My wife was telling me about this at dinner. It makes sense, right? If you indulge yourself in an activity which requires you to assemble complex nuances to form an understanding, you will be better at ToM tests. Doesn't seem terribly shocking to me. Still, another reason to read the classics!
Unsurprising to us, perhaps, but the ramifications are important. We now have peer-reviewed research which shows that literary fiction enhances the "skills and thought processes fundamental to complex social relationships - and functional societies". I'm tempted to send a copy of this to my local MP arguing the case for increased grant funding. Interesting that it's limited to literary fiction. A skeptic could probably argue that readers who head for the literary section of the bookstore are already more inclined to creative engagement and hence to perform well in ToM tests; the actual reading might therefore be incidental.
I thought the reading might be incidental as well. I'd like to see how they how they chose people for the tests they preformed. Did they randomly select people to read different things or did they ask people who identified as reading different material? However that is answered is going to greatly affect my faith in this study.
Did anyone else read this and come away wondering if it was actual science or not? I may be getting the gist completely wrong, but they had some people read Dickens and some read articles from the Smithsonian, and the former group was able to read emotion in actors' eyes more accurately, and that ... means something? The later the hour the more bitter I am, but still.
That absolutely means something! It's showing a proven link between reading certain types of books and increasing certain brain functions. It might be the most impressive or mind blowing revelation but it's definitely science. If anything, it's another example of how the brain adapts to what it's used to. I'd like to see them test this in different areas. Does reading more nonfiction improve your ability to reason? Does reading romance novels make you more inclined to fall in love? The answers are probably "yes" but it's still better to back it up with science.
But why? What does reading material have to do with emotion? Don't insult me by saying that people who mostly read nonfiction are therefore more likely to be robotic automatons who can't experience love. If anything it's the other way around.Does reading more nonfiction improve your ability to reason? Does reading romance novels make you more inclined to fall in love?
Why on earth would it? (Is falling in love even real?) The premise of this study strikes me as on the face of it so ridiculous that I may actually read the fucking paper itself.
I don't follow your line of thought. Why would reading nonfiction make someone more able to experience love?Don't insult me by saying that people who mostly read nonfiction are therefore more likely to be robotic automatons who can't experience love. If anything it's the other way around.
The authors do seem to be implying that people who regularly read literary fiction, as a group, are more likely to have a better understanding of where other people are coming from (theory of mind ) than people who do not. That is certainly the impression that I’ve received from the synopsis. The reason, as suggested by the authors, is that literary fiction "defamiliarises" its readers: "Just as in real life, the worlds of literary fiction are replete with complicated individuals whose inner lives are rarely easily discerned but warrant exploration."
I think it has to do with brain patterns and subtle conformation bias. We think in ways that reflect the world around us. When all you do is read about love (I'm using this as an example, I'm not even sure it exists) you're going to notice romantic things more often. it's not that it affects emotion per se, it's that spending effort on noticing something is going to make you better at noticing it.