Those who do not read

[EllethValatari]

There are many, many people in the world who don't read books. This may be because they do not enjoy reading, they are too lazy to read, or perhaps they don't have time to read.

Is there a major difference between those people and those who do read books?

Do people who choose not to read (no matter what the reason) have any advantage over those who cannot read (whether they are blind, illiterate, no time to read books, etc.)?

[katya]

disclaimer: I might not know what I'm talking about.

Since I've been surrounded by college students for the past few years, I assumed everyone read. In college, it's more "cool" to be smart and "intellectual". I was shocked when I started subbing in high school and realize that almost no one reads for pleasure, and most of them don't read assigned school readings either.

I think reading books has a lot of positive effects, especially in terms of language skills. People who read books have better spelling and grammar, and writing skills in general. There are other, less obvious benefits also. For example, they learn about a lot of things- even in good fiction we are exposed to many ideas and facts about the world. Reading a book as opposed to web surfing is also very different in terms of how your brain works while doing either thing. People who spend a lot of time on the internet have shorter attention spans, and brains more similar to those of people with ADD (I'll see if I can find some source to back me up there, it's just hearsay for now so I'm not 100% on it.). So for example, reading updates on Facebook all day is NOT in any way shape or form the same as reading a book.

I think, though, that reading books is not necessarily the only way to become an intelligent, wise person who knows a lot about the world. One anecdotal example is my dad. He's not a big reader. He reads articles and some non-fiction, but not many books (fiction or non-fiction) at all. However, he knows a lot about a lot of things, and is more intelligent and sensible than a lot of readers I know.

It also depends on what you read. Reading romance novels and other strictly entertainment oriented novels won't benefit you as much as other things you could read. So it's not really reading that is important, but the desire for knowledge and wisdom. You can get it without reading, and you can miss it even if you read.

People who chose not to read, if anything, are at a DISadvantage compared to people who can't, for whatever reason. Because if you can't read but desire to read, or desire to learn, you can learn without reading. (That's not to say that applies to all illiterate or super-busy etc. people, of course.)

So, bottom line, the quest for knowledge is the important thing. Reading books is highly recommended (by me, who is not an expert in any way), but not the only way. I think real world experience is just as necessary- you can't spend all your time reading and expect to know about the world (the underground man just popped into my head). However reading is a good start, and has many unique benefits such as spelling/grammar/writing skill improvement.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by katya

disclaimer: I might not know what I'm talking about.

For future reference, this disclaimer may be understood as implicitly attached to everything I say.

It also depends on what you read. Reading romance novels and other strictly entertainment oriented novels won't benefit you as much as other things you could read. So it's not really reading that is important, but the desire for knowledge and wisdom. You can get it without reading, and you can miss it even if you read.

This is a very important point that is often missed by people who talk about readers and non-readers. I would probably phrase it "the desire for the beautiful, the true, and the good," but I think it amounts to the same.

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by EllethValatari

There are many, many people in the world who don't read books. This may be because they do not enjoy reading, they are too lazy to read, or perhaps they don't have time to read.

Is there a major difference between those people and those who do read books?

Do people who choose not to read (no matter what the reason) have any advantage over those who cannot read (whether they are blind, illiterate, no time to read books, etc.)?

I don't mean this to sound like I'm blowing you off, but if you haven't already done this you should do some googling on the subject.... there have been some pretty interesting studies about people who read vs. people who don't (or, in some cases, cannot).

[Mari]

From my own research on vocabulary acquisition, it became apparent that rather than reading a book, reading a text on the internet with hypertext explaining words in pictures and video is more effective. Even more effective than pure reading is watching a film in the target language with subtitles in the target language.
Not what you'd expect at all eh? The main explanation for this (for now, it's quite a new area of research) is that when watching a film your brain is occupied in 2 ways: textually and visually. The link in your brain connecting the sound and shape of a word to a meaning/image is stronger because of this. Think about it: if you read something you may not know how to pronounce it even when you know what it means. You may also think you know what it means, but you don't have the visual to make certain, all you have is the words surrounding that specific word.

It's interesting stuff, though not immediately related to your question which isn't about learning a second language. But you could wonder: if this is the way it works for acquiring vocabulary in a second language, might it not work this way for other things as well? Is reading in itself all it is cracked up to be? I think that, as Katya says, it's not about the reading per se, but about being interested enough in things to read. And not that alone, but also in being able to pick out information from texts not necessarily meant to be informational. For example: as a child I used to read a lot of Suske en Wiske, a comic book. I gathered a lot of facts from those comics, astounding adults around me, especially if I mentioned where I got it from. I also learned a lot about history through reading historical 'chick flicks', not the source you'd expect.
So to conclude: I think it isn't about reading, but about why and how one reads.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by EllethValatari

Is there a major difference between those people and those who do read books?

I reckon that the major difference is that they'll likely have more time for other hobbies.

Do people who choose not to read (no matter what the reason) have any advantage over those who cannot read (whether they are blind, illiterate, no time to read books, etc.)?

Eh, I think that one would be obvious. People who choose not to invest their time in reading books can still read street signs, bank statements, contracts, unlike those who can't read at all.

Originally Posted by Mari

For example: as a child I used to read a lot of Suske en Wiske, a comic book. I gathered a lot of facts from those comics, astounding adults around me, especially if I mentioned where I got it from. I also learned a lot about history through reading historical 'chick flicks', not the source you'd expect.

Same here. I devoured strip books like Suske en Wiske when I was younger. I'm quite happy with the things I learned from them, they sometimes still come in handy.

[EllethValatari]

Originally Posted by Tessar

I don't mean this to sound like I'm blowing you off, but if you haven't already done this you should do some googling on the subject.... there have been some pretty interesting studies about people who read vs. people who don't (or, in some cases, cannot).

I don't post topics like this because I don't have my own opinion or don't know the answer. This is a discussion forum-I want to see what others have to say- and I can't converse with an internet article.

GW, that is implied to everything I say too...it has always been

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by EllethValatari

I don't post topics like this because I don't have my own opinion or don't know the answer. This is a discussion forum-I want to see what others have to say- and I can't converse with an internet article.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that you do not have an opinion.

[EllethValatari]

I know. But I would rather die than Google a subject that I could discuss with people. It's too easy a way to find something out-and when information can be found quickly with little effort, it tends to leave one's mind quickly.
Schools no longer hold to the classical method of round-table discussion/debate, so I must satisfy that desire for Inkling-like fellowship elsewhere-

-and thus I moot.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by EllethValatari

Schools no longer hold to the classical method of round-table discussion/debate

Depends on the school!

[EllethValatari]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Depends on the school!

True! In general, however, there aren't many

[BeardofPants]

Maybe from a US POV.

[Mari]

Still, you can learn a lot of basic information from reading through google scholar articles on the subject. That will help you form an opinion more grounded in academics. Though discussing is nice, it will not help you gain a better understanding of a subject if none of the participants are grounded in it. It will only broaden your view. Which is of course good in its own way. Don't discard either method. (Though I don't think you were suggesting that )

[katya]

I don't know, sometimes I ask questions like that because I'm curious what other people think. Not whether they're right or wrong. And sometimes asking people instead of research you get different takes on the question that you might not get otherwise.

[Tessar]

I originally wasn't going to say any more, but I feel compelled to explain my reasoning.

Originally Posted by EllethValatari

I know. But I would rather die than Google a subject that I could discuss with people.

Arguably you have nothing to discuss without any solid facts to back up your opinion.

Keep in mind that internet debate is a little different from a casual conversation. It's not quite like throwing the question out to a friend over lunch. In casual conversation you usually are not sitting in front of a computer with an enormous repository of studies, information, and all sorts of data right at your fingertips.

It's too easy a way to find something out-and when information can be found quickly with little effort, it tends to leave one's mind quickly.

This is not true. You can forget something that it took you ages to figure out just as quickly as something it took you a second to find out. The real key is whether you use what you have just discovered.

For instance, years ago I spent about half an hour playing different key combinations on the piano to find something that sounded jazzy... and after a few days I forgot it because I didn't use it again. A few weeks ago I looked up some chords on the internet and found them in about ten seconds, but because I played them a couple of times a day I still remember them.

Originally Posted by Mari

Still, you can learn a lot of basic information from reading through google scholar articles on the subject. That will help you form an opinion more grounded in academics. Though discussing is nice, it will not help you gain a better understanding of a subject if none of the participants are grounded in it. It will only broaden your view. Which is of course good in its own way. Don't discard either method. (Though I don't think you were suggesting that )

This I entirely agree with. I don't feel that you can have a meaningful debate (about something that involves statistics, like this subject does) without factual information, and that requires research. You can get people's opinions through debate without facts, but those opinions may be entirely incorrect.

Another example: One time, when I was home schooled, I was working a math problem and couldn't figure it out. My dad came by and tried to help me, and he explained the problem using a real-world situation. We still couldn't get the right answer, and it turned out that he actually didn't understand the equation... making his explanation nice, but ultimately incorrect and unhelpful.

If someone were to ask you, "What's the difference between people who read and people who don't read?" You could reply, "Oh, well I've had a lot of discussions about it, and we decided that people who don't read score lower on standardized tests!" But, if that's not really true, someone could get on google and prove you wrong in ten seconds... then who knows more about the subject?

For that matter, discussions that revolve around hard data can still involve people with completely different opinions, but then it is at least an educated opinion and they can actually defend that opinion.


I am not trying to provoke anyone with my statements, just suggesting that you might want to reconsider your opinion on research vs. debate .

[BeardofPants]

Tessar explains it very well. If you want to have a discussion about opinion, then research shouldn't particularly matter, but if you want to have a discussion about something semi-scientific (as this thread seems to be), then FACTS MATTER.