UMBC Super Smasher
Smash Lord
Does reading books make one smart? True or false? What do you guys think?
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Reading Makes One Smart?
- Thread starter UMBC Super Smasher
- Start date
-=Marth_n_Roy=-
Smash Ace
BOOKS maybe, but reading PRoom stuff does not
books allow you to either immerse yourself in another's perspective or to broaden your horizons on what is nowadays
LEVEL UP!
Gained: -5 INTELLEGENCE!!!
books allow you to either immerse yourself in another's perspective or to broaden your horizons on what is nowadays
LEVEL UP!
Gained: -5 INTELLEGENCE!!!
That explains why whenever I'm here I feel like I'm being hit in the head with hammers.
Ensee
Smash Ace
Blasphemy. It might, I can never really tell. I don't read books at all, and I consider myself to be quite smart. I'm in all honors classes at my school.
UMBC Super Smasher
Smash Lord
I thought I was smart until I got stuck on the last project in my comp sci class. I'm trying to figure out if there is a way to increase my intelligence. Here is why I think reading books might help:
1. It helps me concentrate on an activity for an extended period of time.
2. It exercises my mind for an extended period of time.
3. I gain new knowledge at a higher rate than I would if I spent my time leisurely.
Zook
Perpetual Lazy Bum
The answer is no. Reading may increase one's vocabulary, but it won't make one smarter.
Ensee
Smash Ace
Well obviously if you are reading a book that is teaching you something you will become smarter. But I find it boring to read those kind of books. Video games ftw.
You can gain knowledge simply by reading. This does NOT mean you learned anything.
Wow. I was actually thinking about this recently. You know all those people taht go up to the "smart" ones and say "What do you guys read a book in your spare time?"
If you do that, it's just for fun. Even if you read a textbook, if you don't pay attention, it goes right through that head of yours. I doubt people read informative books in their spare time for fun. If they read just a fun little novel or whatever, they are doing it for enjoyment, not to learn. You'll probably pick up a word or two, but...I don't think it will have a MAJOR effect. I don't read a lot, but I'd like to take credit for being smart, so...I dunno. That's what I think.
If you do that, it's just for fun. Even if you read a textbook, if you don't pay attention, it goes right through that head of yours. I doubt people read informative books in their spare time for fun. If they read just a fun little novel or whatever, they are doing it for enjoyment, not to learn. You'll probably pick up a word or two, but...I don't think it will have a MAJOR effect. I don't read a lot, but I'd like to take credit for being smart, so...I dunno. That's what I think.
You don't read the right novels.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
See, if someone other than Eorlingas had posted this:
I woulda replied with "So you finally joined the general consensus or something equally mean. But I like Eor, so the joke is wasted....
Flamestar666
Smash Lord
People are reading all the time on the internet, and they seem to get dumber and dumber everyday.
Anybody who's said that reading does not help make you smarter is sorely mistaken. It's more than "a few vocab words here or there". Reading stimulates your brain, in addition to increasing your vocabulary (which it most definitely does), allowing you to make connections and think in ways you might not normally think. Yes, in this way, even Harry Potter can make you smarter.
Take it from an avid reader (since I've been young), I can attribute much of my intelligence to reading.
Take it from an avid reader (since I've been young), I can attribute much of my intelligence to reading.
UMBC Super Smasher
Smash Lord
That's exactly what I was thinking. All of my book worm friends and family are incredibly smart. I'm strongly considering picking up reading as a hobby.
Don't completely mix up causality here 
I think people read a lot BECAUSE they're smart. They demonstrate intellectual curiosity and a desire to exercise mental faculties, which are generally signs of intelligent people. I do think reading does "make you smarter," however.
Of course you learn from books, but that only makes you more knowledgable--the real benefit is not the knowledge, but the skill of acquiring knowledge. By becoming skilled at adapting new nuggets of info into an existing worldview, you can process new ideas quicker. Reading, I think, helps that.
That was a horribly constructed post but I think you get the gist.
I think people read a lot BECAUSE they're smart. They demonstrate intellectual curiosity and a desire to exercise mental faculties, which are generally signs of intelligent people. I do think reading does "make you smarter," however.Of course you learn from books, but that only makes you more knowledgable--the real benefit is not the knowledge, but the skill of acquiring knowledge. By becoming skilled at adapting new nuggets of info into an existing worldview, you can process new ideas quicker. Reading, I think, helps that.
That was a horribly constructed post but I think you get the gist.
So you want to get buff. You don't have any natural ability -- you weren't born with a six-pack, like your sister's boyfriend, and adolescence didn't bestow you with pectorals, like it did your best friend. Some people are just naturals, you say. This is further proven when you go to the gym at 9pm, when you can lift with the other want-to-be-musclebound pasties who are too self-conscious to walk the treadmill during Yoga hour. It's just to crowded during Yoga, you tell yourself.
It's obvious from the other inhabitants that weightlifting does not, in itself, make you more attractive. Maybe it's the fact that they are curling 20 lbs five whole times and then leaving. Or there's the guy who is doing the whole workout right, lifting respectable amounts, who has imposing biceps, but will never drop that spare tire. Just because you lift doesn't mean you're athletic.
Leave that to those with athletic lifestyles, you think. Those who run 10 miles a day for fun. Those who play football during every patch of sunshine (and sometimes during the rain.) Meanwhile, those who fancy themselves athletic will have the same pompous attitude. Just because you lift, doesn't mean you're strong.
Luckily, you remember that's ridiculous. It is the worst kind of truism: the kind that is so true, so common sense, that it becomes false. Of course there are other aspects to athleticism. But, you remember, the best way to become athletic is to mimic the habits of those who are. Sure, studies show that vitamin supplements have little overall benefit to your health, but healthy people take them regularly. So if you do what the healthy people do, you will become healthier, even if you don't understand the reasons why. You remember that lifting is the beginning. It is one aspect of a healthy lifestyle. It implies the desire to get off the couch and generate some melanin.
So whether athletic people weightlift or weightlifting makes you athletic is irrelevant. Finally, you decide to stick the pin in the hole marked "30." The next day, you discover the exact location of your latissimus dorsi. Christ, it hurts.
It's obvious from the other inhabitants that weightlifting does not, in itself, make you more attractive. Maybe it's the fact that they are curling 20 lbs five whole times and then leaving. Or there's the guy who is doing the whole workout right, lifting respectable amounts, who has imposing biceps, but will never drop that spare tire. Just because you lift doesn't mean you're athletic.
Leave that to those with athletic lifestyles, you think. Those who run 10 miles a day for fun. Those who play football during every patch of sunshine (and sometimes during the rain.) Meanwhile, those who fancy themselves athletic will have the same pompous attitude. Just because you lift, doesn't mean you're strong.
Luckily, you remember that's ridiculous. It is the worst kind of truism: the kind that is so true, so common sense, that it becomes false. Of course there are other aspects to athleticism. But, you remember, the best way to become athletic is to mimic the habits of those who are. Sure, studies show that vitamin supplements have little overall benefit to your health, but healthy people take them regularly. So if you do what the healthy people do, you will become healthier, even if you don't understand the reasons why. You remember that lifting is the beginning. It is one aspect of a healthy lifestyle. It implies the desire to get off the couch and generate some melanin.
So whether athletic people weightlift or weightlifting makes you athletic is irrelevant. Finally, you decide to stick the pin in the hole marked "30." The next day, you discover the exact location of your latissimus dorsi. Christ, it hurts.
Your maximum is based entirely on your genetics. You may never realize your potential unless you try, but you have to have some before you can actualize it.
After reading my posts you should feel smarter or intimidated... until you discover dictionary.com that is.
After reading my posts you should feel smarter or intimidated... until you discover dictionary.com that is.
Potential is irrelevant. Here's an article that discusses the ramifications of that kind of thinking.
Anyone -- anyone -- can become smarter by reading. That "potential" has a lot less to do with genetics than we think it does.
I'll admit, though. I have no idea what you're saying in your last line.
Anyone -- anyone -- can become smarter by reading. That "potential" has a lot less to do with genetics than we think it does.
I'll admit, though. I have no idea what you're saying in your last line.
That is an article on positive reinforcement.
Yes it is. A good one. And relevant, but that requires a little reading to figure out.
For those of us that weren't paying attention, Positive Reinforcement may help us to become all we can be, but it doesn't change how far we can go. Just like creatine can help you become a better body builder, it doesn't change how good you could possibly become.
I think you just underestimate how smart most people potentially are. The fact that they aren't is just a lack of motivation or direction.
I think you just underestimate how smart most people potentially are. The fact that they aren't is just a lack of motivation or direction.
No, I'm saying that potential is not a good reason to think someone isn't capable of something. The article discusses how saying a kid is "smart" can actually be detrimental to his learning. It is similar to the studies where if you tell a girl that girls are bad at math tests, she will perform worse on a math test.
It all gets very Heisenberg. By acknowledging our limits, we make them stronger. And so, while those limits logically do exist, the fact that we can never know exactly where they stand makes them irrelevant to what we're discussing.
The question is "does reading make you smarter." The answer is "yes." If it was "does reading make you a genius," that would be another matter.
It all gets very Heisenberg. By acknowledging our limits, we make them stronger. And so, while those limits logically do exist, the fact that we can never know exactly where they stand makes them irrelevant to what we're discussing.
The question is "does reading make you smarter." The answer is "yes." If it was "does reading make you a genius," that would be another matter.
Inevitable
Smash Apprentice
If reading were to make you "smart" then why am I not "smart?" I like to know how it feels to be "smart" or when you know you are "smart."
I think everyone is basically the same, it's lazyiness that splits people up.
I think everyone is basically the same, it's lazyiness that splits people up.
Except a mindset like that is guaranteed to keep people from even trying to improve for fear they have a low limit.
Edit: Aimed at Gamer
Edit: Aimed at Gamer
Well what's interesting is, even saying somebody is *above* the limit is detrimental. Tell a kid his whole life that he's naturally smart, even of genius IQ, and he will start to avoid tasks that he fears will make him look dumb. Anything that doesn't come easily isn't worth his time.
In essence, it's a PR thing. Which is better: to tell people to accept their limitations, or to tell people to search for their strengths?
In essence, it's a PR thing. Which is better: to tell people to accept their limitations, or to tell people to search for their strengths?
My parents always encouraged me, told me I could do it, I'm smart enough, etc.
You should always tell kids to reach for their limits, not define them for them. For example: I have a strong background in math, from Algebra and Geometry to Calculus and Trig. But I have my limits. In my CompSci classes, I met a few of those amazing individuals that made me look ******** when it came to math. Any question they could answer without thinking. I don't envy them. I also met people in art whom could paint realistic pictures without trying. I have to try to do so. Again, I'm not jealous. Why? Because my whole life I've strived to be as good as I can be at the things that are important to me. So I can't see numbers like some people or paint a mural like others. I know that there are a lot of things that I can do with practiced ease that they would never even think of trying.
I'm a jack of all trades. Proficient in many and master of a select few. This is how I was taught when I grew up. I was taught that anything worth doing is worth striving for, even if it at first seems difficult. My father took psychology when he went to college and he learned the value of positive thinking. And so he taught me. If you fall down it is only a failure if you fail to learn something from it. Anything can be learned if you break it down to the basics. There is no mathematical problem that cannot be broken down into the basic components of addition and subtraction. All math by definition is addition or subtraction of numbers. There is no engine that isn't a complex collection of simple machines. Levers, valves, screws, pulleys, etc.
So in conclusion, reading does not make you smarter, if you disagree then read Bill Oreilly's "Culture Warrior" comeback here and tell me you didn't lose IQ points. And bringing psychological mumbo-jumbo into this debate was stupid.
You should always tell kids to reach for their limits, not define them for them. For example: I have a strong background in math, from Algebra and Geometry to Calculus and Trig. But I have my limits. In my CompSci classes, I met a few of those amazing individuals that made me look ******** when it came to math. Any question they could answer without thinking. I don't envy them. I also met people in art whom could paint realistic pictures without trying. I have to try to do so. Again, I'm not jealous. Why? Because my whole life I've strived to be as good as I can be at the things that are important to me. So I can't see numbers like some people or paint a mural like others. I know that there are a lot of things that I can do with practiced ease that they would never even think of trying.
I'm a jack of all trades. Proficient in many and master of a select few. This is how I was taught when I grew up. I was taught that anything worth doing is worth striving for, even if it at first seems difficult. My father took psychology when he went to college and he learned the value of positive thinking. And so he taught me. If you fall down it is only a failure if you fail to learn something from it. Anything can be learned if you break it down to the basics. There is no mathematical problem that cannot be broken down into the basic components of addition and subtraction. All math by definition is addition or subtraction of numbers. There is no engine that isn't a complex collection of simple machines. Levers, valves, screws, pulleys, etc.
So in conclusion, reading does not make you smarter, if you disagree then read Bill Oreilly's "Culture Warrior" comeback here and tell me you didn't lose IQ points. And bringing psychological mumbo-jumbo into this debate was stupid.
You were the one that brought up genetic potential. I'm saying it's irrelevant.
I believe that someone who reads Culture Warrior, Ayn Rand, and Godless while also reading The God Delusion, Life in the Emerald City and Fiasco is on the road to becoming a smarter person than someone who reads only Daily Kos and Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them. It's about exposure to new ideas, and being willing to learn to analyze those ideas.
That's what reading does.
Don't believe me? How about literacy rates. I'm willing to bet that if I introduce you to someone who can't read, you will consider them less intelligent. No, this isn't always true. But on average, a literate person has a higher potential than an illiterate person. A literate country has a better economy than an illiterate one.
Why is that? Because reading, in any form, makes you smarter. More fit. It exposes you to new ideas, allows you to communicate those ideas, and even allows you to remember them. Does an illiterate person have a lower "genetic potential"? We have no way of knowing. He might be a genetic genius. But if he isn't able to read, well, he's not going very far.
Even novels. If someone sits down and reads (really reads) High Fidelity, then Bright Lights, Big City, then Catcher in the Rye, then he will learn something. Maybe he won't perform better on IQ tests. Maybe it won't inspire him. but reading those three books, in that order, with curiosity and an open mind, will teach him about the nuances of modern life.
Prefer nonfiction? Ok, read Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim, then How to Be Alone, and then The Year of Magical thinking. Conspiracy historical thrillers? Go for The Da Vinci Code, The Dante Club, then The Name of the Rose. Crazy short stories? Start with anything by Philip K ****, followed by anything by Borges, and ending with The Metamorphosis.
Of course, this is all rather close to a personal theory of mine, which is that the entire reason we evolved and became so successful is due to stories. That our ability to use metaphor is our most powerful -- it allows for language, writing, enhanced memory, deeper understanding. It wasn't until we could say "The other day I saw Bob use a sharpened stick to kill this huge bear" that we could transfer information so quickly.
So, reading exposes you to new ideas, it inspires you to analyze in new ways, and it better equips you to survive in the world.
Even if you're just balking at Oreilly's stupidity the entire time, you are still a better person for having read it. Now you can cite examples. You can better understand his thinking. And you can even use his book as an argument in an internet discussion to try to prove your point. That means you're smarter, even if just by a small amount.
I believe that someone who reads Culture Warrior, Ayn Rand, and Godless while also reading The God Delusion, Life in the Emerald City and Fiasco is on the road to becoming a smarter person than someone who reads only Daily Kos and Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them. It's about exposure to new ideas, and being willing to learn to analyze those ideas.
That's what reading does.
Don't believe me? How about literacy rates. I'm willing to bet that if I introduce you to someone who can't read, you will consider them less intelligent. No, this isn't always true. But on average, a literate person has a higher potential than an illiterate person. A literate country has a better economy than an illiterate one.
Why is that? Because reading, in any form, makes you smarter. More fit. It exposes you to new ideas, allows you to communicate those ideas, and even allows you to remember them. Does an illiterate person have a lower "genetic potential"? We have no way of knowing. He might be a genetic genius. But if he isn't able to read, well, he's not going very far.
Even novels. If someone sits down and reads (really reads) High Fidelity, then Bright Lights, Big City, then Catcher in the Rye, then he will learn something. Maybe he won't perform better on IQ tests. Maybe it won't inspire him. but reading those three books, in that order, with curiosity and an open mind, will teach him about the nuances of modern life.
Prefer nonfiction? Ok, read Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim, then How to Be Alone, and then The Year of Magical thinking. Conspiracy historical thrillers? Go for The Da Vinci Code, The Dante Club, then The Name of the Rose. Crazy short stories? Start with anything by Philip K ****, followed by anything by Borges, and ending with The Metamorphosis.
Of course, this is all rather close to a personal theory of mine, which is that the entire reason we evolved and became so successful is due to stories. That our ability to use metaphor is our most powerful -- it allows for language, writing, enhanced memory, deeper understanding. It wasn't until we could say "The other day I saw Bob use a sharpened stick to kill this huge bear" that we could transfer information so quickly.
So, reading exposes you to new ideas, it inspires you to analyze in new ways, and it better equips you to survive in the world.
Even if you're just balking at Oreilly's stupidity the entire time, you are still a better person for having read it. Now you can cite examples. You can better understand his thinking. And you can even use his book as an argument in an internet discussion to try to prove your point. That means you're smarter, even if just by a small amount.
*sigh* Genetics do determine you "best." Your foray into psychology was superfluous.
And you only go to prove my point.
You give someone a great novel and it gives them a greater understanding of that authors point of view. You give someone nothing but stupid agitprop and they will become dumber and lose rational contact with reality as we know it. For example, a christian proselytizer gave me a book that disproved many of the scientific theories of today. I read it and laughed almost the entire time. The book contained frauds and proofs, some of which thirty years out of date or plain falsehoods, that I was able to easily pick apart.
Sure, I became smarter after having read that, only because I checked against some of the more credible looking chapters. But it turned out the entire book was flawed. You give people nothing but books like that to read and I will guarantee that they will not be smarter because of it. They may be better at arguing their opinion, but only from the point of utter stupidity.
And you only go to prove my point.
False. It isn't just the fact that you read something, it is also what you read. You go to great lengths, in fact, to point out that it isn't just conservative tripe but also being exposed to the liberal propaganda that allows you to better understand an issue.
You give someone a great novel and it gives them a greater understanding of that authors point of view. You give someone nothing but stupid agitprop and they will become dumber and lose rational contact with reality as we know it. For example, a christian proselytizer gave me a book that disproved many of the scientific theories of today. I read it and laughed almost the entire time. The book contained frauds and proofs, some of which thirty years out of date or plain falsehoods, that I was able to easily pick apart.
Sure, I became smarter after having read that, only because I checked against some of the more credible looking chapters. But it turned out the entire book was flawed. You give people nothing but books like that to read and I will guarantee that they will not be smarter because of it. They may be better at arguing their opinion, but only from the point of utter stupidity.
So? That's like if I say give someone an 8lb dumbbell he won't get any stronger. Feed a dieter twinkies all day and he won't lose any weight. Only work out your legs, and you won't see any upper body gain.
Reading 3 romance novels a week for your whole life won't benefit you much.
Again. My point with the psychology is, for the purposes of this argument, who cares what the genetic "bests" are? How is the fact that I will never be Godel relevant? Does that mean I shouldn't study math at all, and it would have no chance to improve my life? This is especially surprising coming from a self-described jack of all trades. But you're right, it is superfluous, which is why it was strange that you brought up genetic limitations in the first place. Save for extreme situations like severe Autism, there aren't many genetic conditions that would make a limit on "learning" from reading matter.
Reading 3 romance novels a week for your whole life won't benefit you much.
Again. My point with the psychology is, for the purposes of this argument, who cares what the genetic "bests" are? How is the fact that I will never be Godel relevant? Does that mean I shouldn't study math at all, and it would have no chance to improve my life? This is especially surprising coming from a self-described jack of all trades. But you're right, it is superfluous, which is why it was strange that you brought up genetic limitations in the first place. Save for extreme situations like severe Autism, there aren't many genetic conditions that would make a limit on "learning" from reading matter.
Thrillhouse-vh.
Smash Hero
Sure, anyone can read.
If you care about what is inside and you take in and remember it is a different matter.
If you care about what is inside and you take in and remember it is a different matter.
I'm so glad that you have decided to agree with me 
.
.pikachun00b7
Smash Lord
Only textbooks. Math textbooks. Only them. I am currently reading a Calculus textbook since 7th grade math is almost as ******** as the Proom.
Matt
Banned via Administration
Scav! You're probably familiar with the Whorf hypothesis on linguistic determinism. If not, here's a brush up. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/language/whorf.html I learned all about it in my Socio-Linguistics course. When I wasn't napping, of course.
But yeah, it's true. Scientifically proven, too. If you tell someone he's not good enough, his performance drops. Also, see 1984.
I just sorta skimmed your argument, am I on base at all?
The other day, at Happy Wok, my friend got the best fortune in his cookie: "Promote literacy! Buy a box of fortune cookies!"
So here's the thing: the act of reading increases your ability to process thought (intelligence?) only if you're trained to read critically and if you're putting forth that critical effort. I'd make a long-winded metaphor about weight training, but it looks like I've already been beaten to that!
But yeah, it's true. Scientifically proven, too. If you tell someone he's not good enough, his performance drops. Also, see 1984.
I just sorta skimmed your argument, am I on base at all?
The other day, at Happy Wok, my friend got the best fortune in his cookie: "Promote literacy! Buy a box of fortune cookies!"
So here's the thing: the act of reading increases your ability to process thought (intelligence?) only if you're trained to read critically and if you're putting forth that critical effort. I'd make a long-winded metaphor about weight training, but it looks like I've already been beaten to that!
Inevitable
Smash Apprentice
I guess I'm "different" from others.
When people tell me I'm good at something or I'm strong in a subject, I just stop trying and don't care about it, I'm good in it, why should I care?
But...
When someone says I suck at Math and I'll get no where, I actually try to get better at it a lot more than anything else, just to prove them wrong and to get to my turn to smile.
When people tell me I'm good at something or I'm strong in a subject, I just stop trying and don't care about it, I'm good in it, why should I care?
But...
When someone says I suck at Math and I'll get no where, I actually try to get better at it a lot more than anything else, just to prove them wrong and to get to my turn to smile.
Sporkman
Smash Ace
I thought it was the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, Matt?
But yeah, we actually just did a previous exam paper that was all about linguistic determinism in English Language just a couple days ago. 1984 included, along with universalist and relativist views on linguistic determinism and the power of euphemisms and metaphors.
To be on-topic though, which is something I wanted to avoid in all honesty (hence why I haven't posted in this thread till now), I think it really depends on what your reading. Of course no children is going to make you smart (at lifes latter stages) and a informative text book is going to do exactly what it says on the tin (considering you take it in), so more specifically I'd probably say yes, reading does make you more intelligent, or at least, appear more intelligent. I haven't read in a while and I completely agree with what Eor said (except in regards to myself (in general, not just SWF), as opposed to me agreeing that yes, he doesn't seem as funny). Being immersed is important and I think you may sub-consciously take into account how to structure stories, how to persuade through writing (if you're reading a persuasive text) or how to structure a joke, even being able to take one out exactly and make it fit whatever context you want (I often do this for stories I have to write in academic environments ... the creative writing bit). There is also the vocabulary part. Whenever I come across a new word I haven't heard before, or perhaps one I have but can't remember the exact meaning of, I'll reach for a dictionary and find out the definition, usually then implementing into my everyday life, if there isn't a dictionary around i'll inquisitively ask a nearby 40-something untill I get what I want. Probably worth noting that vocab and structure etc only do so much as to make you appear intelligent.
As has already been suggested, books offer a different perspective on 'events' and this could help extend your knowledge. But it's been covered so I won't run far with it.
At the moment that's all I can think of that books teach you, but if you really enjoy the subject matter and content it might provoke you into perhaps further reading or investigation, and if it's based on real events that could work, in a similar manner as film might. Though it's nothing more than general knowledge.
But it could also be the little tid-bits of a story that make you more knowledgable, books aren't going to teach you maths or physics, but (because I haven't read the book I'll have to use the film) if you take Fight Club, there's a sequence where Tyler Durden explains how to make a bomb from common household items (although the recipie isn't real, it was changed in the interest of public safety) and that would add to your knowledge. One moment a bomb is something you need complex technology to make that no average joe could ever make, suddenly you realise it's something your neighbour could be brewing in his basement the exact same moment you're reading this.
Does reading make one smart? perhaps smart is the wrong term, more intelligent would probably be a better word, that for me, in a word, yes. Reading a book over night isn't going to change mr. I'm-failing-all-my-classes into mr. straight A's (unless it was a hella big text book that was taken in and remembered word for word..). But in general I do think it adds to one's base knowledge aswell as showing someone how to present.
I talk so much ****ing tripe.
But yeah, we actually just did a previous exam paper that was all about linguistic determinism in English Language just a couple days ago. 1984 included, along with universalist and relativist views on linguistic determinism and the power of euphemisms and metaphors.
To be on-topic though, which is something I wanted to avoid in all honesty (hence why I haven't posted in this thread till now), I think it really depends on what your reading. Of course no children is going to make you smart (at lifes latter stages) and a informative text book is going to do exactly what it says on the tin (considering you take it in), so more specifically I'd probably say yes, reading does make you more intelligent, or at least, appear more intelligent. I haven't read in a while and I completely agree with what Eor said (except in regards to myself (in general, not just SWF), as opposed to me agreeing that yes, he doesn't seem as funny). Being immersed is important and I think you may sub-consciously take into account how to structure stories, how to persuade through writing (if you're reading a persuasive text) or how to structure a joke, even being able to take one out exactly and make it fit whatever context you want (I often do this for stories I have to write in academic environments ... the creative writing bit). There is also the vocabulary part. Whenever I come across a new word I haven't heard before, or perhaps one I have but can't remember the exact meaning of, I'll reach for a dictionary and find out the definition, usually then implementing into my everyday life, if there isn't a dictionary around i'll inquisitively ask a nearby 40-something untill I get what I want. Probably worth noting that vocab and structure etc only do so much as to make you appear intelligent.
As has already been suggested, books offer a different perspective on 'events' and this could help extend your knowledge. But it's been covered so I won't run far with it.
At the moment that's all I can think of that books teach you, but if you really enjoy the subject matter and content it might provoke you into perhaps further reading or investigation, and if it's based on real events that could work, in a similar manner as film might. Though it's nothing more than general knowledge.
But it could also be the little tid-bits of a story that make you more knowledgable, books aren't going to teach you maths or physics, but (because I haven't read the book I'll have to use the film) if you take Fight Club, there's a sequence where Tyler Durden explains how to make a bomb from common household items (although the recipie isn't real, it was changed in the interest of public safety) and that would add to your knowledge. One moment a bomb is something you need complex technology to make that no average joe could ever make, suddenly you realise it's something your neighbour could be brewing in his basement the exact same moment you're reading this.
Does reading make one smart? perhaps smart is the wrong term, more intelligent would probably be a better word, that for me, in a word, yes. Reading a book over night isn't going to change mr. I'm-failing-all-my-classes into mr. straight A's (unless it was a hella big text book that was taken in and remembered word for word..). But in general I do think it adds to one's base knowledge aswell as showing someone how to present.
I talk so much ****ing tripe.