Direct link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/books/review/Collins-t.htm...(IMHO this post adds very ltitle)
The poster is quite skeptical that books change us. I don't understand why because the truth is this (IMHO) is blatantly self-evident.
Even our machine learning models are capable of taking inputs and changing the internal structure creating or modifying the ability to make inferences. Why do you think our brains are any different?
When a conversation happens, at first you remember the exact words that were spoken. Soon you think you do but those details will change between different participants (they will in fact probably be different from the first moment for any non-trivial exchange). Then you're left with the gist of what was said and then later typically an emotion or association with a person, time, place or some other stimulus.
Books are no different. You may remember key quotes. After awhile you'll struggle to remember all but the broadest plot elements. Most often you'll remember that you liked or didn't like the book and often won't be able to quantify why (in any kind of specific way).
Reference books or books that teach you anything are more "obvious" in this regard. Read "Effective C++" or "Effective Java" and it'll essentially reprogram your brain (to varying degrees) by a change in habits, preferences, etc.
Fiction is harder to pin down. Sometimes it's pure entertainment. It may not necessarily change you. But there is something about human development that is particularly receptive to the meme of fiction. The greatest ability we evolved is the ability to teach our young significant skills such that one generation is building on the fruits of the last and we've all learned something beyond how to crack nuts open with rocks.
Fiction often has a moral. Books are capable of changing our behaviour and attitudes (although many don't).
All of this just seems so obviously analogous to reprogramming a computer (albeit an incredibly complex one) that it baffles me that people would think otherwise.
(IMHO this post adds very ltitle)
The poster is quite skeptical that books change us. I don't understand why because the truth is this (IMHO) is blatantly self-evident.
Even our machine learning models are capable of taking inputs and changing the internal structure creating or modifying the ability to make inferences. Why do you think our brains are any different?
When a conversation happens, at first you remember the exact words that were spoken. Soon you think you do but those details will change between different participants (they will in fact probably be different from the first moment for any non-trivial exchange). Then you're left with the gist of what was said and then later typically an emotion or association with a person, time, place or some other stimulus.
Books are no different. You may remember key quotes. After awhile you'll struggle to remember all but the broadest plot elements. Most often you'll remember that you liked or didn't like the book and often won't be able to quantify why (in any kind of specific way).
Reference books or books that teach you anything are more "obvious" in this regard. Read "Effective C++" or "Effective Java" and it'll essentially reprogram your brain (to varying degrees) by a change in habits, preferences, etc.
Fiction is harder to pin down. Sometimes it's pure entertainment. It may not necessarily change you. But there is something about human development that is particularly receptive to the meme of fiction. The greatest ability we evolved is the ability to teach our young significant skills such that one generation is building on the fruits of the last and we've all learned something beyond how to crack nuts open with rocks.
Fiction often has a moral. Books are capable of changing our behaviour and attitudes (although many don't).
All of this just seems so obviously analogous to reprogramming a computer (albeit an incredibly complex one) that it baffles me that people would think otherwise.