[maj0rhn]

There is an acquisition bias inherent in this article.

Reading 40 hours a week should not be viewed as an unadulterated good that is beneficial in all cases. I've known people who have escaped into reading with that kind of time commitment, at the cost of being able to function well in the real world. I don't judge their choice, but only note the correlation. A bell curve has two tails.

Personally, I've found that two hours a day is the max I can do without starting to get itchy that I'm wasting time by not doing anything. It's fine to get smarter, but, for me, at least, I feel like I have to do something with the smarts.

[bingojess]

The writer touches on this:

"Am I saying that everyone should read 4–8 hours a day? Of course not. Why, then, did I write this article? Well, in part because it offers a reference."

and later

"The average American may read 2–4 books a year. But who cares? If you value reading, the average is the wrong reference."