So can we agree that there is an objective standard for quality

You should slow down and think about what you're trying to say more. Here is something we can all agree on, I think: some books are better than others - more profound, better written, etc

What we can't all agree on is a metric system to quantify quality. Quality itself means different things to different individuals based on experience and personality, so that is impossible.

Also, consider what you say here: "Smart people are attracted to interesting books. Dumb people are attracted to "shallow" (uninteresting) books." Statements like these reflect poorly on you intellectually. It's a statement that serves no purpose other than to call yourself smart. Don't be so quick to judge others, especially when you are judging a whole, generalized group

>>8881544
>Usually smart people, people with more emotional depth are attracted to more interesting books with more depth, while you often see really insipid people attracted to more shallow literature, and more shallow things in general.
You sound like you're trying to use your taste in literature to justify a superiority complex. It also doesn't have anything to do with your argument.

>it's like the chaos thing in the universe, how there's not actually randomness, but just that in some things extremely small occurrences can have an extremely large impact, so it's impossible to trace back to the source
Is this really the best analogy you could come up with? This is pretty nonsensical.

>So can we agree that there is an objective standard for quality in books?
There is a quasi-objective metric for book quality and it is created out of knowledge of a shared canon. It isn't objective per se, but it is objective in relation to the canon, from which has been derived a recognizable set of rules to follow and not deviate far from.

Truly intelligent people are capable of connecting with other human beings and getting their kicks that way. The less intelligent have to resort to weird hobbies such as reading really old books to get by.

>>8881666
True about comparing a work against a canon to judge quality, however, fickle, I would say, as anyone could decide a new or different canon, or as the canon changes over time, so to does the judged quality of a work, therefore making the judgement fleeting and pointless in many ways

>>8881672
*so too

we need 1 minute edit windows for posts
please respond with your full DOB and SSN
1 valid response = 1 signature

>>8881544
>It's annoying, because it's like the chaos thing in the universe, how there's not actually randomness, but just that in some things extremely small occurrences can have an extremely large impact, so it's impossible to trace back to the source. Sort of in the same way, there is an objective standard for intelligence in books, but it's just hard to measure. Sort of like trying to forecast the weather exactly. We can still do it but it's not an exact science, but the science would be there if we could.
I bet you typed it out and thought it to be the most profound shit ever

>>8881672
It's an imperfect system, but I think it's about as close to reality as we get. It's the only way I can think to explain why people generally have the same opinions about which qualities of a book were good, and which were bad, and also why different cultures tend to have such different opinions on what constitutes 'quality."