Reading boosts focus, not intelligence

Reading builds culture, not intelligence: the role of format

An airplane aisle offers a snapshot of our times: nearly every passenger hunched over a screen, while a minority holds open paper books on their laps. This image fuels a recurring question: if people read less, are they becoming stupider? Most participants say no. Intelligence is a different matter, and for many, the medium—paper, mobile, or audio—matters far less than the content itself.

Is being cultured the same as being intelligent?

No, according to the prevailing view. Reading makes you more cultured, not smarter; intelligence is often seen as innate. A fifty-year-old veteran reader, who avoids social media and has strained his eyes devouring books, argues exactly this: reading provides tools but doesn't create talent where none exists. Another comment adds a thesis that structures the argument: it is worse to be uncultured than unintelligent, because the latter can live reasonably happily, while lacking culture burdens one for life. Others nuance this: reading develops intelligence, which isn't the same as increasing it. The line is fine, explaining why consensus is elusive.

Reading on a phone is still reading

The medium decides nothing. Some read entire novels on phones, others hoard thousands of PDFs, and some listen to audiobooks until they fall asleep. Wikipedia also counts; one participant used it on his phone while his mother scolded him for being glued to the screen. Defending the format has its counterattack: falling asleep with an audiobook isn't reading. Those making this point have reasonable arguments, though they face irony: the book-proud person might be reading a newsstand novel while the phone user tackles The Unbearable Lightness of Being.

Text quality outweighs page count

Here, consensus is broader. Accumulating titles means little if it's just airport entertainment. Montaigne's distinction between the ignorance of those who can't read and those who read much but poorly is revived, applying the Greek term segarro to those confusing having read with knowing. Examples support this: Plato, Adam Smith, Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, or Le Bon offer more than any bestseller list. A side complaint highlights the bias: someone who has read ten technical manuals isn't considered a reader in certain circles, yet a young adult novel is. Reading for quantity fills shelves, not minds.

How many books do you need to know economics?

The topic becomes concrete here. An economist argues that five suitable books suffice to understand the field well, admitting many peers know less than a serious amateur engineer or physicist. His list, heavy on philosophy and light on math, includes:

• The Wealth of Nations
• Money, Banking, and Cycles
• The Intelligent Investor
• Human Action
• Utilitarianism

Conversely, another circulating argument suggests that three books on any subject make you appear expert to 80% of people, enough to debate in media without anyone noticing the gap. The example cited is a fraudster who deceived everyone by pretending to be something he wasn't.

The lecturing reader vs. the proud non-reader

Two figures generate similar disdain. First, the reader who shares unsolicited insights, turning family meals into seminars. Second, and increasingly common, the person proud of never opening a book, who flaunts this fact. Some map ideology onto this, suggesting reading leads to pogre views, while unbookish rural men speak of family, work, and order. This is a thesis, not data, and should be treated as such.

Finally, a participant flips the script: we have never read so much. Messages, articles, comments, screens lit all day. Paper has declined, but reading hasn't. What is lost is long, uninterrupted time with text that doesn't compete with notifications. Many who claim no time to read spend four or five hours daily on social media. The issue isn't how much we read, but how long we sustain attention on a single text.