[manfred_macx42]

As a long time reader of science fiction, what has always drawn me to the genre more than characters or literary quality has been the concepts explored. To me, fiction is just a vehicle for serializing otherwise facinating ideas and philosophies that would be too boring to read a collection of papers about.

I have a certain minimum depth of character development that I look for to separate the pulp from works of more substance, but if I'm looking for that quality expressly, I seek it in other genres.

Many times I've leant out my favorite sci-fi to friends only to have it returned early because they couldn't keep up with the pace of concepts elaborated within.

Am I a stupider reader because I'm not overly concerned with a flawless execution of the same archetypal dramas being rehashed ad nauseum, or my friends for not having the patience to challenge themselves and absorb new ideas?

Many in the stem fields cite science fiction as being a motivating factor for pursuing their specialties, and fueling the ambitions of their research. Elon Musk, for example, has mentioned that The Foundation Trilogy by Issac Asimov was in his top eight works that influenced him the most - a series much criticized for it lack of character development and dimensionality.

For a study that places so high a premium on detecting emotions, motivations, and having a strong theory of mind, it ironically fails to consider the variations in the types of minds drawn to the genre in the first place.