<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013-12-28 17:22, Dan Ust wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F0F209D0-49E0-4FF8-8BE6-040E1640527A@yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/brain-function-boosted-for-days-after-reading-a-novel-9028302.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/brain-function-boosted-for-days-after-reading-a-novel-9028302.html</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sounds like they need to do a bit more here to back the title
of the article. My immediate question was, "What's a good
novel?" Would reading something by Clive Cussler be better, by
this test, than something by James Joyce?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
And maybe more than 19 test subjects would be good for the
trustworthiness. Overall, a typical popsci claim along the lines of
"cinnamon burns fat": maybe true, but not proven to matter.
Especially since more brain activity is not obviously a good thing:
what matters is what the brain activity is *about*. More activity in
pain areas is usually a bad thing, and people well trained on a task
show less activity in areas beginners use for the same task.<br>
<br>
Still, there is some evidence that reading somewhat serious novels
improves empathy abilities (you think about what people think and
feel). Whether James Joyce is good for you remains to be studied. <br>
<br>
(Currently enjoying Ian McDonald's sf novel "Brasyl" - partially for
scenery setting for a sf game in a Brazil-dominated future,
partially just for the fun goings-on among quantum hackers, reality
show producers and far too competent Jesuits). <br>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Dr Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University
</pre>
</body>
</html>