| >Personally, I've long come to realize [...] I specifically quoted that part because I think it actually shows what rayiner is talking about and it seems like you missed his point. What's happening is that you sense a benefit from reading and because it feels true, it seems perfectly logical to project that benefit out to everyone else who is not you. But it's a post-hoc explanation instead of scientific research. It's the same as someone noting that Einstein played violin so therefore, we promote the idea of learning musical instruments to help with creative thinking. Play piano to help unlock the mysteries of universe or write that next novel! Or an ex-soldier that was forced to make his bed every morning is advising that everyone should make their bed because "the feeling of accomplishing something small snowballs into productivity for the rest of the day". Well, that sounds plausible but it's also post-hoc reasoning instead of something scientifically proven. A lot of writing about history, diets, self-improvement, hiring, etc is like those examples above. Take an idea that feels true to me and therefore, it must also apply to everyone else. Some computer people do the same thing... we find that our knowledge of loops and IF/THEN statements is helpful to us outside of programming domains so we think everyone should learn to code. However, if we apply scientific rigor to that advice, we must be willing concede that forcing a child to write loops in elementary school may have zero measurable changes to the adult fireman or ballet dancer. (I'm not saying we shouldn't try it but let's not be seduced by post-hoc reasoning.) |