People who dont read books

Oscorp

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

No body is attacking any one for reading, .

On the very first page a poster claimed: "Boring people like books." and that avid readers of fiction are "very insular, introverted and yes, boring, people" in their opinion.

Colmustard

I would be regarded as well read, but I have never exponded the virtues of reading. I read because I enjoy, people who don't do something else.

I don't believe it makes you a better or more interesting person. Reading is great for passing the time that is all.

ViveLaVie

bodice ripper wrote: »

Not reading is fine.


people who have never read for pleasure and then pick up Harry Potter/50 Shades/Twilight? Keep those eejits away from me.








Yeah, mostly women obviously. that just makes me angrier

Would you call an English professor who has read all three of those an idiot too? Or is that reserved just for those who only read what's popular and current?

What about a man? Just women is it?

Also, please don't include Harry Potter in the same
category as 50 Shades and Twilight. There is a world of difference.

cynder

mariano rivera wrote: »

Just the last few days in work. 4 or 5 lads who i work with, all with 3rd level qualifications who DO NOT READ Books.



As in the have never picked up a book to read for pleasure


:eek:

The reasons being:

- No time
- One fella said he did read Roy Keanes book but no other and he insisted he never read another book.
- Its boring

They actually were proud of this. (Personally would be embarrassed)


As i said these are all (apparently) educated people


(Dear Mods, I cant put this on the books boards as people who dont read books obviously dont read the books board)

My husband age 32 doesnt read books, he has his top honours degree. (he does look a comupter screen 8 hours a day as his a software developer) He hates books, where as im a 32 year old with a LCA and read up to 4 books a week.

Doesnt bother me. We all have our likes and hates ( i hate golf he loves golf, i love kickboxing he stays clear of my punches )

GLaDOS

Judging someone to be less intelligent because they don't read is silly tbh, some people just don't enjoy reading. I read a lot, but generally all fiction (especially horror and fantasy) which some people would look down on. Its simply a storytelling medium that I prefer, says nothing about my intelligence.

Latchy

Jellicoe wrote: »

Never confuse being well qualified with someone being well educated. There's a world of difference.

That's were in a lot of cases '' It's not what you know but whom you know '' comes into play because it's takes all the academia out of the equation and while it's true that you don't need to have read a book to get on in life , knowledge is wisdom .

'' There are two motives for reading a book; one, that you enjoy it; the other, that you can boast about it on Goodreads.”

Bertrand Russell

Jellicoe

Latchy wrote: »

That's were in a lot of cases '' It's not what you know but whom you know '' comes into play because it's takes all the academia out of the equation and while it's true that you don't need to have read a book to get on in life , knowledge is wisdom .

'' There are two motives for reading a book; one, that you enjoy it; the other, that you can boast about it on Goodreads.”

Bertrand Russell

Indeed, in Ireland it's certainly more about who you know, than what you know, but I was talking about people who confuse being well qualified with being well educated.

Latchy

Jellicoe wrote: »

I was talking about confusing qualifications, with education and knowlege.

Qualifications are just something written on a piece of paper and as you say , doesn't say anything about the person or how they can deal with or handle real life 'street wise situations' .

Logical_Bear

Jellicoe wrote: »

I get it, you're paid by the word. Quantity, rather than quality.

He might get paid to write sh1te,whats your excuse?

Jellicoe

Logical_Bear wrote: »

He might get paid to write sh1te,whats your excuse?

I'm not a professional, and don't seek payment for it, what's yours ?

Logical_Bear

Jellicoe wrote: »

I'm not a professional, and don't seek payment for it, what's yours ?

I dont have an excuse,but i can see a difference between somebody posting on a forum and not having to worry about dotting his i's and crossing his t's especially when he does it for a living(excuse my spelling and the lack of capitals but like Helix i just couldnt be bothered on a forum).

have you read any of his paid for stuff?

Gbear

the groutch wrote: »

you can have the most comprehensive vocabulary, and all the "book smarts" you want, that doesnt necessarily make you intelligent.
I know people who are completing college masters, doctorates, etc. who won't last 5 minutes in the real world, because their interpersonal skills and "street smarts" are non existent.

crazy cabbage wrote: »

As the saying goes, If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will spend its whole life thinking that it is stupid.

People are talking alot about intelegance but there is 9 different independent forms of intelegance (well some say 7 and 8).

The intelagance that we are speaking of only really comes into play in 1 of them.

There is Naturalist intelligence, Musical intelligence, logical/mathematical intelligence, Interpersonal intelligence, bodily/Kinesthetic intelligence, linguistic intelligence, Intra personal intelligence and spatial intelligence.

[...]


People read for pleasure and that is fine and brillent and more power to ya but please dont say that people who dont are not intelegent becosue in that case i can say with the exact same logic that people who dont run 5 miles a day are not intellegent or that people who cant reproduce music by listening are not intellegent and by the same logic i wouldn't be wrong...

Gbear wrote: »

I would equate being proud of not reading to being proud of ignorance. That's not stupidity but specifically a lack of knowledge.

In bold and giant font because you clearly missed the part where I explained "ignorance" not being the same as "stupidity" and similarly, knowledge is not the same as intelligence.

If you find reading boring, first I would argue that you're not reading the right thing - reading about the structure of the eye will probably bore you if you don't give a toss about anatomy.

I think the main problem I have is anti-intellectualism and being proud of ignorance.
Nobody said you have to be a great reader or intelligent in every way but being proud of not reading is akin to being proud of being overweight.

Nobody wants to force you to exercise or eat healthily if you don't want to and being healthy and fit doesn't intrinsically make you any better a person than reading a lot and being extremely knowledgeable but in both cases they are things that improve an aspect of your life and I don't think it's controversial to say that a person increasing their knowledge is beneficial to them, just like being fitter.

Oscorp

Jellicoe wrote: »

I'm not a professional, and don't seek payment for it, what's yours ?

He doesn't get paid to post on boards, so it's probably the one time he can write without a care.

Several journalists I follow on Twitter don't bother with grammar and punctuation when tweeting, even when not in danger of breaking 140 characters.

bodice ripper

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Would you call an English professor who has read all three of those an idiot too? Or is that reserved just for those who only read what's popular and current?

What about a man? Just women is it?

Also, please don't include Harry Potter in the same
category as 50 Shades and Twilight. There is a world of difference.

it's reserved for people who can't see any point in reading except when there is a craze of some sort.

Jellicoe

Logical_Bear wrote: »

I dont have an excuse,but i can see a difference between somebody posting on a forum and not having to worry about dotting his i's and crossing his t's especially when he does it for a living(excuse my spelling and the lack of capitals but like Helix i just couldnt be bothered on a forum).

So like me, you don't claim to be a professional writer either, grand then, I couldn't care less about your spelling and grammar.

Logical_Bear wrote: »

have you read any of his paid for stuff?

No, his free stuff doesn't inspire enough confidence to pay good money to read any of it.

ViveLaVie

bodice ripper wrote: »

it's reserved for people who can't see any point in reading except when there is a craze of some sort.

I wouldn't call a non-reader an idiot for picking up a book that is very popular to see what all the fuss is about. I guess that's the difference between us.

bodice ripper

ViveLaVie wrote: »

I wouldn't call a non-reader an idiot for picking up a book that is very popular to see what all the fuss is about. I guess that's the difference between us.

I'm good with it.

CL7

It's a ridiculous thing to say to be fair.

Cú Giobach

A single person can experience only a tiny fraction of what is out there to experience, but someone can share their knowledge with as many people as can read a book about it, and someone can gain an insight into the knowledge of as many authors as they can read.

I love this "street smart" expression, someone who doesn't read can be "street smart" and have an excellent knowledge of their own environment, but someone who reads can also be just as "street smart" about their own environment, plus have an insight into others that actually increases and enlivens their knowledge of their own, or in other words; You can increase your knowledge of yourself, by learning about others.
The internet has changed the way knowledge can be accessed, but in pre-internet days or for people who for various reasons cannot access it, reading was/is how you learned about the world, thus learning about yourself.

I always found people who read to be more "street smart" than those who don't, unless "street" means only the little street someone's house is on.

You also don't have to read a book about Theoretical Physics, or the ins and outs of Molecular Biology to increase your knowledge, reading about say the life of Marilyn Monroe, or the history of Liverpool FC will also increase your knowledge, thus enlivening your world experience.

P.S. If people want to read grand, if people don't want to read, also grand, who is to say otherwise?

Logical_Bear

Jellicoe wrote: »

No, his free stuff doesn't inspire enough confidence to pay good money to read any of it.

meh:rolleyes:

Jellicoe

Logical_Bear wrote: »

meh:rolleyes:

meh meh :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

crazy cabbage

Gbear wrote: »

In bold and giant font because you clearly missed the part where I explained "ignorance" not being the same as "stupidity" and similarly, knowledge is not the same as intelligence.

And you clearly missed the first sentence of your post which was i was disputing. Ie: 'I would equate being proud of not reading to being proud of ignorance.'
The rest of my post was issues that i felt needed to be adressed in general from reading the tread.

Gbear wrote: »

If you find reading boring, first I would argue that you're not reading the right thing - reading about the structure of the eye will probably bore you if you don't give a toss about anatomy.

When did i say that i find reading boring. I actully do read books around subjects i find interesting. Granted i dont read that often but i do read. I posted a few pages back about this.
But there is times that i do find reading boring. I just wouldn't want to sit down to do anything. I would rather be out in the garden doing something or out playing tennis or that. It is not that i am not reading the right thing but rather it is the act of siting down to read that i would find boring. Do you see where i am coming from?

Gbear wrote: »

I think the main problem I have is anti-intellectualism and being proud of ignorance.
Nobody said you have to be a great reader or intelligent in every way but being proud of not reading is akin to being proud of being overweight.

No one is anti-intellectualism. Where was anyone against intellectualism? There was people that dont read but in the same post they said that they loved music or whatever which from my last post you would see is another form of intellect. There was no anti-intellectualism.

And who is proud of ignorance. You are equating not reading with being proud of ignorance. I dont see the connection.

Gbear wrote: »

Nobody wants to force you to exercise or eat healthily if you don't want to and being healthy and fit doesn't intrinsically make you any better a person than reading a lot and being extremely knowledgeable but in both cases they are things that improve an aspect of your life and I don't think it's controversial to say that a person increasing their knowledge is beneficial to them, just like being fitter.

+1

wellboytoo

ScumLord wrote: »

Onixx wrote: »

well it's not like you *actually* know whether they're all crap but if you prefer factual to fiction, more power to ya.

I have read fiction from time to time and I am currently learning film making which has storytelling at it's core. Once you start researching storytelling you'll find it's become quite formulaic because the sole intention of writing the story is to make money or at the very least have it become somewhat popular.

Bmhl you'd prefer to write books that were boring and nobody read them!

ixoy

I enjoy reading a lot but it's of a particular genre - sci-fi/fantasy fiction for the most part. It provides me with pleasure and a great deal of escapism. I think people who don't read such books are missing out but many will think the same of me when it comes to sport, which I find dull.

To be honest, I'd be bugged more by people who read just the "hot" titles of the moment and stop there. I'd have more trouble understanding how you could have an on/off switch to reading.

Chuck Stone

I've hidden in ditches from murderers, drove cars at the age of eight to save my father, talked to giants, hidden from monsters and slain dragons all thanks to books.

My favourite book as a kid was 'Danny the Champion of the World', I didn't just read that book I lived in it, total excitement as a kid.

crazy cabbage

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I've hidden in ditches from murderers, drove cars at the age of eight to save my father, talked to giants, hidden from monsters and slain dragons all thanks to books.

I have done the same and more but in dream world. Only difference is while i was in dream state i thought the whole thing was real becouse i could feel everything happening and therefore much more exciting!!!!

18AD

People who don't read aren't allowed have opinions.

Chuck Stone

crazy cabbage wrote: »

I have done the same and more but in dream world. Only difference is while i was in dream state i thought the whole thing was real becouse i could feel everything happening and therefore much more exciting!!!!

Stay away from drugs, son.

Monty Burnz

1ZRed wrote: »

So what's the big deal?
You don't have to read books, it doesn't make you any less intelligent than someone who does

It kind of does. Books condense the wisdom and life experiences of others into something you can absorb in a couple of days. It allows you to learn from the experiences and insights of hundreds or thousands of others in a way that nothing else can.

Gbear

crazy cabbage wrote: »

And you clearly missed the first sentence of your post which was i was disputing. Ie: 'I would equate being proud of not reading to being proud of ignorance.'
The rest of my post was issues that i felt needed to be adressed in general from reading the tread.

Saying: "As the saying goes, If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will spend its whole life thinking that it is stupid."

as a reply to: "I would equate being proud of not reading to being proud of ignorance. That's not stupidity but specifically a lack of knowledge."
..doesn't make any sense. I didn't refer to intelligence so your reply was misrepresenting my position by suggesting that I was disparaging somebody's intelligence based on how much they read.

crazy cabbage wrote: »

When did i say that i find reading boring. I actully do read books around subjects i find interesting. Granted i dont read that often but i do read. I posted a few pages back about this.
But there is times that i do find reading boring. I just wouldn't want to sit down to do anything. I would rather be out in the garden doing something or out playing tennis or that. It is not that i am not reading the right thing but rather it is the act of siting down to read that i would find boring. Do you see where i am coming from?

I was speaking more generally. Should've made that clear.

crazy cabbage wrote: »

No one is anti-intellectualism. Where was anyone against intellectualism? There was people that dont read but in the same post they said that they loved music or whatever which from my last post you would see is another form of intellect. There was no anti-intellectualism.

Again I was speaking more generally. Anti-intellectualism follows you the whole way through school and continues into adulthood. From post-modernist sneers about "scientism" in the media to people being proud of being (importantly) a stated non-reader (as opposed to a person who just doesn't read. I don't go fishing - I never tell people how much I don't fish)

crazy cabbage wrote: »

And who is proud of ignorance. You are equating not reading with being proud of ignorance. I dont see the connection.

No. I was equating being proud of not reading with being proud of ignorance.
That's not directed at anyone specific but I know people - friends and relatives, who are like that.

crazy cabbage

Gbear. I appologise. You are right. I was wrong. I didn't see you point and misunderstood it.

ebixa82

mariano rivera wrote: »

OK OK


I have had this conversation with quite a few NON BOOK READERS

The BUSY excuse

I always ask them do they know Obama?

Barack Obama

You know the President of the USA, leader of the free world etc.

He be busy

Ya think he get time to read any of them there books?

How do you know if he reads books or not? You are presuming he does but how do you know for sure?

Mr Benevolent

brummytom wrote: »

For what it's worth, the main reason I get pissed off about people who think books are amazing is because it just seems to be nothing more than snobbishness. I don't have anything against people who read, but there's no need to parade it in a display of supposed superiority.

I took A Level English Literature, and have applied to do the same subject at University, which probably makes me look like a sadist.

Wait... you've applied to do a subject you clearly don't like in uni? WTF? You'd be better off lugging corpses around then doing that.

I love reading, but I know plenty of people who don't and it doesn't make much of a difference. My girlfriend loves reading too but we don't usually talk about books as we have slightly different tastes in reading.

Cú Giobach

brummytom wrote: »

For what it's worth, the main reason I get pissed off about people who think books are amazing is because it just seems to be nothing more than snobbishness. I don't have anything against people who read, but there's no need to parade it in a display of supposed superiority..

I think books are amazing.

If you think my above comment stating a fact about myself is a "parade and display of snobbishness and superiority" then can I suggest you look up the meanings of the words "snobbishness", "superiority", "display" and "parade".
You really come across as a tad insecure regarding the topic of reading books btw.

.

johnmcdnl

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I think books are amazing.

If you think my above comment stating a fact about myself is a "parade and display of snobbishness and superiority" then can I suggest you look up the meanings of the words "snobbishness", "superiority", "display" and "parade".
You really come across as a tad insecure regarding the topic of reading books btw.

.

I'd imagine it's more along the lines of the people who hold the opinion that people who don't read must be of a lower intelligence level than myself. Saying books are amazing isn't a parade of snobbery like your trying to point out and I don't think anyone is trying to say that.

The OP in this thread is -

As i said these are all (apparently) educated people

taken directly from the OP - if that isn't some form of snobby comment insinuating that people who don't read can't possibly be educated I don't know what is.

Cú Giobach

johnmcdnl wrote: »

I'd imagine it's more along the lines of the people who hold the opinion that people who don't read must be of a lower intelligence level than myself. Saying books are amazing isn't a parade of snobbery like your trying to point out and I don't think anyone is trying to say that.

The OP in this thread is -



taken directly from the OP - if that isn't some form of snobby comment insinuating that people who don't read can't possibly be educated I don't know what is.

Have an actual read of what the person I quoted said, in both the above quoted post and others, then get back to me.

paddyandy

Tell me something worth reading in books .I read a lot as a teenager and by thirty my head was full of nonsense .That broaden-your-mind thing does'nt wash with me ....coquettish drivel from publishing houses .There are a dozen books in the world +- worth reading what do other posters think ??? People seem to use books as self adornment like objects d'art and haute couture .

ebixa82

It's ridiculous to equate intelligence with someone's level of reading.

Reading alot of books may increase someone's knowledge but not their intelligence.

In the same way, not reading will not make an intelligent person less intelligent.

If you're intelligent you are intelligent. If you're thick you're thick. Pretty simple really.

Mr Benevolent

paddyandy wrote: »

Tell me something worth reading in books .I read a lot as a teenager and by thirty my head was full of nonsense .That broaden-your-mind thing does'nt wash with me ....coquettish drivel from publishing houses .There are a dozen books in the world +- worth reading what do other posters think ??? People seem to use books as self adornment like objects d'art and haute couture .

What. The. Fuck?

--Kaiser--

paddyandy wrote: »

Tell me something worth reading in books .I read a lot as a teenager and by thirty my head was full of nonsense .That broaden-your-mind thing does'nt wash with me ....coquettish drivel from publishing houses .There are a dozen books in the world +- worth reading what do other posters think ??? People seem to use books as self adornment like objects d'art and haute couture .

Your head is obviously still full of nonsense

--Kaiser--

ebixa82 wrote: »

It's ridiculous to equate intelligence with someone's level of reading.

Reading alot of books may increase someone's knowledge but not their intelligence.

In the same way, not reading will not make an intelligent person less intelligent.

If you're intelligent you are intelligent. If you're thick you're thick. Pretty simple really.

That's a pretty simple way of looking at it but completely wrong. The brain is like a muscle, if you are doing a certain type of mental activity a lot it gets better at it. Do you think Gary Kasparov sprung from the womb with Grandmaster ability?

Captain Chaos

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

That's a pretty simple way of looking at it but completely wrong. The brain is like a muscle, if you are doing a certain type a lot of mental activity it gets better at it. Do you think Gary Kasparov sprung from the womb with Grandmaster ability?

Some natural ability more than most,-yes. More logic and reasoning sure.
So you are implying that anyone can be a chess grandmaster. No, you are either born with smarts or not. Did Einstein become smart by reading books, no he was born with way above average IQ.

--Kaiser--

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Some natural ability more than most,-yes. More logic and reasoning sure.
So you are implying that anyone can be a chess grandmaster. No, you are either born with smarts or not. Did Einstein become smart by reading books, no he was born with way above average IQ.

I am implying nothing of the sort. Intelligence is a combination of natural ability and personal dedication. To expand on the above example, Kasparov played chess since he was a child. Do you thinkl he would have attained the same level had he only began playing at age 30?

ebixa82

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

That's a pretty simple way of looking at it but completely wrong. The brain is like a muscle, if you are doing a certain type a lot of mental activity it gets better at it. Do you think Gary Kasparov sprung from the womb with Grandmaster ability?

I agree to a certain extent. But I have a rather taxing job mentally, I use my brain more than enough each day to challenge and expand it.

Reading, like playing chess, is great for the brain, however reading some holiday romance won't make someone more intelligent.

Boskowski

What's hardly debatable though is the fact that reading books improves your vocabulary and your grammar and stimulates your intellect and imagination whereas the equivalent film (as this argument was used) is more for a light consumption, instant gratification kind of thing.

I hate to break it but reading the book is not at all the same like watching the film.

Nothing wrong with not being into books but how anyone could be proud of not reading escapes me cos that's like saying I'm proud of being a bimbo.

As for intelligence, reading a book does not per se make you more intelligent than someone who's not reading. But as a generalisation the widespread consumption of light movies, trash tv and whatnot as opposed to reading books does certainly make us dumber as a society.
Our language becomes poorer as in literally less words to express ourselves.

All not really good but that's the way of the world.

I for one welcome the increase in bimboism as it gives me opportunity to separate myself from them. They can be proud all they want for not reading as long as they don't scrape my car while washing it and flip my burger just right.

Enkidu

ebixa82 wrote: »

It's ridiculous to equate intelligence with someone's level of reading.

Reading alot of books may increase someone's knowledge but not their intelligence.

In the same way, not reading will not make an intelligent person less intelligent.

If you're intelligent you are intelligent. If you're thick you're thick. Pretty simple really.

And like a lot of simple things, it's utterly wrong.

There is a very good essay on this topic by Anne Cunnigham, a professor of cognition and development at Berkeley called "What reading does for the mind". It's a short enough guide to current knowledge about this topic. Reading causes measurable cognitive development. In language learning for instance reading is the most important predicator of how well one learns a language, not speaking it as most people think.

Whatever about reading fiction, but reading factual books has an effect on your cognition and how realistically you can assess information.

Cienciano

paddyandy wrote: »

Tell me something worth reading in books .I read a lot as a teenager and by thirty my head was full of nonsense .That broaden-your-mind thing does'nt wash with me ....coquettish drivel from publishing houses .There are a dozen books in the world +- worth reading what do other posters think ??? People seem to use books as self adornment like objects d'art and haute couture .

Here's a good one: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Twits-My-Roald-Dahl/dp/0141322756/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344855283&sr=8-1

Grayson

paddyandy wrote: »

Tell me something worth reading in books .I read a lot as a teenager and by thirty my head was full of nonsense .That broaden-your-mind thing does'nt wash with me ....coquettish drivel from publishing houses .There are a dozen books in the world +- worth reading what do other posters think ??? People seem to use books as self adornment like objects d'art and haute couture .

Maybe you just read too much mills and boon?

Sykk

I always have something to read. Generally something non-fictional but I do like a good oul' fantasy.

I know people who aren't very smart that read very often. So there's a flaw in your logic that suggest only smart people read. Each to their own.

Shryke

Sykk wrote: »

I always have something to read. Generally something non-fictional but I do like a good oul' fantasy.

I know people who aren't very smart that read very often. So there's a flaw in your logic that suggest only smart people read. Each to their own.

Can you show me where that is said? Or can you show me where that is apparently suggested?