I'm Smarter Than You Because I Read

[McDreidel09]

Heh. I wonder where I am then. I could sit there and read Wuthering Heights, hear the Family Guy theme song go on, and drop my book for that. After that episode, go back to my book and in a bit, hear the Law and Order: SVU theme and go watch that.

I do think reading does make you a tad bit smarter. When I bring a book that I may consider light reading, people will turn to me and say "I could never read THAT many pages (it could be 400 pages). I don't know how you can stand to read. I hate reading!" Those are the people who tend to get lower grades and not know that cookies are considered desserts.

You read that last sentence right. During our Student Council canned food drive, the teacher told us to find desserts to put away for gift baskets for the needy. One girl in my Senior class asked "Are cookies desserts?"

So maybe reading does make one a bit smarter, but I hate it when people think that tv hurts the brain. TOO MUCH tv is not good. I had one girl in my Sociology class smugly say "Well, I DON'T watch tv." Acting so superior, but yet, she's the one asking dumb questions.

Sorry for this being so long. I had too much caffeine and my thoughts are just a buzzin'.

[Giggle Goose]

I consider myself halfway intelligent, I don't see a problem watching Maury Povich or The Hills.

It can go both ways. People I'm just getting to know think that I have a large vocabulary and speak in a very refined manner. These are the same people who are SHOCKED because I watch Maury.

The "out of control teens" are funny as ALL HELL!!!!!

"I had sex for a double cheeseburger...with BACON!" (As if she pulled out some extra moves to get that extra topping). Hahaha. "It's all about fast money, baby!"

Ok, back to being brilliant. (Yeah right )

[Flyndaran]

...
But back to the main topic - intelligence and knowledge are two seperate things. Reading educational books will increase your knowledge, not your intelligence. (presuming you actually understand what you're reading..)

I have to disagree to a degree. Without any education humans are infants. Higher education is partly the same thing as basic upbringing. Learning about many different topics "exercises" the brain into developing not just modular intelligence that improves on'es ability at specific fields, but also general intelligence that improves one's ability to interpret completely new events and experiences.

Not to mention that avid readers have their age of alzheimers onset delayed noticeably.

[ThePhoneGoddess]

There are some people who need to feel superior to others, simply put. Just like there are some people who have to have somebody to hate.

I think it's funny when people say things like that. The question I always ask is "You read what?" I discover that most of them read what is basically the literary equivalent of reality shows. They don't read anything especially profound or esoteric. They read not because they want to expand their mind, but because it gives them an excuse to feel superior.

I went to a Great Books college, where we read all sorts of fancy philosophy and classical literature and mathematical treatises and such. It was very intense. And you know what we liked to do in our spare time? Me and my girlfriends used to get together and watch Jerry Springer. We did it precisely because it was such a change from the heavy stuff we were reading. It was just mindless entertainment, and it allowed us to relax. We looked forward to those evenings all week long.

People who try to make the argument that they're better than you cause they read is bullshit. They're grasping at straws.

[protege]

They don't read anything especially profound or esoteric. They read not because they want to expand their mind, but because it gives them an excuse to feel superior.

People like that piss me off. No, I'd rather read for my own enjoyment...and to expand my mind. Well, that and learning how to work on those wonderful classics from England... But seriously, even before that object became mine, I did plenty of reading up on it. Automotive technology has advanced a great deal between 1969 and 2007. Twin-cam engines, fuel injection, front wheel drive...it all makes my head spin. When the MG came home back in October, I had to relearn quite a bit.

I've heard plenty of how "those SU carbs are unreliable," "it'll break down lots," usually muttered by people who don't understand such things. But, once you read up on them, all their mysteries soon disappear. Sure, getting both carburetors in tune is a pain, but once you know how...it's not all that bad. Sadly, many mechanics in the 1960s and '70s, called such things "junk" because they refused to learn how they worked.

Odd, because nearly 40 years on, those things are now considered "reliable"

[Flyndaran]

Reading is good for you. Between reading the trashiest poorly written best seller versus not reading at all, the first is still the best. For your brain that is, it might be horrible for your dinner conversation.

[boringscreenname]

I spend equal amounts of time reading and watching tv. I usually read while I'm at work since there's never a lot going on and I'm basically killing time, so I figure I may as well stimulate my mind.

[Saydrah]

I think people who read books regularly have a much more expansive and interesting vocabulary than those who watch TV and read less often. This certainly makes readers sound more intelligent. Whether that actually translates to higher intelligence, I don't know. I do know that I'd rather have a conversation with a reader than a TV watcher any day, with a few exceptions.

[anriana]

The only thing i have to add to this is...

Sometimes the book readers really are smarter than the tv/movie watchers...

prime example... more than ONE person i have come across didn't know one or more of the following:
1) who shakespeare was (how the hell....)
2) didn't know LOTR was actually a BOOK... (ermm what??)
3) didn't know who huck fin was...
4) didn't know how to find a book in the library for a research paper... (no books.. nothing.. at all....*blink*)
5) didn't know "the diary of anne frank" was anything OTHER than a movie...
6) didn't know what the odessey was...

Those are all examples of knowledge, not intelligence. I'm sure there are plenty of very intelligent non-Westerners who aren't familiar with any of those books either. Knowing those little bits of trivia doesn't make one smarter than someone else - what intellectual good does it do to know that The Diary of a Young Girl was a book before it was turned into a play that was turned into a movie?

While I'll agree that these are all examples of VERY ignorant people, they really have nothing to do with IQ.

[Flyndaran]

I think people who read books regularly have a much more expansive and interesting vocabulary than those who watch TV and read less often. This certainly makes readers sound more intelligent. Whether that actually translates to higher intelligence, I don't know. I do know that I'd rather have a conversation with a reader than a TV watcher any day, with a few exceptions.

Hee. So linguistic knowledge has nothing to do with intelligence? That's an odd opinion.

We humans are not even intelligent enough to define intelligence.
Every series ofpatterned actions involving judgement is a part of intelligence.
The ability to get women into bed through deceit? That's a form of social intelligence.
The ability to pick up a new instrument and get music out? That too is a form of musical intelligence.
The ability to make people laugh through professional or even private comedy is a form of social and linquistic intelligence.

Everything that our minds do are forms of intelligence.

[AFPheonix]

Those are all examples of knowledge, not intelligence. I'm sure there are plenty of very intelligent non-Westerners who aren't familiar with any of those books either. Knowing those little bits of trivia doesn't make one smarter than someone else - what intellectual good does it do to know that The Diary of a Young Girl was a book before it was turned into a play that was turned into a movie?

While I'll agree that these are all examples of VERY ignorant people, they really have nothing to do with IQ.

One could make the argument that someone who didn't know those things, especially the things that we had to know in various parts of standardized schooling, is not very intellectually curious, and I'd definitely call that being less intelligent.
Those examples weren't about obscure bits of String Theory, they were pretty well-known bits of knowledge floating about our society that would be kind of obvious to anyone paying attention anywhere.

[anriana]

One could make the argument that someone who didn't know those things, especially the things that we had to know in various parts of standardized schooling, is not very intellectually curious, and I'd definitely call that being less intelligent.
Those examples weren't about obscure bits of String Theory, they were pretty well-known bits of knowledge floating about our society that would be kind of obvious to anyone paying attention anywhere.

I don't know what kind of schools you went to, but mine certainly didn't cover any of that information.

[AdminAssistant]

I don't know what kind of schools you went to, but mine certainly didn't cover any of that information.

High schools should cover most of this information:

William Shakespeare - the greatest Anglophone writer in history. No, I don't think I'm exaggerating. Personally, I think he should be taught in theatre class instead of literature class (he's a playwright, why do people forget this?) And that teachers would stop spreading the myth that an illiterate businessman and hack actor from Stratford-upon-Avon somehow became a great writer and just admit that we don't know who it is! [/rant]

LOTR - Okay, flame me. While an interesting work of fantasy, this doesn't necessarily need to be covered in a literature class. This, to me, falls into the realm of cultural awareness.

Huck Finn - a character created by a great American writer. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn should be required reading for any literature class - especially in the states.

The Diary of Anne Frank - The importance of this comes from the fact that it is a rare first hand account from a child. And, it is appropriate for children to read. The play is actually pretty awful, IMO, and I don't remember the movie (but I'm sure I watched it).

The Odyssey - Again, I think it's fantastic to cover in literature, but only if the teacher emphasizes how the book came to be - centuries of oral tradition that finally finally finally got written down. The true nature of storytelling. There are so many interesting aspects - the journey, the adventures. And it's rather 'safe' since the gods play a minor role as compared to The Illium.

How to look up a book in a library - we covered that in elementary school. That's just a basic skill all people should have. Of course, that was when they still used a card catalog. Nowadays, it's ridiculously easy to look up things in libraries, especially ones that use the Library of Congress system

[Saydrah]

Hee. So linguistic knowledge has nothing to do with intelligence? That's an odd opinion.

That would indeed be an odd opinion, but it's also not the statement I made. I stated that I don't know whether or not a more broad vocabulary means a person is more intelligent. I've met a few very smart people with a very limited vocabulary for one reason or another. Yes, most people I consider intelligent have a large vocabulary, but there may be many more people out there who are just as intelligent but aren't perceived that way because of their limited vocabulary.

[Boozy]

I used to think that one of my customers was mentally-challenged, because he could barely communicate with me. Not shy, just seemed to be constantly distracted and had a lot of trouble putting sentences together. I remarked to my boss one day that I didn't feel right selling him wine, because although he was about 50, he clearly had the mind of a child.

My boss laughed and said that he was one of the scientists at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.

That's a very extreme case, but it shows a bit about how we think about intelligence. If someone lacks the requisite right-brained intelligence to communicate their thoughts, they're often wrongly considered dumb.

By the way, social intelligence is an often overlooked and undervalued skill set. Some of the most successful people in the world have average IQs but are incredibly charismatic. That's a form of intelligence in its own right.