“Smarter” is an interesting word. I think colloquially we interchange it with being wise, which I would say reading non fiction definitely improves, but I guess it depends what definition we use.
Non-fiction authors can have biases, and their perspectives shape how they present information. Readers should critically evaluate non-fiction works, considering potential biases and the context in which they were written. What you think?? I mean what your experience
Totally agree with you about increased nuance but not necessarily being smarter. I’ve been consistently reading nonfiction since like 2006, and I definitely feel more able to have nuanced conversations about certain things, but ain’t no way I’d consider myself smarter. I STILL have a lot to learn.
I think a comparison to chess or math helps as well. When I was younger, my brain was definitely more plastic and better at information absorption. However, I was worse at both chess and math since I have spent time studying both. You can get better while also becoming dumber. This is how I feel about nonfiction reading. Maybe you get nuanced ideas about finance or economics, but your processing power or cognitive ability hasn't gone up. That being said "smarter" is a difficult word to pin down.
Genetics, learning, effort. It's a combination of things. For instance, I would probably consider someone who solved 100,000 math problems smarter than someone who read 100 history books, because the math problems require effortful thought. You are right, though, it is a deep question and I am still not certain what a good answer to it is. Like, we know some people can barely apply themselves in high school and still get better grades, and vice versa. Complex topic.
@@IdeasInHat Another tricky question. From all the authors you have read. Who do you consider the smartest? Based on the insides you got out of them. Could be more then one name
I personally believe reading books in general( non fiction and fiction both) definitely make you a smarter person because like you said it leaves you with more questions which if you endeavour to get them answered eventually will lead to a place of wisdom, atleast that's my overall take on it, I know you speak about non fiction specifically but I believe both genres are pretty similar like that ( provided your fiction isn't high school smut)
@@Ree00012 it makes things fun. But also, complexity can allow for you to manipulate things in more minute ways, sometimes. Ultimately, it depends. For me, I just find it really fun. Maybe think of it like this, if the universe was just an empty white space, some people might find it really boring. Therefore, if the inside of my head was filled with overly pragmatic and simplistic ideas, by the same reasoning, I would find it boring; it would be more akin to a white piece of paper.
I think the first myth requires a solid definition of smarter from you and after that, an explanation on why you believe so. Because as it stands, "smarter" is abstract here.
I am not sure it does require a definition to be honest. I think there is a common sense understanding behind that word which most people understand. Just like with the word "consciousness". If you don't understand what the sentence "humans are smarter than chimps" means, then idk why defining anything would help you. If you do understand, then we don't need to define anything. If you are trying to be reductionist or analytical with language, then why stop at smarter? Why not also define human? Or book? After all, those are as equally abstract as smarter. Which then makes me wonder, are you someone who views yourself as smarter because you read? It's odd that you only latched onto that word as needing a definition, despite the critera of "abstract" being applicable to many words I said like "reality" or "Truth". Maybe you can also tell me why abstractness is a good justification for a definition, or that abstractness necessarily entails ambiguity. Because I am not actually convinced that what you wrote is "true," I am not persuaded by it.
This is why i read multiple books on what ever historical thing i read about. I try to get as many veiw points, opinion and so called 'facts' as possible.
What's a myth about nonfiction books you have come across?
“Smarter” is an interesting word. I think colloquially we interchange it with being wise, which I would say reading non fiction definitely improves, but I guess it depends what definition we use.
Non-fiction authors can have biases, and their perspectives shape how they present information. Readers should critically evaluate non-fiction works, considering potential biases and the context in which they were written.
What you think?? I mean what your experience
Couldn't agree more. Non fiction books are almost always just opinions about stuff. Not truth, haha.
Which is why it's good to read multiple history books on the same event/topic, try to get as many sides as you can.
I’ve started to see this the more I read nonfiction books.
@@bunnygirlerika9489 I read History I love so much because history repeat itself
Totally agree with you about increased nuance but not necessarily being smarter. I’ve been consistently reading nonfiction since like 2006, and I definitely feel more able to have nuanced conversations about certain things, but ain’t no way I’d consider myself smarter. I STILL have a lot to learn.
I think a comparison to chess or math helps as well. When I was younger, my brain was definitely more plastic and better at information absorption. However, I was worse at both chess and math since I have spent time studying both. You can get better while also becoming dumber. This is how I feel about nonfiction reading. Maybe you get nuanced ideas about finance or economics, but your processing power or cognitive ability hasn't gone up.
That being said "smarter" is a difficult word to pin down.
Deep question but what makes smart people smart? Experience?
Genetics, learning, effort. It's a combination of things. For instance, I would probably consider someone who solved 100,000 math problems smarter than someone who read 100 history books, because the math problems require effortful thought.
You are right, though, it is a deep question and I am still not certain what a good answer to it is. Like, we know some people can barely apply themselves in high school and still get better grades, and vice versa. Complex topic.
@@IdeasInHat Another tricky question. From all the authors you have read. Who do you consider the smartest? Based on the insides you got out of them. Could be more then one name
@@niki3205 Montaigne, Pinker, Lakoff, Nozick, hawking...honestly, there are a lot. Lol.
I personally believe reading books in general( non fiction and fiction both) definitely make you a smarter person because like you said it leaves you with more questions which if you endeavour to get them answered eventually will lead to a place of wisdom, atleast that's my overall take on it, I know you speak about non fiction specifically but I believe both genres are pretty similar like that ( provided your fiction isn't high school smut)
I was more so taking aim at the "I am high IQ because I read" group. I agree, wisdom can be acquired for sure.
@@IdeasInHat oh man detest those kind , great video btw
@@Ree00012 Truuue. Which is why they are fun, lol.
@@Ree00012 it makes things fun. But also, complexity can allow for you to manipulate things in more minute ways, sometimes.
Ultimately, it depends. For me, I just find it really fun. Maybe think of it like this, if the universe was just an empty white space, some people might find it really boring. Therefore, if the inside of my head was filled with overly pragmatic and simplistic ideas, by the same reasoning, I would find it boring; it would be more akin to a white piece of paper.
ty senpai
I think the first myth requires a solid definition of smarter from you and after that, an explanation on why you believe so. Because as it stands, "smarter" is abstract here.
I am not sure it does require a definition to be honest. I think there is a common sense understanding behind that word which most people understand. Just like with the word "consciousness".
If you don't understand what the sentence "humans are smarter than chimps" means, then idk why defining anything would help you. If you do understand, then we don't need to define anything.
If you are trying to be reductionist or analytical with language, then why stop at smarter? Why not also define human? Or book? After all, those are as equally abstract as smarter.
Which then makes me wonder, are you someone who views yourself as smarter because you read? It's odd that you only latched onto that word as needing a definition, despite the critera of "abstract" being applicable to many words I said like "reality" or "Truth".
Maybe you can also tell me why abstractness is a good justification for a definition, or that abstractness necessarily entails ambiguity. Because I am not actually convinced that what you wrote is "true," I am not persuaded by it.
@@IdeasInHat Hey, sir, newbie here. I just wanted to add, "Ooouuh, burn!".😅
This is why i read multiple books on what ever historical thing i read about. I try to get as many veiw points, opinion and so called 'facts' as possible.
Yeah, if I only I had infinite time! I would absolutely try to read every book ever written, within reason ofc.
@IdeasInHat Same, the benefit of being immortal would mean being able to read all the books! If only.