Does reading books make you smarter?

>>8167341
no.. it most certainly does not. you should try to form your own opinion rather than reading the opinions of others.

Its generally beneficial but it doesn't just make you smart.

>>8167341
No. Proof: It would be possible to compile thousands of /sci/ posts into a book.

>>8167341
>dagashi kashi
My nigga.

The answer is that it depends on the source. Assuming a good and correct source then trivially yes because you either know more things and are exposed to processes so you refine your skill at that process.

By processes I mean that if you read a mathematics book and it has a worked example then just by reading it you are reinforcing your skill at solving similar problems.

If you are just reading a novel then you are reinforcing your skill at reading and comprehending.

So overall you end up smarter than you were before but not by that much. Nowadays in 2016 I'd even say that the people who read the most traditional books (mainstream novels) are the most retarded people walking this earth. This result implies that there are better ways to become actually smart, which may involve a little reading but mostly some other activity.

>>8167346
This is the laziest possible attitude, and is generally expressed by the people who are actually stupid.

Reading books exposed you to other ideas that you can use to improve your own. At the same time there is the possibility to recognize your own rejected thoughts in the works of others, which you were either not able to express or forgot.

If you can't read books for fear of being consumed by other's opinions you are so easily lead that you are effectively a child.

>>8167341
depends on the books

>>8167360
the opinions written in books are stupid. show me one good book that isnt just yapping around

>>8167341
For me, personally, it's very beneficial to the way I structure my thoughts. The internet lets you jump from one source to the next, which fucks with my concentration.

It doesn't make you smarter though.

>>8167370
>which fucks with my concentration.
thats very intresting to hear. I love jumping from one source to another. I can easily deal with dozens of thoughts at the same time. It is what makes the internet experience so fun for me

how would you say you think about things? do you let your thoughts run through your head with words; so that you imagine talking to yourself in silence? or do you simply let the thoughts go their own way without actually actively going into the matter, letting your brain forge your opinion on something all by itself?

>>8167346
Yeah, I mean all scientists should just attempt to create their own disciplines from scratch, I mean fuck what others say, right?

>>8167398
science isnt about opinions, its about facts

>>8167386
Don't get me wrong, I like it too, it's amazing having a thought and just typing it into google and learning everything about it. However, running through a shitload of thoughts, for me at least, means not paying enough attention to memorize information well or notice faults in logic. I'm talking casual reading through wikipedia, following 20 links one after the other, without putting your mind into everything you read.

My thinking is just my voice in my head, sometimes I visualize sentences when I want to know something by heart. I do have a problem when I try going to sleep, because with no stimulus my thoughts just keep going.

>>8167341
Of course it does if we're talking about history, philosophy and humanities (all right, some of the fiction books also). Vast knowledge allows you to have wide horizons and the ability to anticipate and draw the right conclusions. Read few books by Fyodor Dostoyevsky and enjoy that sudden shift in your mind.

>>8167364
Hypersphere - anonymous

>>8167516
>/lit/'s published Masterpiece : 4chan - Reddit

i saw enough

>>8167516
>Hypersphere, written by Anonymous with the help of the 4chan board /lit/ (of The Legacy of Totalitarianism in a Tundra fame) is an epic tale spanning over 700 pages. A postmodern collaborative writing effort containing Slavoj Žižek erotica, top secret Donald Trump emails, poetry, repair instructions for future cars, a history of bottles in the Ottoman empire; actually, it contains everything since it takes place in the Hypersphere, and the Hypersphere is a big place; really big in fact.
>$54

>>8167341
Yes.

>>8167341
Depends on the books

You gain knowledge but not intelligence
Thats not the same thing

File: 855231.jpg (80KB, 966x708px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 966x708px

Indian, Thai, Chinese, Filipino, Egyptian, and Czechoslovakian people read the most.

Yes and no, there are several factors that determine the amount, if any, benefit you'll get from reading.

>>8167621
unless it's a book of critical thinking exercises.
then you may be exercising your intelligence.

>>8167341
Take your pedophile cartoons back to >>>/a/.

>>8167346
You re fucking retarded

>>8167341
no. the most well read person i know is a "not real communism" delinquent who thinks there is an "unhealthy fixation on productivity and efficiency"

>>8167643
one day your meat pea will ripen as well

>>8167621
>hurr durr

>>8167674
they probably meant gaining raw data vs immediately practically applicable information, everything begins as nonsense until 'someone' sees a pattern

DURR DARP HAARR

>>8167690
He said you don't gain intelligence, genius

>>8167341
No, books expose you to knowledge, ideas, and opinions. It is incumbent upon you to select and integrate reading material in such a way as it benefits your understanding of the world. Anything that doesn't have application is trivia, not knowledge, and what is useful obviously depends on the person.

Basically, books can give you vicarious experience. Real-world experience is preferable, but obviously books are easier to come by.

>>8167364
The opinions written in books are opinions of a person. The book is just a medium. Obviously some people have bad opinions and others have good.

>>8167628
Fuck off.

>>8167740
Ahahaha get the fuck out, degenerate

>>8167756
Nope :^)

>>8167364
How about almost every maths book ever?

>>8167341
You should try to have a "conversation" with the author. Take the ideas and reformulate them, ask additional questions, generalize, analogize, and create your own examples.

>>8167878
>You should try to have a "conversation" with the author.
I get what you're saying, but I find this a really weak analogy for it. The author is going to say the same thing no matter what you ask, you just need to focus on what is actually said, possibly re-read, and understand what is meant by it.

>>8167629
this guy is reading people

>>8167815
we arent talking about maths books. we are talking about literature

>>8168116
Pretty sure maths books falls under "books" as in the OP.
Reading literature from any academic field makes you smarter.
[spoiler]unless it's engineering[/spoiler]

>>8168150
you dont read maths books, you study them

>>8168155
Gotta read it to study it in the first place.

>>8168160
the read you are referring to is different from the one OP meant.

also knowing maths doesnt make you smart

>>8168164
Want to define smart then?
Also:
>Reading literature from any academic field makes you smarter.
To please you we can replace "any literature" to whatever field you believe makes you smarter.

>>8168174
im not sure if im ready yet to define smart just yet. neither can i define the word "intelligence" clearly or the word "clever".
but i have made up my mind on what being smart isnt:
-general knowledge
-knowing trivial facts
-being good at something (for example /sci/tards thinking they are smart because they know how to deal with maths)

>>8168199
Wouldn't it be easier to say something like "smarter at x" or something if it's so difficult?
Someone who's done a postgrad in maths is undoubtedly smarter at maths than someone who's still in highschool right?

>>8168247
you are not smarter at maths, you just know more about how to solve math problems and so on

>>8168254
I'm not really sure what would be a satisfactory definition for you then.
Is google's definition okay?
>having or showing a quick-witted intelligence.
>intelligence; acumen.

>>8168259
>Is google's definition okay?
No

>>8168261
Guess the rest of the discussion is semantics in that case, i.e. very boring.
Tried to get a definition in for discussion's sake, but you don't really seem cooperative, so I'm out.

>>8168266
youre butthurt, and that does make you stupid. thats how much i can tell you, at least

>>8167474
In a perfect world, maybe.

>>8168308
true. science is something between facts and opinions then.