Are people who never read books dumb?

I'll second this. Some people are incurious. I don't get that. Are they not interested in anything?

I like history and go through phases of getting really into the American Revolution, the Civil War, WW II, and particular people in history. I'll go down the rabbit hole on those topics, reading multiple books and looking for related podcasts.

Then I go on business, finance, and investing kicks and read books on that.

Other times it's sports and sports figures.

I couldn't imagine not being curious about anything.

Hey, I resemble that remark!

People on vacation somewhere in beautiful weather, amazing nature all around them, and reading a book. Are they not interested in the world?

Books definitely make you dumber. Reading a book is the equivalent of watching 5 episodes of ‘The Dukes of Hazard’.

I think of a guy who was a neighbor of mine. His words: “I don’t read much” (from a conversation in which I’d asked about favorite books, movies, TV shows). I don’t know if that even means newspapers, magazines, or websites of these, but I I trust that he hasn’t spent tons of time reading books, and know he’s not the social media type. Not a huge TV watcher, either, for whatever that’s worth. I think he’d listen to different kinds of music sometimes while doing projects.

He was a plumber who had woodworking as a hobby and could make just about anything. He saved and invested well enough to retire comfortably in his early 60s. We lived in a neighborhood where houses were a little above the median price for our city, but his was probably the nicest around because of how he kept it up. He could fix most things around the house quickly and easily; I asked for his advice or help a handful of times. He definitely knew his stuff and had a methodical, logical approach to solving problems when fixing something. But yeah, this was a guy who became a master plumber, so there’s no real surprise there.

He probably was ignorant in some areas. But after a number of conversations with him, I’d go well beyond saying he wasn’t dumb, and I even feel foolish for presuming to weigh in on that. He struck me as pretty darn smart.

I guarantee you those men didn't read story books for the 25 previous years while they were building their business legacy. You think gates is still working 60 hour weeks on site running his business? The work is already done.

As Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, and great minds talk about ideas."

You don't need to read books to satisfy your curiosity about people or even events.

Pretty cool how you jump right away to “story books.” When I see recommendations from those guys, there ain’t a lot of “Twilight” on there. Much more likely to see a recent book by Eugenia Chen, I’d say. And Gates for one seems very much like the sort to find/make daily reading time in a 60-70 hour work week.

Yes, people who never read are dumb and uninteresting. However, most people who read books are also dumb and uninteresting.

"Are people who never read books dumb?"......not necessarily, but older people who still listen to classic rock are.

Even on “story books”: Maybe we could wonder if Abraham Lincoln was foolish enough to read story books while laboring under the demands of a wartime presidency.

Lincoln famously was a lifelong reader of Shakespeare, with numerous accounts of him reading a great deal at times during the Civil War. Yes, it was a different time with different circumstances, but Lincoln’s case is instructive. One well-known account is of him spending a great deal of time early in his law career poring over Euclid’s Elements as a way to improve his reasoning. But throughout his life, he read broadly and deeply, and biographers will point to a very strong influence of Shakespeare on developing his attitudes toward various issues as well has his temperament, his general cast of mind, and his understanding of humanity — all of which lent themselves to his leadership style (and sure, biographers — themselves bookish sorts — might be prone to overstating this influence, but it’s wildly unlikely that they’re seeing something that isn’t there). And that reading, of course, paired with his powers of observation of all things in his daily life.

Is that kind of reading the only or even the best way to cultivate such capacities? I wouldn’t suggest so. But it seems equally foolish to dismiss such reading as nonsense when you have such a striking example in Lincoln (and numerous others, but I’m not going to spend hours going point by point).

True fact. Lincoln moved his lips when he read

I think it has more to do with critical thinking and overall reading comprehension, less how frequently one reads. A lot of people can't read a news article and form an opinion without first scrolling to the comments section. If someone "reads" but that means reading Colleen Hoover (a comically talentless "adult" author) and self-help books disguised as biographies, it's an indicator of baseline literacy but not intelligence or curiosity.

I think a better barometer is something like, is the person completely lost and unwilling to do any type of homework when reading a classic book (or something more subject-matter focused), one where all the context won't be readily available and parsing the language can be a struggle? Does the reader find any enjoyment in books that are not mindless entertainment? If someone doesn't read at all, you'll never know the answer to these questions. If someone is *unable* to work through a book that requires commitment, like one deemed appropriate for a high school lit class, yes, you would at some point observe comparatively worse logical reasoning skills as a proxy for what you label as "dumb."

Well, Rojo never reads books, and he's quite dumb

Why would I spend my time reading ideas that someone else wrote? I prefer to create my own independent thoughts and experience the world around me. My wors created by my interpretation of my experiences, not stories or viewpoints from another person’s lense

This reeks of Deno.

Yeah, but how does a person develop that capacity? How do they sharpen or maintain it (I believe that if one develops the capacity well and early, it’s fairly easy for crystallized intelligence to remain strong throughout adulthood and serve one well)?

A person could get these things in the classroom, in conversation, in video, in observation. It’s not totally far away from ideas touched on in the thread the troll used to go after Blanks’ non-STEM major and in which some discussed thought processes in philosophy.

I genuinely believe that developing critical thinking is like an ongoing apprenticeship for many years, and it’s best served by supplementing what is taught in school. One facet of this involves frequently going through a process of solving increasingly difficult problems (that’s something you get well, of course, in a good STEM education).

It also relies on following a process of thinking through elaborate ideas and trying to read them critically. And I think that can arise in many topics. How can I know if my process of critical reading is any good (classroom feedback?). One way for me is to see how I might have ideas that fit alongside those of other thinkers already well versed in the subject. I read author A and have questions? Hey, author B has raised the same objections and is noted as a bright authority, not a weirdo crank!

If a very bright, learned person tests their ideas well (in conversation and debate with other experts, then submits to a process of editing — think of the acknowledgments sections of books in which authors thank pre-publication readers for helping them correct errors or develop ideas/explanations), then I feel as though I can learn from them.

It goes beyond just whether the facts are accurate. Very intelligent people tend to follow a fairly common process for how they select and present examples, as well as how and when they need to adjust an assertion to accommodate alternate viewpoints or make some refutation. I believe one gets better at doing these things themselves if they’re frequently exposed to it.

And, of course, some people have daily work experiences in which they engage in thought processes like that all day long. The reading may be a nice supplement, but it’s less needed for development of skills.

And especially on what might people find in the “comments section” of an article or on LRC or social media or whatever (so you’re already taking what I say with a grain of salt): I don’t think good thinking is the sole province of the “experts”; it’s just that I have limited time and I want more return on the time invested (this long post being the exception, I suppose). It’s sort of like the way two newbies might happen to land on decent training principles on their own. I’d rather read what Daniels and Bakken have to say, thanks.

Generally I'd agree, although my dad who never reads books is a smart successful person.

If you tried to say people who are read books are intelligent I would disagree. A lot of stupid people read very stupid books.