Things I've noticed from reading probably 40 or 50 non-fiction books (mostly philosophy, some psychology, and a couple physical science books) over the last few years: 1. I'm much more articulate when I speak. I can speak much more figuratively and can come up with examples to demonstrate what I want to explain much more easily. I can also make sure that all of my sentences mean something to the overall argument when I'm speaking, such that I almost have a paragraph sketched out about 80% of the way before I begin speaking. 2. It's become much easier for me to see the holes in logic in scientific and medical studies. Instead of just taking the data at face value, I'm more critical of the motivations certain scientists had to pursue such research (or who might be funding/biasing the outcome), what types of assumptions they may be making about society or people when they're testing their hypotheses, as well as the general logic that comes with scientific studies that may often be overlooked if not being too critical or the findings are too enticing to want to refute (for instance, one paper was trying to prove that cannabinoids could act as antibiotics, but one of the primary studies placed it in an assay with a known antibiotic. The effect of the known antibiotic was potentiated (slightly more effective with the cannabinoid) but the researchers of the paper claimed that this proved it could act as a lone antibiotic, which did not seem to be the case given the actual evidence). 3. I'm more aware of the effects that societal norms, my ideological upbringing, and my geographic region play in the identity I have filled out as a person. 4. I've become more aware that I see some concepts more fluidly than people who read very little or who tend not to question things as much. Reading new perspectives has greatly broadened my horizons and I see many concepts very differently from people who tend to focus on how things currently are or how things have been. 5. Especially regarding philosophy, I studied it extensively because I thought that there was some ultimate truth that lied within it. Given the stereotypes of philosophy, it seemed pretty logical that proceeding from philosophical literature (Dostoevsky, Camus) to continental philosophy (Existentialism, German Idealism, Phenomenology) to Logic, to The Philosophy of Language, to the Philosophy of Science, and ultimately to Analytic Philosophy and Philosophical Methodology would get me closer and closer to the ultimate truth that I was trying to find. I reached the "ultimate truth" when I realized that Analytic Philosophy (which claims authority possibly through it's Imperial position of power in Britain) was just as subjective as continental philosophy and that the a priori truth it often claimed through intuitionism seemed to be not very intuitive or innate or a priori to all individuals (rather it seemed more like a club of "you get it or you don't" amongst the English intellectual elites). I still read philosophy today, but after four years of studying philosophy as a hobby, reading a philosopher's work went from reading an "ultimate unseen truth of reality's hidden mechanisms" to "this is a perspective/theory through which I can try to frame what I observe or a method of systematization that I can use to add to or inspire my own systematization of what I have experienced in and 'know' about the universe." 6. I have become more aware of the many different ways in which one can live their life and the many facets of life one can cultivate in order to live a life one finds satisfying (mostly inspired by phenomenologists like Heidegger, Sartre, or Merleau-Ponty). By honing in on the experience of phenomena, and really being present in it, degrees of freedom became more clearly available and ways in which I could take a different path or have an opportunity to try something different became easier to take advantage of while the opportunity was there. Tl:dr: If I can say anything with certainty, it is that nothing is certain. Everything is complicated, nothing is simple. It seems like we are all subjective entities trying to assemble some objective truth by taking in sense data and structuring it via concensus, but those with power usually have more of a say in what is true, even if they end up being very wrong. When it comes to seeking an ultimate truth, I can never say anything with absolute certainty; I can only take my best guess given the information I have been exposed to thus far.
That first point is actually very good. I forgot how much reading and writing impacted my articulation. And yee, a lot of well-read readers eventually just become skeptics and centrists,I realized.
i've been watching your videos for a couple months now. You've gotten so much better at speaking as well as overall video production. Thanks for inspiring me to branch out from my usual literary interests!
I definitely agree with your point about being more centrist. I have a hard time participating in political debates on sites like Twitter and Reddit because folk argue as if things are black and white when things are HEAVILY gray. Reading “Factfulness” definitely helped in understanding this. Like you mentioned in an older video, reading helps me to have nuanced discussion because it’s hard to have those type of discussions with the average person. I just can’t deal with extreme positions on a huge majority of issues. I just don’t think it’s that simple.
Yeah, I hate how heated people get as well when you try to bring the nuance into the conversation, they immediately pigeonhole you as belonging to the "bad guys" group.
I have read hundreds of non fiction/ academic texts. They far outweigh any fiction books in my repertoire. I appreciate your point about the creation of social barriers when theoretical constructs simply don't make their way into common sense. It can be rather isolating.
I find that I too, feel often out of place when talking with others, socializing, etc. I do have some people to talk to regarding the things that I read, but its only a few people. I read primarily non-fiction, I am starting to read more novels though. Happy Reading!
I think we can take it as given that fiction readers greatly outnumber non-fiction readers. Of those fiction readers, I would propose, the majority never read a non-fiction book. I do have a regular opportunity to speak with readers ( who also write for pleasure ) who consistently report that their reading is limited to a specific genre (crime I think outnumbers the rest). That can be a limiting factor on a persons interpretive perception of the world (reality?). It would be interesting to survey what non-fiction readers read in genre fiction, and how their choices in non-fiction influences the choice of genre(s). Also, I have wondered if fiction meets a need (or is a substitute) for human interaction with friend and family. And. how does it feed back into those relationships?
Honestly I also want to read more fiction, especially Lewis Carol, just need the time. My guess is nonfiction readers read historical fiction, fantasy, and scifi.
I would say that some nonfiction genres can be more objective than subjective from others. I read primarily environmental/nature, science, history, journalism, bios and memoirs. And a little philosophy. History and philosophy definitely have to be interpreted to a degree but even with history most of the time historians will all be sharing some fixed data points to build a narrative around. A lot of my science reading on the other hand, while some studies may be cherry picked or something, there isn't a lot of wondering about what the science means per se. As you read more broadly on an area it does become easier to see when an author is just using the science to grind an axe haha. I will say with some of the other kinds of writing it does expose me to different lifestyles and points of view on issues that I wouldnt have considered and things like that. But yeah anytime nonfiction is promoted I'm happy lol
I can agree with the less tolerable to socializing. A big part is that for the average person who doesn’t read their views tend to be based more on a need to believe something to be a certain way as opposed to having a more refined understanding of the world around them. It’s much easier to believe anything to be true if your thoughts aren’t being challenged.
Yeah, and books are frequent reminders of how well educated some others really are, and I want to approach most people with the similar level of respect I do for authors. But it's just never the same 😅😅😅
I think the way information is stored in your memory is dependent on your emotional state and maturity. And the latter can only be changed through life experiences. That is an issue I feel. One huge life experience can restructure your subconscious and completely change how you read any book. So you may re-read all those 200+ books in 20 years and they could have a completely different meaning. Lets say you seen war, actually seen, would any spiritual or religious book feel the same? What would be the key points that would stuck in your mind? I would honestly like to know WHY you read so much? Is it only because you are studying for work or exams? Because I have the same obsession, and sometimes I feel this isn't good.
I study usually for fun but also I write and have research obligations, so I will likely always have to read. But honestly, without reading, I would be bored lol.
How has reading non fiction books changed your life?
Things I've noticed from reading probably 40 or 50 non-fiction books (mostly philosophy, some psychology, and a couple physical science books) over the last few years:
1. I'm much more articulate when I speak. I can speak much more figuratively and can come up with examples to demonstrate what I want to explain much more easily. I can also make sure that all of my sentences mean something to the overall argument when I'm speaking, such that I almost have a paragraph sketched out about 80% of the way before I begin speaking.
2. It's become much easier for me to see the holes in logic in scientific and medical studies. Instead of just taking the data at face value, I'm more critical of the motivations certain scientists had to pursue such research (or who might be funding/biasing the outcome), what types of assumptions they may be making about society or people when they're testing their hypotheses, as well as the general logic that comes with scientific studies that may often be overlooked if not being too critical or the findings are too enticing to want to refute (for instance, one paper was trying to prove that cannabinoids could act as antibiotics, but one of the primary studies placed it in an assay with a known antibiotic. The effect of the known antibiotic was potentiated (slightly more effective with the cannabinoid) but the researchers of the paper claimed that this proved it could act as a lone antibiotic, which did not seem to be the case given the actual evidence).
3. I'm more aware of the effects that societal norms, my ideological upbringing, and my geographic region play in the identity I have filled out as a person.
4. I've become more aware that I see some concepts more fluidly than people who read very little or who tend not to question things as much. Reading new perspectives has greatly broadened my horizons and I see many concepts very differently from people who tend to focus on how things currently are or how things have been.
5. Especially regarding philosophy, I studied it extensively because I thought that there was some ultimate truth that lied within it. Given the stereotypes of philosophy, it seemed pretty logical that proceeding from philosophical literature (Dostoevsky, Camus) to continental philosophy (Existentialism, German Idealism, Phenomenology) to Logic, to The Philosophy of Language, to the Philosophy of Science, and ultimately to Analytic Philosophy and Philosophical Methodology would get me closer and closer to the ultimate truth that I was trying to find. I reached the "ultimate truth" when I realized that Analytic Philosophy (which claims authority possibly through it's Imperial position of power in Britain) was just as subjective as continental philosophy and that the a priori truth it often claimed through intuitionism seemed to be not very intuitive or innate or a priori to all individuals (rather it seemed more like a club of "you get it or you don't" amongst the English intellectual elites). I still read philosophy today, but after four years of studying philosophy as a hobby, reading a philosopher's work went from reading an "ultimate unseen truth of reality's hidden mechanisms" to "this is a perspective/theory through which I can try to frame what I observe or a method of systematization that I can use to add to or inspire my own systematization of what I have experienced in and 'know' about the universe."
6. I have become more aware of the many different ways in which one can live their life and the many facets of life one can cultivate in order to live a life one finds satisfying (mostly inspired by phenomenologists like Heidegger, Sartre, or Merleau-Ponty). By honing in on the experience of phenomena, and really being present in it, degrees of freedom became more clearly available and ways in which I could take a different path or have an opportunity to try something different became easier to take advantage of while the opportunity was there.
Tl:dr: If I can say anything with certainty, it is that nothing is certain. Everything is complicated, nothing is simple. It seems like we are all subjective entities trying to assemble some objective truth by taking in sense data and structuring it via concensus, but those with power usually have more of a say in what is true, even if they end up being very wrong. When it comes to seeking an ultimate truth, I can never say anything with absolute certainty; I can only take my best guess given the information I have been exposed to thus far.
That first point is actually very good. I forgot how much reading and writing impacted my articulation.
And yee, a lot of well-read readers eventually just become skeptics and centrists,I realized.
i've been watching your videos for a couple months now. You've gotten so much better at speaking as well as overall video production. Thanks for inspiring me to branch out from my usual literary interests!
I definitely agree with your point about being more centrist. I have a hard time participating in political debates on sites like Twitter and Reddit because folk argue as if things are black and white when things are HEAVILY gray. Reading “Factfulness” definitely helped in understanding this. Like you mentioned in an older video, reading helps me to have nuanced discussion because it’s hard to have those type of discussions with the average person. I just can’t deal with extreme positions on a huge majority of issues. I just don’t think it’s that simple.
Yeah, I hate how heated people get as well when you try to bring the nuance into the conversation, they immediately pigeonhole you as belonging to the "bad guys" group.
I have read hundreds of non fiction/ academic texts. They far outweigh any fiction books in my repertoire. I appreciate your point about the creation of social barriers when theoretical constructs simply don't make their way into common sense. It can be rather isolating.
Yeah, the more niche your interests become, the less relatable. Unfortunate, but true.
I find that I too, feel often out of place when talking with others, socializing, etc. I do have some people to talk to regarding the things that I read, but its only a few people. I read primarily non-fiction, I am starting to read more novels though. Happy Reading!
Even in universities the struggle can be real. A lot of students just show up for the degree!
I think we can take it as given that fiction readers greatly outnumber non-fiction readers. Of those fiction readers, I would propose, the majority never read a non-fiction book. I do have a regular opportunity to speak with readers ( who also write for pleasure ) who consistently report that their reading is limited to a specific genre (crime I think outnumbers the rest). That can be a limiting factor on a persons interpretive perception of the world (reality?). It would be interesting to survey what non-fiction readers read in genre fiction, and how their choices in non-fiction influences the choice of genre(s). Also, I have wondered if fiction meets a need (or is a substitute) for human interaction with friend and family. And. how does it feed back into those relationships?
Honestly I also want to read more fiction, especially Lewis Carol, just need the time.
My guess is nonfiction readers read historical fiction, fantasy, and scifi.
@@IdeasInHat It would be interesting if we were surprised by a thorough survey.
I would say that some nonfiction genres can be more objective than subjective from others. I read primarily environmental/nature, science, history, journalism, bios and memoirs. And a little philosophy. History and philosophy definitely have to be interpreted to a degree but even with history most of the time historians will all be sharing some fixed data points to build a narrative around. A lot of my science reading on the other hand, while some studies may be cherry picked or something, there isn't a lot of wondering about what the science means per se. As you read more broadly on an area it does become easier to see when an author is just using the science to grind an axe haha. I will say with some of the other kinds of writing it does expose me to different lifestyles and points of view on issues that I wouldnt have considered and things like that. But yeah anytime nonfiction is promoted I'm happy lol
When I first started bookstagram and booktube 5 years ago, there was nearly zero heavy non fiction. I love when people talk nonfiction.
I can agree with the less tolerable to socializing. A big part is that for the average person who doesn’t read their views tend to be based more on a need to believe something to be a certain way as opposed to having a more refined understanding of the world around them. It’s much easier to believe anything to be true if your thoughts aren’t being challenged.
Yeah, and books are frequent reminders of how well educated some others really are, and I want to approach most people with the similar level of respect I do for authors. But it's just never the same 😅😅😅
Developed allergy to small talk.
Haha. Truueeeee. 😁😁😁
Have you read the textbook on deep learning by Ian Goodfellow and Yoshua Bengio ?
I don't think so. I haven't had the time to study software engineering. That's on my schedule for 2027
I think the way information is stored in your memory is dependent on your emotional state and maturity. And the latter can only be changed through life experiences. That is an issue I feel. One huge life experience can restructure your subconscious and completely change how you read any book. So you may re-read all those 200+ books in 20 years and they could have a completely different meaning. Lets say you seen war, actually seen, would any spiritual or religious book feel the same? What would be the key points that would stuck in your mind?
I would honestly like to know WHY you read so much? Is it only because you are studying for work or exams? Because I have the same obsession, and sometimes I feel this isn't good.
I study usually for fun but also I write and have research obligations, so I will likely always have to read. But honestly, without reading, I would be bored lol.