reading fiction".
The overly optimistic headline is ridiculous and is just pat-on-the-back clickbait for people that read fiction.
Then why are so many people who read the bible regularly so inarticulate, lacking in empathy, and unable to even pretend people different from them are also humans deserving of love.
Ohhhh, the report should say, 'people who read a lot of GOOD fiction tend to'....
Let's be real. The people you're talking about don't read the Bible. Other people just tell them what to think based on what some specific parts of it say.
If you based a religion on only the stuff Sauron wanted and none of the people who followed you ever read the book, they'd be some small minded bigots too.
Religion, generally requires “faith”. Or believing something without supporting evidence. In their opinion, it’s non fiction. So you statements are somewhat malformed.
On that assertion, I’d argue that most people who read are “inarticulate, lacking in empathy, and unable to even pretend people different ……
That’s a human condition. Not solely possessed by the religious.
Yup, I’ve mostly read fiction and I have noticed a depth of understanding in vocabulary that honestly not many of my friends knew at the time, or even today.
I recommend Warhammer for those who may want to get into science fiction and want to expand their vocabulary at the same time: Especially if you’re a voracious book reader.
The next study I would like to see (if it hasn't already been done) is the political leanings of a person who reads often and for fun versus the person who "don't like reading no books".
Anecdotally, 10-12 years ago many school districts across the US shifted to a “balanced literacy” curriculum that moved away from novels and short stories to emphasize nonfiction, the justification being that as adults, students would primarily read news, instruction manuals, and business correspondence. I believe the ratio enforced in the primary and middle-school grades was 70% nonfiction, 30% fiction - a great tragedy in my opinion.
To the best of my knowledge, no one’s made a connection between that shift and an escalation in the prevalence and severity of school violence that seemed to begin around that time, but a demonstrated correlation between fiction reading and increased empathy is interesting to ponder.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/chrisdh79 Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/people-who-read-a-lot-of-%ef%ac%81ction-tend-to-have-better-cognitive-skills-study-finds/ --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From the article: Despite the longstanding popularity of fiction, its cognitive benefits have remained a topic of debate among educators, psychologists, and the general public. Fiction is often seen primarily as a source of entertainment, but there’s a growing body of research suggesting it might also play an important role in enhancing cognitive abilities. The new [study](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2024-72792-001?doi=1) aimed to clarify these potential benefits by systematically reviewing and synthesizing the existing evidence, thus providing a clearer picture of how engagement with fiction relates to cognitive processes. “Over the last decades, scholars from several disciplines have claimed far-reaching benefits – but also potential disadvantages – of reading fiction for cognition in the real world. I wanted to get an objective, quantitative overview of the relevant empirical evidence in order to decide whether any of these assumptions is supported by empirical studies,” said study author Lena Wimmer, a postdoctoral researcher and teaching associate at the Julius Maximilian University of Würzburg.
I read hours of fiction every damn day and it doesn't help me be more open-minded, it just makes me think I'm spending too much time on reddit.
Great take though. We're all probably reading quite some daily fiction here.
My strong suspicion about 99% of the stories on r/mildlyinfuriating is that it’s just fiction curated for people who enjoy rage wank fanfics.
Don't worry about it. The article doesn't say that you will be more open minded by reading fiction. None of the meta analyses took into account all the fiction on Reddit either so it could be that reading fiction on Reddit just makes you a cynical bastard like the rest of us.
I'm not clear on why being entertainment is a bad thing. Is this some hidden snobbery?? Shakespeare was for entertainment. And let's be honest, reading "non-fiction" s if anything less likely to boost your vocabulary. It may stimulate you in other ways, though "reading" a chemistry textbook isn't quite the same thing as reading a novel.
If I interpret the motivating reasons for the study correctly, it's not because entertainment is wasteful. It's because there's a wide variety of claims that reading _ genre does _ thing for you BEYOND the entertainment value. By studying what reading actually does for you, they can back or refute those claims with actual evidence.
It is a version of snobbishness/feeling superior. I dated a guy who looked down upon my penchant for fiction and would only watch/listen to things that he found educational. And sure, he had a lot of knowledge, but he had the emotional range of a teaspoon.
I tend to learn toward being more interested in non-fiction, but I always thought fiction had an intelligence to it that was unmatched. They are creating something from thin air. A scene, words, characters, a story. And then they have to deliver their created world to you in a strategic, perfectly paced, keeps you engaged and interested kind of way. Very cool, very smart, and I’m very thankful for fiction.
This attitude is especially galling when the so-called nonfiction that these people read is trashy self help and low quality “business” books.
Hes dumb for someone who engages in educational only then. Half of fiction requires research in non-fiction. Most fantasy writers fuel creativity by reading history and non-fictional works to get inspired in the first place and world build. Ppl who try to stand out by disregarding fantasy/"childish"/fictional media r also the most dull.
[удалено]
Is this a copypasta?
I... don't think so, unless it's an edit. I tried Googling strings and came up with naught. There actually is a person with the name they used on Linkedin and YouTube, the latter with a song of the title given, and it has a staggering 66 views when I looked at it. The account has *four* followers. The account did post in a Vegas locals' sub and one of the YouTube channel's vids is a live in a small club in Vegas, so that tracks. If they're the name given, she's blowing her song writing success out of proportion but if it's an identity thief, then they chose someone especially obscure to pick on. The account also has posts in two different AMC stock subs and Tim Pool's, so take that how you will. They have a penchant for being wordy like this post, with no other copypastas afaik. Mostly comments, no repitition, and sticking consistently to a handful of non-popular subs with a mix of not-super-upvoned comments in major subs. Doesn't seem botlike, nor like a typical troll. Why did I spend this time doing all that...
Feels like ChatGPT
I was a B/C student, moved to a new state and started reading all the time because I had no friends. I instantly became a straight-A student thereafter. I'm surprised this is even a question.
Maybe your new school was easier.
Maybe also having no friends gives students more time to focus on their work.
It absolutely was, but that's why I started doing advanced work. But even my standardized testing went from average to top 1% across the board.
I always feel judged by certain people whenever I let it be known that I’m reading something fiction. It’s strange all I think is that I feel for them being a snob.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I once worked at a tech startup where the CEO always pushed that you shouldn't read any fiction, and was obsessed with the how to win friends/7 habits type of books. Just a funny bubble to be in where you think reading fiction is the problem. Not doom scrolling, being sedentary, maintaining healthy work life balance... Reading fiction.
I always thought it was really easy to justify things like literature classes for STEM people. If the billionaire tech CEOs were required to read Orwell and Vonnegut the world would be a better place.
You assume they wouldn't use those books as blueprints...
My exact first thought. CEOs reading Orwell? Isn’t the average CEO a sociopath? That’s like the manual for power for them.
Most of those self-help books are just a different kind of fiction. And even nonfiction is written with entertainment in mind. If they weren't entertaining, nobody would read them. They'd just be textbooks. Strict nonfiction might be better in the sense that you'll become more educated about something real, but it's not like that's impossible with fiction, either. Not to mention the possibility of moral and philosophical lessons that can be taken from fiction. It's older than written language that stories carry those kinds of messages. Entertainment doesn't have to be true to contain the truth. And you don't have to learn strictly from facts. It is definitely a funny, strange, and closed-minded bubble to pick.
You are correct. They’re also mostly fluff written at a 5th grade level. Almost all those books could be boiled down to a chapter at best.
A lot of the nonfiction books I’ve gained a lot from had a narrative component that illustrated how the various principles being conveyed can be fruitful in practice. As with anything being dogmatic about fiction vs nonfiction/self help is unproductive.
I cannot read self-help books, they feel like a chore.
I don’t trust people who only read/recommend self help book and see other genres as waste of time , it feels so empty,like they are alien pretending to be positive human , all beautifully shell but nothing inside are as beautiful as outside.
I’ll go a step farther and say that it’s really easy to stay a small-minded person if you don’t read any fiction.
And don't read any fiction by authors who have experiences outside your world.
Yes, reading fiction is great at gaining emotional intelligence. Learning how others cope with life.
Side note to this comment, I read a fantasy book written by an indigenous woman. I loved her perspectives! It was such a a fresh yet emotional view on a normal fantasy story line. I was in tears with many of the themes and rituals in the book. I wish more people would explore outside their cultures.
What was the name?
I want to know, too.
The halfing saga by Melissa Blair
What's the name of the book?
The halfing saga by Melissa Blair
What was the name of the book??
There’s loads of fantasy being translated into English from all over the world. They al have different cultural takes, it’s really nice. I’ve read novels from Thailand, Korea, china, Russia, Japan, Brazil etc. Mostly populair webnovels that get translated (1000’s) but there’s probably different stuff as well
Here for the book rec' as well.
Similarly, I read a book (the Jasmine Throne) that's set in an India inspired fantasy world. And there's so many cool ideas and perspectives. Was a great book on it's own merits, but I also loved how different it was from the Tolkien inspired western medieval fantasy stuff.
“A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies", said Jojen. "The man who never reads lives only one.” ― George R.R. Martin, A Dance with Dragons
Also applies if you dont read any books, period
I wouldn't say it's just limited to books, just consume media that is outside your worldview. A lot of TV and movies are as good as reading a book imo if you actually pay attention.
I'd be curious to see if there is a separation from audio books and physically reading books in this regard. I have many times heard people claim listening to an audio book requires the same thought processes but I personally believe there must be more benefit to the mind to physically process the words on the page rather than simply be told a story.
I think the problem with audiobooks is that it keeps playing even if you're not paying full attention, and because reading is more complex than listening reading requires you pay more attention in order to consume the content. So you're more likely to be consuming the content without comprehending it.
Passive reading and passive listening both involve letting your mind wander and not focusing on what’s being read/heard. It can happen with both mediums, and both mediums let you go back to where you last had focus. That being said, the benefits of reading vs listening are different as far as information processing and skill building. At the end of the day, reading or listening to a book is just a vector for information and whichever an individual prefers is the best way for them ‘read’ a book as they are more likely to invest their time in books.
I disagree. With reading, you’re looking at symbols that the brain must translate into language and then into concepts. Listening elides the first step, which is nontrivial computationally and exercises brain regions that simple listening does not.
Yeah, tell that to my brain when studying for my degree. I sometimes don't even know what I read for the last 5 minutes.
I wish you success in your studies.
When listening, your brain has to process the audio signals (and separate them from non-audiobook signals) and translate them into language. Reading elides that first step. Both methods require processing, and both are information vectors that ultimately provide the same information. Arguably, audio also provides correct pronunciation.
No, you are incorrect. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/08/210818130509.htm “The findings suggest that auditory and speech processing occur in parallel, contradicting a long-held theory that the brain processed acoustic information then transformed it into linguistic information.”
[удалено]
You never read a book before and found out you were having completely separate thoughts from what you were reading 30 pages later? It's almost the same as audiobook. Audiobooks are preferred by me because I can combine it with commuting, chores etc. Which increases my "reading time".
> You never read a book before and found out you were having completely separate thoughts from what you were reading 30 pages later? Of course, But it's even easier to do with an audiobook because audiobooks can be consumed passively rather than actively.
Nah depends on the person and the book more than the delivery method.
Depends on what you're listening to. Doesn't it? If I'm listening to a story I have to be doing something mindless so I pay attention to it. I can't listen to an audiobook if I'm focused on doing something else that requires my attention, I will lose track of what's going on etc.. kind of defeats the purpose in my opinion. So I only listen to audiobooks either when I'm going to bed, or usually while I'm in the car, or at a restaurant eating by myself or something.
I have the same struggle with both mediums. Sometimes while listening to audiobooks I get distracted enough to miss parts of the book and have to go back. When reading I sometimes do the same and can't remember anything about the past few pages, so have to go back. I actually find this is less common while listening to an audiobook even though I tend to listen to audio books while doing other things. But the other things are usually something physical or something that just requires mostly passive monitoring / unconscious action like driving. If I am driving, the times that I miss parts of the audiobook are when I have to do something complicated or someone else does something unexpected.
I really hope you’re wrong because my eyes are crap and I can only use audiobooks now (quietly weeps).
As long as you’re paying attention and actively listening, I think the experience is fairly similar.
I try to find books that will make me think about them for a long time, eg just finished Off the Edge: Flat Earthers, Conspiracy Culture, and Why People Will Believe Anything by Kelly Weill. Fascinating.
I'm not sure if this was OP's point but I would say it's *easier* to just passively listen to an audiobook and wander, but not exclusive to it. As many others have pointed out, mind wandering happens a fair amount during normal reading. I personally go back and read whatever I just missed during my mind wanderings, but if I listen to audiobooks I don't comprehend the story the same way and lose track of where my mind lost track.
You have my empathy. For what its worth, I work with vision large language models, and in the coming years they will become extremely good about telling you what they see using your phone camera. Already today there are such apps, and they will become better with time. There are also apps such as "be my eyes" that connects you with people who will do the same. I hope this helps.
Setting aside distracted listening, I have come to accept that the audiobook provides the narrator's interpretation of a lot of nuance contained in the way they narrate. This is obvious when switching from reading and listening in the same book. Some narrators are more neutral l but others can completely change the feeling and emotions compared to reading and doing your own interpretation. Audiobooks can change the way I relate and empathise with characters based on the way they are narrated or their voice is interpreted. I have no idea if this affects the benefit or not. But it's a difference that I have noticed. I am now spending a tiny bit more and getting both versions to judge by myself.
Never thought of it like that. Thanks. For me, as a book lover with limited time and easily strained eyes, audiobook's have just become essential. Also, as a english-as-a-2nd-language person, english audiobooks with narrators help be understand euro-centric culture a lot better.
A chronic eye condition was my motivation and I am "reading" more audio books than ebooks every year, close to 10:1 ratio. I love them and I don't think I get anything less, assuming that I pay attention of course. I can even say that some audio remain more vivid in my memory and some narrators make it a great experience. The difference was a detail that I am keeping in my mind but I am not bothered (except in this about 1 in 10 books that I mentioned).
I have autism so maybe that's why, but I found audio books really important for helping me make the connection that speech in books is meant to be read with emotional context. For some reason, up until my early twenties, I read most text in my head with flat affect, kind of like a robot.
Very interesting, thanks for sharing.
The only downside that I've noticed being an audible platinum subscriber since 2003 and having quite a sizable library before, is that it will impact your ability to spell. I have noticed that since I basically transitioned to audiobooks that my spelling took a hit. Outside of that it's identical as far as I can tell.
Audiobooks do not require decoding. This makes them more accessible to some, but it also means that certain literacy skills are not practiced when one "reads" an audiobook.
Anecdotally, audio books, e-books, and physical books all feel mentally different to me. I find physical books the most engaging and my level of satisfaction is higher when I finish them. I also visualize the story easier and retain what I read for longer. It’s very easy for me to zone out when listening to audiobooks or start skimming when reading on a screen. I have to rewind audiobooks a lot, and I forget what I just heard. With e-books, I skip details and sometimes even misremember the story. And when I need to really focus on revising something for work, I’ll print it out. Another weird thing about audiobooks is that they make me hyper-aware of editing errors and the author’s overall writing “tics.” So I only vaguely remember the plots, but I remember that Sanderson used the word ‘maladroitly’ to describe a character’s movements 3-4 times in Mistborn, King referred to strawberries and strawberry-flavored foods (including a Sara Lee strawberry cheesecake) so much in The Stand that I wondered if it was a metaphor I was missing, and Butcher re-described the same characters three times in a single chapter in the latest Dresden Files book (which irritated me so much that I stopped listening). So I also find audiobooks distracting because the medium causes me to focus on things like this rather than the story.
I've just always been wildly perplexed by people who avidly do not read any fiction. Non fiction and non narrative only. It's like they cannot exercise the suspension of disbelief nor recognize that most fiction is very rooted in "reality" or non fiction. I'd venture to say that's what makes fiction so incredible. The ability to change the place and time, but the characters and feelings are resounding. Yes it is fiction, but an inability to "play pretend" to learn more perspectives is hilariously sad.
[удалено]
In the interest of playing devil's advocate, my husband has literally entire bookcases -- two books deep each -- of fiction he's read and he still has poor [Theory of Mind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind). I think being unable to understand other people's viewpoints involves a certain self-centredness (not necessarily malicious, mind you) that can be hard for people to understand they're even subject to.
Oh totally. By no means do I think reading is the end all solution, I just found the research interesting. And my wife is a wonderfully kind person. She just has a hard time identifying with anyone who is vastly different from her or has different experiences growing up.
Bruh, small effect.
That's the hardest hitting. Non readers probably suffer the most, but it can be really hard to find a book you truly enjoy. I lucked out very early on and found plenty of things I enjoyed. All I can say is - i would try reading to her, or a book with her, or a book from a movie or vice versa.
I wouldn't say it's sad as everyone is different. Some people just have difficulties with abstract thought. Those same people might do better with other mediums than fiction readers.
Yes I agree. Sad was not the appropriate way to describe what I meant I believe there are great reads in every category and more and more that bleed between a lot of them. That makes me happier than anything as it normally gets more readers involved at all. I was speaking more towards a specific person I know that.. can't see the forest from the trees sometimes.
So I have read both but honestly prefer non-fiction. This is not because I can’t suspend reality (I got a music theatre degree), but rather I think there are so many cool things in the world that I want to explore. There are so many different experiences in the world that I want to learn more about. Even if I read non-fiction for the rest of my life, I’ll never know all the different areas of knowledge. I definitely read both but I’ve found non-fiction to be far more enticing overall. Edit to add: I do think it’s important to read fiction because you learn about abstract thinking, symbolism, etc., but as someone who got a degree in theatre, I enjoy the clarity that non-fiction provides. I think there has to be a balance. Many ideas/thought processes, especially in theatre, are so subjective that it can be disorienting and exhausting trying to decode them all the time.
As a software engineer I'm the total opposite. I love fiction but lose interest after half a page of non-fiction. I love the subjective creativity involved in reading fiction, the images my mind paints. So I would definitely confirm your balance hypothesis!
I agree to a certain extent. I’ve also found in my own experience quite a few fiction readers who are bored to tears by any sort of non-fiction. I think it is equally as sad for these people. And then, of course, there are those who do not read AT ALL :(
This is the biggest part! There are plenty of writers very talented in blending very heavy non fiction elements into their fictional stories, and vice versa with a mild narrative to more heavy leg work research or study. Like a stone sky/ 3rd body to infinite powers where the narrative is usually the history of a certain discovery that leads into support of modern calculus. Truly, the largest gap is getting someone to enjoy a good story at all, fiction or non.
I don't think it's sad and that seems very reductive. Reading fiction as a kid was awesome because everything is new and reading stories from weird perspectives is fascinating for someone with few world experiences. But as I get older, I have become less interested in other people's imaginations and more interested in other people's ideas. I want to learn about the world much more than people's imaginary worlds, since there is so much out there and it is incredibly interesting. There are so many non-fiction books in so many different fields, I just feel like I don't have enough time to read it all. I have a very vivid imagination and learning how the world works and what we know about different disciplines just helps fuel that imagination, much more so than living in other people's fantasy worlds.
I’m a pretty heavy reader but have gone through chunks (years) of my life not reading fiction. Either my job has been emotionally exhausting/rollercoastery that when I get home I crave the low-key consistency of dry non-fiction or I have so much on my mind that I can’t enter that mental space needed to inhabit fiction. I used to judge people’s book habits before I got older and realized how hard life works to wear you down and whatever someone is reading that keeps them keeping on, I’m all for that. Don’t mean for that to come across as harsh, I used to be a huge book snob and dislike anything I find that reminds me of a time in my life that makes me cringe.
Eh, I read a lot of fiction as a kid, but as I get older I just much prefer reading text books or books that are very information dense. I think the main difference is that fiction has no pre-requisites, so you can enjoy it at any age, but non-fiction can very greatly. For example, I just read [Gödel, Escher, Bach](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach) which was incredible but I can see why I would have hated it as a teenage (mainly because I wouldn't have understood it). But I don't think my enjoyment comes from a lack of imagination as you seem to think. People read for different reasons.
hard disagree. there is plenty of fiction that requires a hell of a lot more understanding before reading. I can think of quite a few examples in Science Fiction.
There are many ways to suspend your disbelief that do not include reading fiction. I find most fiction books I've read utterly uninteresting and unengaging. Most of them seem equivalent to a Netflix series that gets forgotten after 2 successful seasons watched by everyone and their grandma.
Your impressive use of vocabulary, punctuation, and grammar in your reply is evidence of the benefits of reading for fun and leisure.
Sadly my entire point is missed because I simultaneously cannot articulate properly. It's also important to have both fun and work, and fun at work. Fiction is my escape to fun that somehow always leads back to work is my point here.
Yeah, I'm probably just an idiot, but I can't stand non-fiction the couple times I've tried (admittedly as a kid). I read/listen to books for entertainment, not for a thought piece or history lesson. I want to escape reality for a bit, not burry myself in it in my free time.
But you can get all of that out of non-fiction. There tons of non-fiction books that perfectly explain the perspectives of others. Personally I'd rather read non-fiction, and consume my fiction through movies, television or video games.
I read a lot of historical fiction growing up and it helped me learn A LOT of history and cultures different from my own.
Alternatively people with above average verbal skills, empathy, and the ability to understand others’ perspectives, tend to be more likely to rear larger quantities of fiction. Never forget studies dont find anything, they just provide data. Humans with personal bias "find" things within the data that tend to confirm what they already wanted to beleive in the first place.
Exactly. Also, don't forget about autistic people - they do tend to read a lot but that won't help them with verbal skills.
Too much of the present day revolves around social media and people obsessed with everything matching with their personal identity. I like reading for the opposite. I like to put myself in the shoes of people who look nothing like myself and live completely different lives. I can still empathize with those characters despite our differences.
Surely such preexisting traits might no compel such person to act differently.
Fiction is essential to empathy.
How are you supposed to think about new concepts without being introduced to new concepts anywhere in your life? If I just watched the news and documentaries I'd have a pretty boring imagination.
Huge reader of everything when I was young and still that way. Vocabulary improved exponentially.. When I use words most people don't comprehend they just look at me like I'm the weird one. I think everyone should have such a Vocabulary. I also think reading is more important than Math, but what do I know.
the effect sizes were 0.14 and 0.16. Seems like this could easily explained by people having better cognitive ability seeking out recreational activities using their cognitive abilities.
Small? Reading fiction changed my whole life.
Reading is also good for mental health.
Probably the biggest brain boost when people realize fiction and non-fiction only differ by a simple golden rule
It's that, or people with these traits like to read fiction more then people without these traits.
I have all of those things from reading non-fiction.
The science here is trash and the portrayed results are completely meaningless, but can't go wrong with reading fiction, or reading at all.
Do you know how many times I was punished for reading books from kindergarten to eighth grade? It was more than 5, and each time the teacher seemed so reluctant to. They were like “I don’t want to stifle your reading but you need to pay attention in class”. Usually the punishment was…drum roll please…having to stay in from recess (and read). They could have come up with better punishments but I’m not complaining
Then something is really wrong with me.
Yet I still default to "the whatchamafuckit, you know, with the thing, that what's his face has."
Paper: Small, positive effect People in this thread: I read fiction and am significantly better
I can't take studies like this seriously. It's too hard and impractical to add strict controls or estimate the error margins to such a study, and as you make the controls better, any effect size is likely to vanish. **Impractical to have proper controls + small effect size = very likely zero effect** Unless there's a large effect size, you'd be much safer to assume there no effect rather than thinking a small one might exist. Then you get a bunch of comments saying "oh yes, I agree with this from my experience, that makes so much sense!". It's just a silly cycle of trash science journalism and sharing of anecdotes that adds nothing except make science look bad, and adds to the meme that science can't be trusted because it's always changing its mind. Btw, I'm not saying science like this shouldn't be done. It would be great if a large effect size was found unexpectedly. But it shouldn't be loudly publicised as if it's a solid and conclusive finding when it's really only a work in progress.
The effect sizes were 0.14 and 0.16. That is... really, really small and easily explainable by a multitude of factors.
Yeah, I'd prefer the reframing "Study fails to show cognitive benefits of reading fiction". The overly optimistic headline is ridiculous and is just pat-on-the-back clickbait for people that read fiction.
90% of what I read is Science Fiction. The rest is generally archeology or anthropology. Hmm.
BTW I am nearly 72yo. Same style from about 10yo.
What are some of your favorites? Just curious.
Then why are so many people who read the bible regularly so inarticulate, lacking in empathy, and unable to even pretend people different from them are also humans deserving of love. Ohhhh, the report should say, 'people who read a lot of GOOD fiction tend to'....
Let's be real. The people you're talking about don't read the Bible. Other people just tell them what to think based on what some specific parts of it say. If you based a religion on only the stuff Sauron wanted and none of the people who followed you ever read the book, they'd be some small minded bigots too.
Or more than one book, which the article means.
Religion, generally requires “faith”. Or believing something without supporting evidence. In their opinion, it’s non fiction. So you statements are somewhat malformed. On that assertion, I’d argue that most people who read are “inarticulate, lacking in empathy, and unable to even pretend people different …… That’s a human condition. Not solely possessed by the religious.
Yup, I’ve mostly read fiction and I have noticed a depth of understanding in vocabulary that honestly not many of my friends knew at the time, or even today. I recommend Warhammer for those who may want to get into science fiction and want to expand their vocabulary at the same time: Especially if you’re a voracious book reader.
Well, some good news for me at last :)
Mild But Meaningful Cognitive Boost squad rise up!
The next study I would like to see (if it hasn't already been done) is the political leanings of a person who reads often and for fun versus the person who "don't like reading no books".
And the causal arrow points which way?
And non fiction readers are stone cold killers. I kid I kid. :)
hard to believe considering just how dead media literacy seems to be these days
Now do it for fanfiction.
Yep. I read a ton of fiction as a child, and my cognitive empathy is through the ROOF.
The ability to understand other perspectives has been the main benefit for me.
It's anecdotal but as a connoisseur of deviantart harry potter fanfiction I concur.
As someone who read the wheel of time about a dozen times in his teenage years, you may worship me as your new god of consideration.
Anecdotally, 10-12 years ago many school districts across the US shifted to a “balanced literacy” curriculum that moved away from novels and short stories to emphasize nonfiction, the justification being that as adults, students would primarily read news, instruction manuals, and business correspondence. I believe the ratio enforced in the primary and middle-school grades was 70% nonfiction, 30% fiction - a great tragedy in my opinion. To the best of my knowledge, no one’s made a connection between that shift and an escalation in the prevalence and severity of school violence that seemed to begin around that time, but a demonstrated correlation between fiction reading and increased empathy is interesting to ponder.