2 ms·

No, sports are not pretty close to battles. People killing and getting killed makes a difference. My emotional state would be very different if I would meet a r

by Ma8ee 6y ago

No, sports are not pretty close to battles. People killing and getting killed makes a difference. My emotional state would be very different if I would meet a rival at dawn for a fight on life and death than if I'm fencing for points in a club. And most importantly, by reading I get the thoughts, feelings and motivations from other people, which teaches me different ways to see the world and empathy. And if we for a moment ignore the fact that reading about food is one of the most boring things I can imagine, reading about someone else's experience of food let you see aspects you aren't aware of which your own experiences richer. People don't read as a substitute for living their own life. People read because it enriches the life they live. Not only in the moment of reading, but also in everything else they do.

nwienert 6y ago
I have nothing against reading and enjoy it thoroughly, the discussion here isn't that, it's about learning and being considered competent, and I'm simply pointing out a specific qualia of learning first-hand vs read and how it manifests in your reliability to others. UFC and boxing are certainly life and death and I'm sure you'd have quite a similar feeling to going to battle. Though again this really misses the point: going to battle is a great example, in fact, not replicable through reading in a million important ways. No one who has only read about war will ever be in the room deciding important things about war, nor will their stories about war (reciting from a book) ever be quite as interesting or well-said. Of course it's a spectrum, and someone who has read and experienced it first-hand can be better, but the point stands. I'd argue empathy manifests in real life experience more than reading, but it's hard to convey in writing.
- Ma8ee 6y ago
  Few people read more than generals. Few leads more than a handful of battles in their lifetime, and they better not repeat anyone else’s mistakes. And most people, not only 4 of the 5 last US presidents, who decides important things about wars, have in the best case read about wars, rarely fought in any themselves.

by Ma8ee 6y ago

nwienert 6y ago

I have nothing against reading and enjoy it thoroughly, the discussion here isn't that, it's about learning and being considered competent, and I'm simply pointing out a specific qualia of learning first-hand vs read and how it manifests in your reliability to others. UFC and boxing are certainly life and death and I'm sure you'd have quite a similar feeling to going to battle. Though again this really misses the point: going to battle is a great example, in fact, not replicable through reading in a million important ways. No one who has only read about war will ever be in the room deciding important things about war, nor will their stories about war (reciting from a book) ever be quite as interesting or well-said. Of course it's a spectrum, and someone who has read and experienced it first-hand can be better, but the point stands. I'd argue empathy manifests in real life experience more than reading, but it's hard to convey in writing.

Ma8ee 6y ago
Few people read more than generals. Few leads more than a handful of battles in their lifetime, and they better not repeat anyone else’s mistakes. And most people, not only 4 of the 5 last US presidents, who decides important things about wars, have in the best case read about wars, rarely fought in any themselves.