I read fiction about 1⁄3 of the time and nonfiction 2/3s of the time. When reading non-fiction I often spend idle moments in my day lost in abstract thought about concepts related to the non-fiction book I’m reading. I’ve noticed when reading novels, I’m far more observant about people in my personal life and their thoughts and motivations. This is especially true when reading works with thoughtful and observant POV characters (especially detective fiction and mystery novels). I think fiction, like music, can serve to frame your mind-state in a certain way.
It has been useful for manipulating my mood and general mindset. (“My life would be more amusing right now if I felt a bit nervous and unsure of reality. Better go read something by Philip K. Dick.” Or “I would be more productive if I were feeling inspired by the grandness of the scientific endeavor. Better go read some Golden Age SF.”)
It is useful for understanding what certain situations feel like without going through them yourself, and therefore can help you empathize with people in those situations whose behavior otherwise does not make sense to you. Memoirs and other nonfiction can also do this, but it’s easier to find well-written fiction than well-written nonfiction, and for this purpose the writing must be very good.
I haven’t read the article, but I read the abstract, and am startled that it seems like a correlational study. Do they do anything to differentiate “reading fiction increases empathy” from “empathic people read more fiction”?
I haven’t really read it in detail, but in the abstract, see the sentence:
In order to rule out the role of personality, we first identified Openness as the most consistent correlate. This trait was then statistically controlled for, along with two other important individual differences:the tendency to be drawn into stories and gender. Even after accounting the tendency to be drawn into stories and gender. Even after accounting.
Which means that fiction was still predictive after accounting for various self-reported personality traits. So they did try to differentiate the two.
For detail, the corresponding section: “Association between print-exposure and empathy: Ruling out the role of individual differences”
Is reading fiction ever instrumentally useful (for a non-writer) compared to reading more informative literature? How has it been useful to you?
I read fiction about 1⁄3 of the time and nonfiction 2/3s of the time. When reading non-fiction I often spend idle moments in my day lost in abstract thought about concepts related to the non-fiction book I’m reading. I’ve noticed when reading novels, I’m far more observant about people in my personal life and their thoughts and motivations. This is especially true when reading works with thoughtful and observant POV characters (especially detective fiction and mystery novels). I think fiction, like music, can serve to frame your mind-state in a certain way.
It has been useful for manipulating my mood and general mindset. (“My life would be more amusing right now if I felt a bit nervous and unsure of reality. Better go read something by Philip K. Dick.” Or “I would be more productive if I were feeling inspired by the grandness of the scientific endeavor. Better go read some Golden Age SF.”)
It is useful for understanding what certain situations feel like without going through them yourself, and therefore can help you empathize with people in those situations whose behavior otherwise does not make sense to you. Memoirs and other nonfiction can also do this, but it’s easier to find well-written fiction than well-written nonfiction, and for this purpose the writing must be very good.
Notion that fiction increases empathy has been making the rounds. Not an area I’ve researched heavily, I am intrigued but skeptical.
I haven’t read the article, but I read the abstract, and am startled that it seems like a correlational study.
Do they do anything to differentiate “reading fiction increases empathy” from “empathic people read more fiction”?
I haven’t really read it in detail, but in the abstract, see the sentence:
Which means that fiction was still predictive after accounting for various self-reported personality traits. So they did try to differentiate the two.
For detail, the corresponding section: “Association between print-exposure and empathy: Ruling out the role of individual differences”
experimental stuff
Thanks. Some of my med school professors have this opinion, but I’m not sure if they’ve got any data to back it up.
I suspect there is a correlation but I’m entirely unsure of the direction of causality.