To think being a reader doesn't make you better or smarter?

It more being passive or active. So more reading is more active than watching something, or so I have read.

I'm not sure about that. Wiki is fine if you check each fact has a proper citation but there is a lot of dodgy stuff on there too.

Kindle isn't bad- I do think reading on a screen too much may be bad for the eyes

Personally I think one can gain so much more knowledge and information from reading.

It's really sad when people feel reading is a highbrow pursuit. My local library is a community hub & I hope it helps foster that feeling that books are not something to be enjoyed only by a select few.

How reliable is it though? Constant updating doesn't equal reliability

A big one for me is learning about different cultures. Non fiction esp journalism & travel writing is good for this.

And of course novels! I read Pachinko recently & wanted to read more about Korea, so started some Korean language novels (there's been a translation boom recently, esp Korean women I think). That's one of the best things about reading.

Also if like me you're a nosy person : it's an ethical form of eavesdropping. And so relaxing to take a break from one's own life for a bit.

Hmm... I read A Town Like Alice a long while ago. My school was good for English & recommended him on a long mostly literary list. But there were some on there more for historical context etc than strictly literary. They also noted On The Beach, which is interesting probably for early nuclear age plot, though I've not yet read it.

Im a massive reader, always have been since being a kid and love it. I'm totally thick in so many other ways that would actually benefit me in day to day life and it really means nothing. Just a hobby as also there's a million book choices you could make and be judged on your intellect off that. It's bollocks, ignore it.

Improves comprehension too, theory of the mind for literary fiction et

Neville Shute is like reading the abridged and simplified A2 or B1 version of a good writer, I always think

An interesting perspective from Keith Richards, especially about "keeping books unburnt". https://youtube.com/shorts/jTXa46FU1U8?si=5XQ7rCHe3uAXT7x7https://youtube.com/shorts/jTXa46FU1U8?si=5XQ7rCHe3uAXT7x7

Nevil Shute is literary I think?

@Zov I think the pertinent question isn't to ask if you are smarter than a specific non reader and more if you are smarter because you read a fair bit than you would have been if you didn't? It's kind of impossible to say subjectively but in studies where they look at it individuals reading habits over time it does show intellectual improvement, so it's likely you are smarter than you would have been otherwise and that your husband might also become even smarter if he did read books.

I agree re taking longer.

Otoh a novel shows you what the writer wants you to know. I agree films etc are a bit different. Novels can convey things via language, structure, etc that a film cannot. Ofc film has advantages like acting, camera angles etc

Heyer's Waterloo is very accurate: apparently even read at Sandhurst

Most novels are very well researched- I'm not so sure of that. They certainly can be but a lot of historical novels are weaker on factual details. Same as books about a job etc which the author has researched. Many are very well researched though.

Hmmmm, tricky one. It's been proven that reading increases intelligence/can make people smarter, but that doesn't mean non-readers are thick/less intelligent that readers. I am a bit of a reader. (Well, maybe 2-3 novels a month) and I enjoy real life factual stuff too. DH reads nothing - except Twitter and messages on his phone LOL. Yet I am no more intelligent than him.

I think as long as people get their education/information elsewhere, then it’s fine. DP isn’t a reader and only recently has been diagnosed with dyslexia, but he watches a lot of documentaries etc.

I do think people end up missing out, but to each their own really. A lot is adapted to cinema and TV of course, but more often than not a lot of details has to be left out.

I read for a couple of hours a day, only child gen x raised by my Dad, so no computers until late school, no mobile until a year after graduating and a quiet house with a small B&W telly, taken to library every week as long as can remember to get books. I'm used to it being quiet and I do watch TV but it's what I want to watch when I want to watch it. I couldn't do Eastenders every day. So I think your history matters but I also think we're wired differently. Went to Turner, Whistler exhibtion with some friends, one friend L was in tears. I love art history programes, private life of a masterpiece is a fave but move me to tears just looking at it, no, appreciate beauty, skill, history yes. On the otherhand L came to Royal opera house once, again could appreciate but didn't move her, she didn't come again. Different wiring.

I did say reading widely soboo ks from a broad range of genres, authors periods, fiction as well as non fiction, maybe journals, newspapers.

I think people who read about current issues on the internet are more aware.

If people only get their information from online sources, it will be rather limiting, online reading is often unbalanced and opinion based (aka my truth). Online content is driven by algorithms that show you more of what you already agree with and is often emotionally charged with simplified explanations, which makes it easy for misinformation to spread. Top your internet sources up with some good quality non fiction books. It doesn't have to be either or.

I think reading improves your general knowledge because you absorb a lot of information. Most of the reading I do is in the form of novels, and most novels are well researched, so you pick up a lot of facts. For example, I've read a lot of Georgette Heyer's novels and nearly everything I know about the Battle of Waterloo comes from reading one of them. The danger nowadays is that you can go down an internet rabbit-hole and end up believing a great deal of rubbish if you're not careful. I wish children were taught how to discriminate between good sources of information and bad.

Another thing: if you're very intelligent and you don't read, where's the outlet for your mind? Writing?

Why are you saying you aren’t clever and comparing yourself to your husband?

An English degree is the equivalent level to a technical degree. Why is Stem prioritised over everything?! I’d much rather have an informed and interesting discussion about literature with you than discussing forces or whatever.

You are equally intelligent!

TV and films are wonderful if done well, but watching is generally a passive experience. Everything the director wants you to see/know is spoken or shown to you deliberately at the pace of their choosing. I prefer to read, because I read very fast, and I find TV, especially documentaries, mostly very slow and dull. I could read the script, including the filming instructions, in half the time.

It doesn't make you 'better' as in superior to others but I'm pretty sure it does make you smarter. I think there's a fair bit of scientific evidence for the positive effects of reading on the brain.

I never really liked Catherine Cookson books much but I do like similar authors that come under the "saga" genre.
I went through a phase of Liverpool set novels and many novels set during WW1 and WW2.
This actually led me to a big interest in that era and I began to read more non fiction and history books.
I visited museums such as the Imperial War Museum thanks to this interest.
I have been saying for years I want to visit Liverpool because I became interested in the city through these "historical saga" books - which are often dismissed as "romance".
I also became very interested in the history of womens military and nursing experiences through these books.
Never had the urge to read Jilly Cooper though. Don't know why.