Nonsense. Literature expands the mind, plain and simple. Grappling with abstruse philosophical texts pushes your brain. Studying literature bestows higher levels of nuance and sophistication to the intellect.
I don't question this... what I question is whether your increased knowledge and sophistication makes you a "better person".
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
That depends how you define "intelligence". For most people, "intelligence" involves the faculty of perceiving and comprehending meaning, the ability to understand things. If so, it is ridiculous to think it is “innate”. Newly born babies cannot perceive, comprehend or understand things as well as adults can. Studies done on identical twins involve those raised in separate families. However, both twins go to school, learn language, read books, and participate in society. Nonetheless, their measured I.Q.s can vary considerably. Imagine if one of the twins was locked in a darkened room for his entire life. Do you think his “intelligence” would still show only minor variation from that of his twin? If not, how can you say intelligence is “innate” (i.e inborn, inherent in one’s nature)?
We humans have invented ourselves, because we are products of our own cultures. Children change significantly not only as a result of external stimuli, but also as a result of culture. Chimpanzee infants are as intelligent as human infants – until the humans learn language, at which point they very rapidly outstrip their primate cousins not only in terms of knowledge (language allows us a new way of learning about the world) but in terms of basic intelligence (problem solving). This is not “tiny compared to the whole”. It is the majority of the whole.
Originally Posted by Ecurb
From dictionary.com
in·tel·li·gence
[in-tel-i-juhns] Show IPA
noun
1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3. the faculty of understanding.
4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.
5. the gathering or distribution of information, especially secret information
Definition 1 is the relevant one. It is a mental capacity; it is not a matter of learning; it is the capacity to learn. Twin studies in intelligence may show a difference of a few percent, but that is when the twins were separated and one received better nutrition.
You are entitled to your opinions, but it is safer to base them in reality.We humans have invented ourselves, because we are products of our own cultures. Children change significantly not only as a result of external stimuli, but also as a result of culture. Chimpanzee infants are as intelligent as human infants – until the humans learn language, at which point they very rapidly outstrip their primate cousins not only in terms of knowledge (language allows us a new way of learning about the world) but in terms of basic intelligence (problem solving). This is not “tiny compared to the whole”. It is the majority of the whole.
"IQ score results from identical twins are nearly the same, whereas fraternal twins' results are much less similar."
https://www.boundless.com/psychology...s-vs-adoption/
http://web.missouri.edu/~segerti/1000H/Bouchard.pdf
You can do the rest of your research.
Last edited by PeterL; 06-06-2013 at 06:39 PM. Reason: to soften
That bolded statement flies in the face of much of what we know in the field of developmental psychology. Especially personality. I went to school for 10 years with one of those neglected Romanian children who as a result of abject neglect in their early years suffered life-long psychological and learning deficits. Abused children often grow up to become abusers. Reading to one's children will improve their chances of success in school. You are eliminating nurture and attributing developmental outcome entirely to nature. That isn't how it is I'm afraid.
“To practice any art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow. So do it.”
- Kurt Vonnegut
You are mistaken.
No, no I am not mistaken.
http://www.livescience.com/21778-ear...ds-brains.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...6-7903edf61fdd
The brain develops in response to external stimuli. A kitten with a covering over it's eyes from birth won't even have the neurological capacity for sight.
Last edited by Darcy88; 06-06-2013 at 07:00 PM.
“To practice any art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow. So do it.”
- Kurt Vonnegut
Well, I guess you'd have to address whether an expanded mind improves your person or not. Does a reduced mind improve your person? Does a tempered mind improve someone?
"Intelligence is innate." Really? And then later "a little can be added" or "lopped off" -- if somethin' is "innate" then it's innate. Or, PeterL, is your claim that intelligence is kinda innate, sorta if it doesn't change too much 'cause of readin' and other sorts of intellectual exercise?
“Oh crap”
-- Hellboy
I know a few psychologists and psychiatrists who would love to have a word with you over that one
Learning from and imitating exemplars of noble behavior, thought and action can make us better people. Many fictional works provide such exemplars. Learning not to emulate exemplars of ignoble behavior, thought and action can make us better people. Fictional works provide exemplars of this kind as well. Thus the wise and those so inclined can be ennobled by great art and literature. It's not complicated.
If there were a copy of me identical in every regard except for lower levels of knowledge and sophistication I'd say I was better than him. On the internet I've encountered persons whose intellects put my own to shame and, provided there is moral equivalency, in my opinion those people are better than me. Jorge Luis Borges was better than me. James Joyce was better than me. If I'm competing with another young man for a girl's affections, the fact that I write her lovely poems (yeah I actually do that) and discourse eloquently on poetry, history and philosophy is probably going to lead her to consider me "better" than my rival. If I'm applying for a job and come across intelligent and articulate my interviewer may deem me "better" than the other applicants. These qualities are highly and justifiably prized. All other things - morality, disposition, ect - being equal, put a genius next to a simpleton. Which would you prefer for a companion?
Of course there are evil geniuses. They ought not factor into this discussion. The real question is, between the virtuous genius and the virtuous simpleton, which is better?
“To practice any art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow. So do it.”
- Kurt Vonnegut
There are so many fatalistic and pessimistic opinions in this thread.
Last edited by astrum; 06-06-2013 at 10:19 PM.
^^Good points, Drkshadow. "Better" covers a lot of territory and we were never given a fence line. Many of the professionals/yuppies I know are 'better' than me in the way Darcy described, unfortunately most of them are also supercilious a$$%##3s. So are they better? Maybe I should should take a poll on the number of litnet top 100 novels they've read to see what roll literature has played
Last edited by hawthorns; 06-06-2013 at 11:46 PM.
I think you need to qualify the highlighted statement. They are capable of sight, but their vision is defective, apparently because the visual association circuits in the brain need to be developed by exposure to visual stimuli, which occurs when the newborn kittens open their eyes and begin seeing the world... the neurons are still growing and making new connections (and losing old connections) but this neural plasticity stops after a period of time (varies among animals and between different brain areas in the same animal). In the case of vision, what is lost if there isn't the normal stimulation is the ability to recognize visual features (e.g. shapes, patterns, depth, movement, etc. The visual image of the outside world that is projected onto the kitten's retinae is translated into neural signals that get to the parts of its brain that normally make sense of these stimuli. The kitten experiences something, but can't tell us what it is. We can get some idea, however, because we can observe its behavior in response to different visual stimuli. They don't respond normally, but they aren't blind. There have been similar "experiments" done on humans ("natural" experiments...e.g. done by nature as in patients with congenital cataracts who have their sight restored as adults when they finally get to see an ophthalmologist...). They have very defective vision, but are not totally blind. Some even "learn" to see better over time. This is all very fascinating. The more I learn about how the brain works, the less I am inclined to make sweeping generalizations about it.
"better" is so subjective that it literally sickens me to think someone can decisively answer the question.
define better in terms of something, then start a discussion. until then, it's just a breeding ground for conceited posting.
“the sense of being which in calm hours arises, we know not how, in the soul, is not diverse from things, from space, from light, from time, from man, but one with them and proceeds obviously from the same source.... Here is the fountain of action and of thought....
Here is what the OP said:
"In any way." It really therefore is not subjective. Has literature made you more intelligent, more articulate, more virtuous? Has it improved you at all in any regard? That is what what asked, not for you to try and tackle a term as nebulous as "better."
“To practice any art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow. So do it.”
- Kurt Vonnegut
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote