Slashdot Mirror


Read Better Books To Be a Better Person

00_NOP writes "Researchers from the New School for Social Research in New York have demonstrated that if you read quality literary fiction you become a better person, in the sense that you are more likely to empathize with others [paper abstract]. Presumably we can all think of books that have changed the way we feel about the world — so this is, in a sense, a scientific confirmation of something fairly intuitive."

158 comments

  1. Nonsense. by ornil · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's a deeply flawed study. Basically, it's cherry-picking with a vengeance. There's a good discussion at Language Log: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=7715

    1. Re:Nonsense. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also, it seems to be a rather self-involved definition of "better person".

      I could make the case that reading Ayn Rand's Fountainhead is a better indicator of being a "better person", than reading Charles Dickens' Great Expectations. And I could make that case without even agreeing with Rand's beliefs, or whether her method of storytelling is seriously flawed.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:Nonsense. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Informative

      For what it's worth, that was thrown on later by media uptake; the authors simply talk about theory of mind. It is safe to assume Ayn Rand has a very small chance of fostering this in someone.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    3. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

    4. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the link. Looks like total lack of random sampling, both for the people, and for the books. Thus this does not generalize to other people, or other books.

      Also, tiny sample sizes, multiple testing and loads of other problems.

    5. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up!

    6. Re:Nonsense. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wow, multiple mods of "Troll" to counter the upmods from people who can actually read context.

      I never said Ayn Rand was a good person, or that her books embodied 'truth', or that her books were an enjoyable read. In fact, in several prior posts I have stated the exact opposite positions.

      But as far as the premise that choosing what books you read makes you a better person, I can still state that choosing her works over Dickens is not necessarily a detractor.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    7. Re:Nonsense. by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 0

      For parroting something that someone else thought of?

      So in your mind nobody should ever share great quotes? Thanks, buzzkill.

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    8. Re:Nonsense. by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Some of us enjoyed them both.

    9. Re:Nonsense. by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

      Some of us enjoyed them both.

      But that's not the point of the quote.

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    10. Re:Nonsense. by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

      Two names guaranteed to start /. modding wars: Bill Gates and Ayn Rand.

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    11. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assumed as much.

      Most of what the general public considers as good qualities in a person are usually adherence to social norms and corporate anti-shoplifting policies.

      In general (and this is based only on my experiences) people of low to average intelligence consider me a very evil person. And people of very high intelligence don't make the distinction between good and evil with regards to people at all.

    12. Re:Nonsense. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 0

      No, I never said the person shouldn't share a great quote. I said the person doesn't deserve to be modded up for simply pasting a quote that someone else said.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    13. Re:Nonsense. by clarkkent09 · · Score: 0

      The quote is idiotic and yet it gets repeated every time Ayn Rand is mentioned and seems to always get modded up. Obviously, neither book will read to an "emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood". No single book can ever do that.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    14. Re:Nonsense. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Some of us enjoyed them both.

      But that's not the point of the quote.

      And what was the point of your quote?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    15. Re:Nonsense. by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 0

      So it's really just a matter of your own taste then. Okay, fair enough, but what are we supposed to do with that information, buzzkill?

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    16. Re:Nonsense. by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

      The point was "Was there a point to your quote?"

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    17. Re:Nonsense. by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 2

      You haven't read Ayn Rand then.

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    18. Re:Nonsense. by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      I have but I don't understand why reading her book will have such effects. Can you explain it to me?

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    19. Re:Nonsense. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Except none of you posts are in response to a quote from someone else.

      Please learn to troll better. You're being a buzzkill.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    20. Re:Nonsense. by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 2

      I could, but I don't want to. See, I'm being selfish, which is supposedly virtuous, right?

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    21. Re:Nonsense. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      So you read Atlas Shrugged and are now a socially stunted misfit. OK, now I understand where you are trolling from.

      Thanks for clearing that up.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    22. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Got him on a technicality!

    23. Re:Nonsense. by fritsd · · Score: 1

      I think I could give it a try, but you'd have to pay me first, otherwise it would be immoral.

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    24. Re:Nonsense. by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

      Vendetta-posting... how quaint.

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    25. Re:Nonsense. by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

      You sure fixed my wagon, yessiree! That'll teach me.

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    26. Re:Nonsense. by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      You are not being selfish, you are being dishonest.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    27. Re:Nonsense. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I read the intro paragraph, and the definition section. I can understand what the concept is, but a lot of it is beyond me. Also, as someone who has high-functioning autism (from before Asperger's syndrome was 'discovered'), a lot of the topics discussed are more or less foreign to me.

      Thanks for clarifying what the study was about. And, having read the link, I agree with your conclusion about Rand in this case.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    28. Re:Nonsense. by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I am being selfish.

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    29. Re:Nonsense. by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      So your understanding of Rand's philosophy is that it is immoral to do something unless you get paid for it?

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    30. Re:Nonsense. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      No, honestly. Your post refers to the previous post's quote, which doesn't exist. You are posting multiple sub-threads defending an AC's mindlessly-parroted quote, leading me to believe that AC was you. When I ask about "your quote" you don't correct me that you "haven't quoted anyone", which you, Freshly Exhumed, had not at that point. So, further proof you are the AC, defending yourproxyself.

      If I am mistaken, and the AC isn't you, great. Doesn't matter in the big picture though, because you are still trolling, using the term "buzzkill" which I tossed back at you for fun.

      Either way, to quote the great Vizzini, "It has worked! You've given everything away! I know where the poison is!"

      Have I nice day. I'm off to the store now.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    31. Re:Nonsense. by shrikel · · Score: 1

      No single book can ever do that.

      Of course, LotR is really three books... (Or six. Or seven. (Depending on how you count them.))

      --
      Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
    32. Re:Nonsense. by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

      It is immoral for you to question why someone would charge you for their services, isn't it?

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    33. Re:Nonsense. by russotto · · Score: 1

      Some of us enjoyed them both.

      You probably enjoy Vogon poetry as well.

    34. Re:Nonsense. by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      You don't understand Ran'd philosophy (even if you had read her books, which I doubt) and you cannot explain why reading them would make you a emotionally stunted. Yet you claim that you can. That's dishonesty and, by the way, your dumb 'jokes' are not succeeding in covering up your ignorance.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    35. Re:Nonsense. by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 0

      Hee hee, you win. I am John Galt though.

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    36. Re:Nonsense. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      And if you read Slashdot too often, you become an argumentative, brain-dead stunted fellow who can't see anything but flaws, in anything.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    37. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have some problems with your argument. Firstly, moderation isn't about rewarding a person (although it can have benefits) but about engendering a better discussion. Secondly, since the person posted anonymously they will not receive any benefit from an up-mod.

      The question isn't "does the person deserve to be modded up" but "Will modding this post up help the dissemination of ideas and engender good discussion?"

    38. Re:Nonsense. by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

      My profit here is not in dollars and cents, but anyway I don't have to justify to anyone why I choose to engage or not in any profit-making activity, right? I therefore stand my ground and confirm that I am indeed being selfish.

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    39. Re:Nonsense. by SternisheFan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Rand was broken by the Bolsheviks as a girl, and she never left their bootprint behind. She believed her philosophy was Bolshevism's opposite, when in reality it was its twin. Both she and the Soviets insisted a small revolutionary elite in possession of absolute rationality must seize power and impose its vision on a malleable, imbecilic mass. The only difference was that Lenin thought the parasites to be stomped on were the rich, while Rand thought they were the poor.

      http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2009/11/how_ayn_rand_became_an_american_icon.html

      Sounds to me that she was a sad, drug addicted nut who was overly influenced by her rough childhood, and any nut can write books. Doesn't make them right (see: L.Ron Hubbard).

    40. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOTR is the worst book I stopped reading midway. The story is good but the writing is plain awful and boring.

    41. Re:Nonsense. by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      We the Living was pretty good. And Anthem is so short it doesn't matter. But the others... yeah I read them, but usually don't recommend them.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    42. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The quotation marks were included for a reason.

      And it's not a person, it's an anonymous post, therefore, no person will receive credit or reward for it.

    43. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      LOTR is the worst book I stopped reading midway. The story is good but the writing is plain awful and boring.

      What is the best book you stopped reading halfway?

    44. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh, that quote only dates back to 2009. As much as I've heard it I figured it had its origin in the 80s. I wouldn't mod someone up for quoting it once again, myself. It's a bit overdone, to say the least.

    45. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's a wonderful little joke in my language, and it comes from a time of being a peoples republic:
      Capitalism is humans exploiting other humans. Communism is the reverse of that.

    46. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't speak for the other AC, but...

      The Silmarilion is so bad it's good! Like LOTR, but much worse.

    47. Re:Nonsense. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      "a sad, drug addicted nut who was overly influenced by her rough childhood". Sounds like a good description of a fair few writers out there. Seriously though, even if Rand wanted to impose her vision using methods similar to the Bolsheviks, you'd also have to compare her vision with theirs to make any sort of meaningful comparison between the two.

      I've read some of Rand's books when I was 14 or so, and they did change my life. Not because they are such great books or because I agree with her philosophy, but because up to that age, most of the books you'll read will be your school books, and many of those books (as well as the teachers) extol the virtues of, for lack of a better word, socialism. (I'm talking about education in the Netherlands here, and no, I am not kidding. YMMV per school, though). After all that indoctrination it was a big surprise to find a book describing an outlook on life more closely matching my own views. Rand's books aren't amongst the better books that I've read, but they are amongst the books that made me a better person, and even if I discarded many of her views later on, they did get me interested in politics and philosophy in general.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    48. Re:Nonsense. by hey! · · Score: 2

      Well... papers exist to be ripped apart by other scholars. The initial claims and counter-claims are bound to be the most obvious ones, the ones that turn on simple issues rather than abstruse ones. So it's no surprise that the initial criticism seems to have caught the authors with their methodological pants down. It's better to let a few rounds of point/counterpoint run before drawing any firm conclusions.

      The study seems to belong to subfield of social pyschology which has become somewhat controversial -- priming. The way priming studies go is that the study population is divided into two groups, one of which gets a treatment which the experimenter thinks will affect his subsequent judgment, another of which gets a placebo treatment. A test is then administered to each group, and if there is significant difference the author makes claims about what that means.

      The ways this can go wrong are legion. The experimenter can choose a treatment that can't demonstrate what he wants to claim (e.g. the stories he chooses don't qualify as "literary fiction"). He can choose a placebo that has unwanted effects (e.g., a story that actually primes its readers to be stupider). He can be biased in his administration of the test. He can get a significant result simply by chance (1/20 studies will do this). The experimental results my be real, but his interpretation unsupportable (e.g., the psychoanalyst who did a study of the different mannerisms of male and female smokers, and interpreted the difference as supporting the concept of "penis envy").

      A single experiment never proves anything.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    49. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I said the person doesn't deserve to be modded up for simply pasting a quote that someone else said.

      The person did it anonymously, so although they didn't give attribution for the quote, they didn't attempt to claim it as their original work (by definition).

      I'm glad someone saw fit to mod it up, making it prominent in this discussion since I hadn't seen or heard it before. Also, it's pertinent and insightful.

    50. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't understand Ran'd philosophy

      Un'derstan'd.

      If you're going to be retarded at least be consistent.

    51. Re:Nonsense. by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      Some folks tend to use Ayn Rand like ketchup . . . they put her on anything, without thinking about the taste.

      An architecture student I knew at school was a big Ayn Rand fan. She explained to me that engineers were "leeches" living off the ideas created by "real scientists", who were "producers."

      . . . um, . . . ok . . . whatever . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    52. Re:Nonsense. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Obviously, neither book will read to an "emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood". No single book can ever do that.

      Really? Have you looked at the middle east recently?

      (WP:Balanced::::Viewpoint:::::::::: Or Utah)

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    53. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, neither book will read to an "emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood". No single book can ever do that.

      Really? Have you looked at the middle east recently?

      (WP:Balanced::::Viewpoint:::::::::: Or Utah)

      You don't have to go that far, just look at the religious right anyplace here in the USA.

    54. Re:Nonsense. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      What's the matter? ...

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    55. Re:Nonsense. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      ... No one responded to your first post. ...

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    56. Re:Nonsense. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      ... So you have to post twice more, seeking validation?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    57. Re:Nonsense. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I knew it!

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    58. Re:Nonsense. by 32771 · · Score: 1

      You do have a point but there are other effects, like totally forgetting that through specialization we have become dependent on each other. Here is an example:

      http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif

      --
      Je me souviens.
    59. Re:Nonsense. by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      Hey, if her works got you thinking, that's great. It's the people who feel that anything any writer says must be true, and don't question, those zealots are scary to me. It seems Rand would not accept a viewpoint that did not fall into line with hers. That's what makes her, imo, sad.

    60. Re:Nonsense. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Yes I did. Now you must pay me. :^P

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    61. Re:Nonsense. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      The best book I stopped reading halfway would be one of Stephen King's. Both Misery and Pet Cemetary only kept my attention for a few chapters, then I watched the movie version. I planned to finish reading them, but never did. Others of his works were much better.

      The worst book I stopped halfway through was Twain's Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. That thing was so tedious it was painful. It also was the first book I ever put down, and have no intention of picking it back up again.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    62. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your books in the Netherlands may not be representative of the schoolbooks others read.

      Unless you've got Texas dictating more discussion of the conflicting theories about Evolution over in the EU.

    63. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To the first post of an anonymous coward? How would you know? How do we know you're not posting this reply to yourself? Or any number of others? Are you that desperate for attention that you manufacture a whole conversation? Yeah, you probably are.

    64. Re:Nonsense. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      JaredOfEuropa specifically said:

      (I'm talking about education in the Netherlands here, and no, I am not kidding. YMMV per school, though).

      I'm willing to bet that not only is Texas not in the Netherlands, but also that you go to a different school than he does.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    65. Re:Nonsense. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 0

      No you dope. To the first of three nearly identical posts in a row. And you know I'm not posting replies to myself because I'm such an asshole in those situations.

      Thanks for playing along.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    66. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously you're still butthurt over how the reply to your comment with a pithy quote got upmodded more than your original comment, so you're making a desperate plea for attention by presenting yourself as the victim.

      Which is more like John Galt than you realize.

    67. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And you know what's funny - Rand is really comparable to Bolsheviks, though that slate article missed the connection.

      What if I tell you that Atlas Shrugged was written way back in the 19-th century and it was the favorite book of Vladimir Lenin and later taught in Soviet schools? Because that's totally true.

      The original is called What Is to Be Done? by Nikolay Chernyshevsky. It's written in 1863 and because of it, the author was considered the most dangerous man in the Russian empire.

      I'm not talking about distant comparisons here, Rand quite literally took everything from Chernyshevsky, most notably rational selfishness, hero worship, the utopian outlook and lack of subtlety. The hilarious part - Chernyshevsky uses rational selfishness as a cause for... socialism!

      Since What Is To Be Done? was pretty much ingrained in progressive Russian culture at the time, there's no way Rand was unaware of it.

    68. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard about an add on to Chrome that blocks/censors any mention of Miley Cyrus, and twerking. Does anyone know if I can I get one for Ayn Rand?

    69. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And before that, JaredofEuropa said:

      Not because they are such great books or because I agree with her philosophy, but because up to that age, most of the books you'll read will be your school books, and many of those books (as well as the teachers) extol the virtues of, for lack of a better word, socialism.

      When he's using an indefinite reference such as the second person, rather than describing himself, he's not talking about himself, but projecting his experience onto others. When you want to relate your experiences, you use the first person. A qualifier such as was used to follow up does not address that, he should have just said "the books I read were my schoolbooks which...." and not tried to extend it further.

    70. Re:Nonsense. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      For completeness sake, I will agree that the sentence you quoted does mean JaredOfEuropa was projecting his early reading experience onto others, as far as which books are read. He also coincidentally projected his experience with his school system, i.e. schoolbooks and teachers. So, while typing a casual comment on an online message board, he was putting down thoughts as they came to him. However, he realized he was projecting his childhood experiences. He could have chosen to backspace a bit, and simply re-write the part you find so offensive. He chose to keep those thoughts intact, and instead qualified his remarks. That parenthetical qualifier explicitly limits the childhood education and the schoolbooks under discussion to what was used in the schools in his small country.

      Unless you wish to claim intimate knowledge of the school system in the Netherlands, and that you know only a few schools use such books as he describes, I will accept his description of the books he had to read in the school system he was brought up attending. I will further accept his statement that he is limiting his discussion to only those books and only his country's school system.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    71. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twer king? What's a twer king? And who is Mikey Cyrus? Is he a twer king? Is he a twer king in Chrome?

      Please tell us more about your twer king Mikey Cyrus.

    72. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too, friend! Why is it that people who criticize me or disagree with me are always stupid?

    73. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true jackass that has selectively read, if at all, Rand.

      Read her first novel "We The Living". And then STFU.

      Because you're just as intolerable as the jackass ideologues that also take her life's work entirely out of context.

    74. Re:Nonsense. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      If you're going to play apologist, can I assume you've read the analyses of Barbara and Nathaniel Branden?

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    75. Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to play apologist, can I assume you've read the analyses of Barbara and Nathaniel Branden?

      Different AC, but yes I have read both their biographies as well as Peikoff's "Objectivism the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" some of his other material. I read everything just about everything from Nathaniel Branden pre-split and several books into it (I like his ideas too but there are only so times you need to read it to 'get it').

      I've read most every published book from Ayn Rand, many of the essays and newsletters, but not every single tidbit. I believe editors exist for a reason.

      Anyway, I'm sure if the greek philosphers lived with such a media savvy culture, we would not only have their collected works but four or five biographies - by contempories that knew them - for each one of them as well as details of their entire sex lives, who their friends/enemies/frenemies were and when. Instead we have scraps of their thought or the bits a contempory managed to document (and that document was not lost to the ages).

      Maybe I'm just weird because although I admire Ayn Rand greatly, I don't expect to her to have been a saint. I am however cursed by reading oodles of braindead commentaries by people who lead boring lives and will never accomplish anything. I *AM* in the boat (boring life, no accomplishments of note). What I am not doing is posting crap about Jesus Christ or Obama being gay. It is not my business and it ought not affect those who believe in them.

    76. Re:Nonsense. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      And all I really wanted to point out is that no one ever reads We The Living, and that the rest of her writing career was very much focused on Objectivist themes (and, in case there was any doubt, that her personal life goes very much the same way, as demonstrated by her intolerance and dismissal of any friend who disagreed with her.)

      One of Nathaniel Branden's final conclusions is that Rand wanted a world of absolute conformity of perspective. If anyone does pick up an understanding of theory of mind from one of her more popular works, I would expect it wouldn't go any further than "whatever they think is either the same as me or wrong." I think based on your last paragraph you have the insight to avoid this particular pitfall of her thinking.

      At any rate, based on the methods used in this study, Atlas Shrugged certainly wouldn't make people uniformly more sympathetic to the plights of others—presumably only those being forced to feel for others against their will—and so wouldn't show up as the type of books they were aiming to test anyway.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    77. Re:Nonsense. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Hello again.

      I have read her book The Fountainhead, a couple years ago. (I'm in my forties, btw, so not some impressionable kid the comments from other posters seem to focus on.) While I can appreciate her views, and the basics of Objectivism, she is hard to read. I usually compare her style to being hit in the head with a load of bricks. And that's just from the message in every paragraph. For me, the characters in that novel were all hateable.

      At any rate, based on the methods used in this study, Atlas Shrugged certainly wouldn't make people uniformly more sympathetic to the plights of others—presumably only those being forced to feel for others against their will—and so wouldn't show up as the type of books they were aiming to test anyway.

      This is why I agreed with your statement in my other reply. If the study was about being a "better person", reading her works would open up a view most people never had. Even if they immediately reject it, they have grown with the experience. But if the study is about the theory of mind, and getting people to understand what is in others' minds, she wouldn't be a good pick. She doesn't seem to have had that ability, or be sympathetic and accepting of thoughts that weren't her own.

      Of course, this is just from reading one of her books, and a couple articles about her to get an understanding of the controversy around her. I'm not pretending to be well read about her. So thank you again for your explanations. They are appreciated.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    78. Re:Nonsense. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Check out who has been in our heads lately.

      http://xkcd.com/1277

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    79. Re:Nonsense. by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Mine was a Stephen King as well. It's been so long that I don't even recall which one. I want to say The Stand.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    80. Re:Nonsense. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      That would be a good guess. I never tried it. Especially after I read that the publisher chopped huge sections out of the original story, and it still ended up at almost a thousand pages. I think originally it was over 1200 pages.

      I did like the movie/mini-series though.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    81. Re:Nonsense. by intermodal · · Score: 1

      I looked it up and yes, that was the one. I think I was about 16 years old at the time and got distracted from my regular reading time by getting a job.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  2. And this is news? by mendax · · Score: 0

    I've always thought that this was the case. However, I think it might be an example of the "chicken or the egg" problem. Is it you become a better person because you read good books, or do better people automatically read better books? For myself, I would much prefer to read a Charles Dickens' novel than any of the schlock produced by Dan Brown, although I have read both. ;-)

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    1. Re:And this is news? by timeOday · · Score: 4, Informative

      Read the article, it was a randomized study in which people were assigned to read specified books selected beforehand by the experimenters.

    2. Re:And this is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it all stinks of a FEMA ploy

    3. Re:And this is news? by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

      It would be news if it was on the front page of the National Enquirer with a headline like "Your Favorite Book Tells Your Personality!"

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
  3. Correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... or causation ?

    1. Re:Correlation by RevGregory · · Score: 1

      ...or reverse causation. It wouldn't strike me as odd at all if people who have already developed the qualities espoused by a certain type of literature would enjoy reading that sort of literature. In fact, it makes a hell of a lot more sense than the reverse.

  4. Empathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is not quantifiable. This is just more nonsense "social" research wasting good money.

  5. Better books? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The last book I read was "The Prince," so fuck you asshole!

    1. Re:Better books? by DanielOom · · Score: 1

      People who bought Macchiavelli, also bought Marquis de Sade. P.S. I guess reading Tolkien helped my to empathise with Orcs.

    2. Re:Better books? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Bible has made a better person.

    3. Re:Better books? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      People who bought Macchiavelli, also bought Marquis de Sade.

      P.S. I guess reading Tolkien helped my to empathise with Orcs.

      You mean the people of technology who were trying to bring Middle Earth out of a squishy worship of unexplained mysticism?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  6. Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And now said researcher please tell me what "quality literary fiction" is.

    One thing is certain: this is not quality reseach.

    1. Re:Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not Harry Potter or Ender's Game.

    2. Re: Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As with many of the commenters here, it will no doubt be something that agrees with their political philosophy. Particularly if they are lefties.

    3. Re:Quality by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      It uses "literary" and "research" in the same sentence. You have to use the "special" definition of research in this case, and by special I mean mentally challenged, and by definition of research I mean making shit up. So with this footnote, you get the general idea of what they're talking about.

    4. Re: Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would it matter what hand they write with?

      Captcha: oryctérope -- wtf!!!

  7. I don't read shit you assholes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Go fuck yourselves.

  8. critique of the study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Over at Language Log, Prof. Mark Liberman gives an annoyed critique of this study.

  9. Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas by rueger · · Score: 2

    Need I say more?

  10. What does that say about America? by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

    Interestingly enough, while many literary typse laud the New York Times or the Washington Post, the most popular 'news' paper in America is the National Enquirer. With most folks reading that, no wonder there is a lack of empathy (or thought or insight) in American politics today.

    Or is this just another story about how reading comments on the internet just dumbs us down even more (assuming empathy is a good thing)?

    1. Re:What does that say about America? by ledow · · Score: 2

      Junk tabloids are always more popular. In the UK, it's the Sun and the Mail and the Mirror and the Sport, etc.

      The same way that the most popular shows on TV don't have much in the way of thinking involved - celeb shows and "reality" TV.

      The barrier to entry is lower, so more people consume them. Unfortunately, it's pretty much a one-way downhill run from there.

      You have to wonder what we're teaching our kids, especially in the celebrity areas. Let's all consume trivial information about people who got rich by not being able to sing but they can wiggle their ass suggestively.

    2. Re:What does that say about America? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Is the National Enquirer a junk tabloid? They offer a lot of worthless "famous people news" (not really any worse than E!...), but the do also occasionally break actual newsworthy stories. At least one that the vaunted New York Times knew about and had decided not to report on.

      Choosing not to report something because of a political agenda is one of the most insidious, vile things a news organization can do.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  11. Re:I became a better person... by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

    I read a biography of Ayn Rand and felt really sorry for her.

  12. yes and... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    ...watch better TV to ... no, wait....

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  13. I Read Starship Troopers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now I want to kill all the Bugs and blow up their planet...

  14. Crime rates plotted against 50 Shades sales? by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

    Did the authors plot crime rates against sales of 50 Shades of Grey and similar "literature"? If so, they just might be on to something.

    --
    -- Using the preview button since 2005
    1. Re:Crime rates plotted against 50 Shades sales? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crimes at sex shops?

    2. Re:Crime rates plotted against 50 Shades sales? by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      Sexily commited crimes at sex shops.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
  15. Hoping it wasn't true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All I ever read is Slashdot. I'm afraid it's turned me into something of an insensitive clod.

    1. Re:Hoping it wasn't true... by fritsd · · Score: 1

      All I ever read is Slashdot. I'm afraid it's turned me into something of an insensitive clod.

      Well, in my personal view, you're still better off as an insensitive clod, than as an insensitive pebble.

      N.B.: maybe this poem is accidentally on-topic as well!

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
  16. Twilight.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So.. if reading quality works makes you a better person.. ..what does reading Twilight novels make you?

    1. Re:Twilight.. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Sparkly?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:Twilight.. by hey! · · Score: 2

      I actually read *Twilight* to see what all the fuss was about. And if you read with a sufficiently open mind, you can see what the fuss is all about. Meyer is a gifted writer. What she is *not* is a technically proficient writer -- at least in her debut novel. She offers little that will lure you in if you aren't square in the novel's target demographic, and plenty that will put you off if you aren't immediately swept up in the spell. Her handling of dialogue is particularly painful for the non-fan.

      Yes, you can boil the attraction of Twilight down to a simple formula, but if you think that's all there is to it, then go write your own 118 thousand word novel with the formula and watch the millions of dollars roll in. It's not that simple. It takes a special talent to make the formula work.

      Overall, reading *Twilight* made me sad, because the book could have been so much better. It needed the services of developmental editor, and a tough one at that. If they'd invested a few thousand more dollars up front they might have widened the market for the book. Instead they got a massive anti-*Twilight* backlash. A strong editor would have made a lot of those *Twilight* haters into fans.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Twilight.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First there's Bella; possibly the most uninteresting protagonist ever written.

      Then there Edward who is even lamer than Louis from the Ann Rice books.

    4. Re:Twilight.. by hey! · · Score: 1

      But the question is, what did Meyer do to make them so?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  17. Some do, some don't by Dr.+Winston+O'Boogie · · Score: 3, Informative

    The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford

  18. I Also Read Starship Troopers... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    I want to kill Paul Verhoeven and blow up his house.

    It's the least he deserves for what he did.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    1. Re:I Also Read Starship Troopers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The movie may not have been a straight adaptation of the book, but it was the movie that the book deserved.

    2. Re:I Also Read Starship Troopers... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Haha so true

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    3. Re:I Also Read Starship Troopers... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      No, you don't understand. You don't get the underlying truth that the book reveals. You have to realize that... (and similar such over-subanalyzed tripe).

      The movie may be what the crowd who reply with that sort of junk deserve. :^)

      But the book itself is much better than the crap that Paul V. made it out to be.

      On a similar vein, what specifically about the book did you find objectionable when you read it?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    4. Re:I Also Read Starship Troopers... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Going out on a limb, the idea of defaulting to second class citizens promotable only through military service? Patriotism without cause?

    5. Re:I Also Read Starship Troopers... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Thank you for you response. This is the single most referenced point I have seen, over the years.

      Except it wasn't "military service" that was required in the book. The requirement to get full citizenship was "federal service" which included many non-military fields. This story just happens to follow someone who was put in the military to fulfill his federal service.Therefor he focuses on the military aspect of his own service.

      Heinlein himself stated that he never intended military service to be the only path to citizenship within the story. When I read the book (in high school or soon after), I never got the sense that citizenship was limited to military veterans only. I don't remember hearing about the controversy before reading the book, so it wasn't something already planted in my brain, so to speak. But I do know I wondered about limiting citizen ship to those who served their fellow people first, which is what the requirement really boils down to.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    6. Re:I Also Read Starship Troopers... by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Going out on a limb, the idea of defaulting to second class citizens promotable only through military service?

      Except in the book civilians really aren't second class. In fact, the book only mentions 2 distinctions between citizens and civilians: some reserved jobs such as police officer for veterans, and the ability (or responsibility, as the book tells it) to vote. The doctor that examined Rico was a civilian. Rico's father was a civilian and owned his own manufacturing company and their family appeared to be one of the wealthiest in the Phillipines. Civilians can go to college (and can do so before citizens can). And as for voting? Many people don't vote now, and those who do tend to vote on party lines, sound bites, what the candidate looks like, or any of countless other heuristics; vary rarely do they consider the consequences of their vote, or truly examine the issues. Heinlein wasn't creating a two-tiered civilization. He was essentially arguing that the only way to get people to care about the state and it's preservation is to make them personally invested in the state. By risking their lives in the protection of the state (and remember, the book explicitly states that most citizens are made through non-military, auxiliary service) they learn the value of the state and will exercise the power of the vote responsibly, so as to not lessen or make irrelevant their own contributions to the state. They are also taught that in mandatory classes in school. While going through OCS, Rico comes to the realization that voting never really mattered to him all that much, and that he and every other cap trooper "voted" every time they made a drop, because they were saying that the protection of the state and therefore society was worth their lives. It is not about patriotism; rather, it is, to misquote the book, that the part realizes it is part of a whole and that it should willingly risk it's own existence to ensure the continuation of the whole. The whole is scalable too: it applies to the family, to the group, the town, the city, society, the state, the world. That is what separates it from patriotism. Patriotism stops at the state; in Starship Troopers it went all the way to the human race.

      I would gladly take Heinlein's system over what we currently have in the US. We wouldn't have a government shutdown, we wouldn't be worried about the debt ceiling, because the politicians (who would have to be citizens) would put the good of the state ahead of their own attempts at holding/gaining power and grandstanding. I also wouldn't mind the idea of things like mandatory capital sentences for things like murder, kidnapping, etc. But that's a whole other issue.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  19. Read Slashdot ... and? by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    hmm ... do I really want to know the answer?

  20. s/books/stories/ by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Books, songs, movies, comics, oral tradition, news, all of that brings a story with them, one were you can identify with it, recognize as a pattern, and use that pattern to seek a guidance for our actions to get a better outcome. They also draws a picture in how other people (should) think, the more clear is that picture, the better the concept is assimilated by us, and books usually have a bigger extent on showing how characters think and feel, but is not something exclusive of them. But books probably have the bigger set of good ones with different stories and good character exploration , even if copyrights are making a big portion of them almost invisible (and is important to see the vision of the world of previous cultures)

  21. Non-fiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems that non-fiction would have a similar effect as well, no? If you read non-fiction for growth in knowledge or wisdom you have bettered yourself as well.

  22. What makes a better person? by hashtagdeals · · Score: 1

    Empathy is good an all but I dont think its the leading quality to becoming a better person. I argue that becoming self sufficient (ie not a burden) makes one a better person because then one wouldn't have to depend on other's empathy.

    1. Re:What makes a better person? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Empathy is good an all but I dont think its the leading quality to becoming a better person. I argue that becoming self sufficient (ie not a burden) makes one a better person because then one wouldn't have to depend on other's empathy.

      Human beings are social animals. In social interactions, there are times when showing weakness or need helps to build a closer relationship with your peers, strengthening the group overall and leading to better outcomes for everyone. Some kind going off and living in a log cabin on his own so that he doesn't require anything from anyone, is not what human beings evolved to do.

    2. Re:What makes a better person? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Self-sufficiency doesn't really exist. And the number of places where one could live as a self-sufficient recluse is rapidly dwindling. Most people today don't even have the option and it is unclear if any significant number of people would want to live such a life. Living your self-sufficient life you cannot really help anyone or be there for anyone; it's like you don't exist at all. And out of all things friends in trouble need, perhaps surprisingly to you, money or other concrete help usually isn't in the number 1 spot. It's the listening ear of someone who can empathise.

    3. Re:What makes a better person? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your point is... what, exactly? It's perfectly possible to not do something (e.g. have children, be social, etc.) even if we evolved to do so; there is no evolution god that commands any of these things of us, and it's perfectly possible to not do them if you don't want to. Your comment is 100% meaningless.

      Vanish, defeatist. Oh, and what qualifies as "better" is subjective.

    4. Re:What makes a better person? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Empathy is good an all but I dont think its the leading quality to becoming a better person. I argue that becoming self sufficient (ie not a burden) makes one a better person because then one wouldn't have to depend on other's empathy.

      Human beings are social animals. In social interactions, there are times when showing weakness or need helps to build a closer relationship with your peers, strengthening the group overall and leading to better outcomes for everyone. Some kind going off and living in a log cabin on his own so that he doesn't require anything from anyone, is not what human beings evolved to do.

      It has always seemed strange to me...The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success. And while men admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second.
      - John Steinbeck, Cannery Row

    5. Re:What makes a better person? by AlphaWoIf_HK · · Score: 1

      Self-sufficiency doesn't really exist.

      To varying to degrees, it does.

      And the number of places where one could live as a self-sufficient recluse is rapidly dwindling.

      Not really. There are still plenty of places you could go where no one would probably find you, but I'm not sure how many people would even desire such a thing.

      Living your self-sufficient life you cannot really help anyone or be there for anyone; it's like you don't exist at all.

      Except for the fact that you do exist. Not everyone cares about helping others or being there for others, though, and I suspect that's the sort of person who would move to a remote location alone.

      --
      Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
    6. Re:What makes a better person? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off you don't /depend/ on others empathy. Empathy is very important for "not being a sociopath" reasons alone. Since even many so-called "self-sufficient" people can be far more parasitic do more harm than if they were slacking off the entire whole time. The infamous office politics, the social ladder climber who claims credit for that which they're not involved, fires those more talented underneath them because they view them as a threat. They effectively sabotage their own company to get ahead and then leap off of the ship before it sinks.

  23. I find the whole basis of this flawed. by astro · · Score: 1

    The way this is set up, it relies at its foundation on a purely subjective concept - what is "quality" literature? I consider myself well read, and empathetic. But my favorite literature, which meets my personal criteria for quality, was written by authors like William S. Burroughs, Mickey Spillane and Louis-Ferdinand Céline. Not exactly a collection of empaths or good citizens by standard definitions.

    1. Re:I find the whole basis of this flawed. by Peter+H.S. · · Score: 1

      The way this is set up, it relies at its foundation on a purely subjective concept - what is "quality" literature? I consider myself well read, and empathetic. But my favorite literature, which meets my personal criteria for quality, was written by authors like William S. Burroughs, Mickey Spillane and Louis-Ferdinand Céline. Not exactly a collection of empaths or good citizens by standard definitions.

      Quality literature is what influential readers reach a inter-subjective conclusion about. So it isn't a law of nature, nor are there objective ways to deduce whether a work is quality literature or not. Still, assuming that not every piece of literature is of quality, and one cannot ever hope to read even a fraction of the books ever written, one has to rely on the taste of other influential readers and writers to shift through the masses of books. The system actually work in its own peculiar way.

      All 3 authors you mention are widely regarded as good writers that produced some quality literature.

      Notice that the empathy developing ability of reading quality literature, isn't about being nice, or reading nice works by nice authors (Celine as a person was an arrogant anti-semtic asshole by all accounts).

      Empathy isn't about feeling sorry for someone, but to understand their situation as they themselves see it. So literature allows the impossible, namely to "see" into a foreign mind and see how it operates, to follow its logic or lack thereof. Literature trains the mind in the reading of other minds, and to see things from their perspective, even if you disagree strongly with it.

      Fiction is of course fiction, and the mind William S. Burroughs conjure in "Junkie" is just a fictional construction despite its semi-biographical nature. Still, after reading it you may think that you actually better understand the mind of a unredeemed drug addict, something you may never have experienced in your real life.

    2. Re:I find the whole basis of this flawed. by astro · · Score: 1

      Excellent and thoughtful reply - thank you. I do see your point, especially as you make the specific point about Céline. Taking the difficult jump to really get in to his often first-person, disjointed and abstract narratives, really does allow the reader to understand a character I would find loathsome in the real world.

  24. Re:I became a better person... by fritsd · · Score: 1

    Thank you, that was fascinating to read.

    --
    To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
  25. Re:Like... by aristotle-dude · · Score: 0

    ... the Bible! ;P

    Yup.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  26. Wrong. by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    Both "Quality" and "Better" are subjective. NEXT!

  27. Agh! Too,,, much... porn... infecting... mind. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read that initially as "Read Better Boobs..."

    Clearly I need to find a different hobby.

  28. Cultural Participation by h4nk · · Score: 1

    Literature, as a form of art, really is about the culture from which it originates from and that culture which is the subject. Any personal "enrichment" by a reader, regardless of the material, is based on their subjective experience. Whether the take-away experience positively or negatively affects the reader... I can't see how any valid generalization can be made beyond, "it may or may not happen, and to the degree and quality, that is indeterminate." The only thing we can really verifiably say is that the reader participated in the cultural narrative.

  29. I spent my formative years reading fanfiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Believe it or not, fanfiction's not all bad romance. Some of it's amazingly good, and it tends to focus on character development and exploration since it isn't so important to build a setting. Lots of "what if" stories. The end result: I am better at empathizing with other people than literally anyone I know. And I know a lot of psychologists.

  30. False Definition by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    "if you read quality literary fiction you become a better person, in the sense that you are more likely to empathize with others."

    That is a false assumption. Being more empathetic does not make your a better person. Too much empathy is a disease. It is also curable. There's a medication for that.

  31. I read slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure if it's the same though? I do find myself empathising more with servers, IPv6 and robots.

  32. If you're a better person you'll read better books by alihm · · Score: 1

    It's the other way around. If you are a better person you will read better books. The study is flawed.

  33. Re:If you're a better person you'll read better bo by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

    It's the other way around. If you are a better person you will read better books. The study is flawed.

    Even that is flawed. If you read books at all, you are a better person. (Flame on.)

    I once heard a Yorkshireman say "I read a book once. It were a green one."

    Seriously, though, I get very tired of any content available on the internet being reduced to 30-second video clips (of course, prefaced by 60-second advertising clips). I (for one) resent having to be subjected to all that noise just to read something I could easily read in less than 15 seconds.

  34. can't stop counting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the elephants in the room on this one.

  35. Moldy oldy news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...heard about this on the radio what seems like a month ago now. I KNOW that it has been several weeks at the very least...

    seriously /. just found this NOW?!

  36. who decides what is "better" ? by dschinn1001 · · Score: 0

    So better read "Dracula" to become a better person ? Or better read "The silence of the lambs" to become a better person ?

  37. Clement Stone by NewYork · · Score: 1

    "You are a product of your environment." --Clement Stone