Because reading is not just a utilitarian activity. Reading widely—things that may not be immediately useful, things that may be against your belief, things that may just turn out to be completely wrong—is an important step towards forming a critical appreciation of anything you may encounter.
Personally, I've long come to realize that much of my attitude towards everything from work to politics has been shaped by reading materials that often covered wholly unrelated topics. More importantly (and much to my chagrin), it seems that many crucial lessons came from works that I outright hated and was forced to drudge through against my will.
I don't mean to discount your conclusion: Almost always, almost everybody doesn't know what they're talking about. But almost always, almost everybody is a little right, and bits and pieces you pick up from the most unusual places will inform your solution to a problem many years down the road, or at least remind you that every story has more than one side.
You'll usually not be led too far astray if you read works (fiction, poetry, philosophy, non-technical nonfiction) that are widely agreed to belong to some kind of Canon. Odds are if you think one of those books is crap, you're just not ready for it.
(There are definitely truly great books that don't often make those lists, though.)
Reading (non-technical writing) well is a skill (just like reading technical works is) and it may take time to develop it. Pretty much no-one starts off their reading career getting more than a fraction out of most books they read than they might when they've had some more practice—practice, not just thoughtless experience.
If you want a utilitarian reason to read: reading improves one's writing.
One widely-agreed-upon effect of reading good writing is expanding one's sense of empathy. A good book will often give it a workout. Books can also reduce feelings of isolation and loneliness by exposing us to others' intimate thoughts about life, some of which will match up with things the reader may have thought were unique to them—and here's proof that those thoughts and feelings aren't just not unique, they're probably not even rare!
Books can be a mirror to one's self. A gut-punch just when we need it. Inspiration when we're down. Something human to hold on to when nothing else is there.
But they don't give you all this for free.
I had this happen reading this book: http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Waterways
The main character described the experience of watching all his friends vanish as they started dating, feeling abandoned, wondering if something was wrong with him. It felt like a sick joke everyone was playing on me. I mentioned experiencing the same on Twitter (referencing the book), and the floodgates opened.
Apparently that's a very normal experience for gay people.
Not to invalidate this but I was under the impression that this is normal for a large majority of people in general, not just gay people.
But that's my limited perspective as someone who's not hetero or bi. I could be wrong. I spent my first 29 years thinking everyone was making up the whole concept of attraction before I figured out what all those feelings I had for guys were.
From what I've read and heard, heterosexuality is like riding a roller coaster with a good safety record, and bisexuality is like riding the same roller coaster, but the other passengers are lions.
I specifically quoted that part because I think it actually shows what rayiner is talking about and it seems like you missed his point.
What's happening is that you sense a benefit from reading and because it feels true, it seems perfectly logical to project that benefit out to everyone else who is not you. But it's a post-hoc explanation instead of scientific research.
It's the same as someone noting that Einstein played violin so therefore, we promote the idea of learning musical instruments to help with creative thinking. Play piano to help unlock the mysteries of universe or write that next novel!
Or an ex-soldier that was forced to make his bed every morning is advising that everyone should make their bed because "the feeling of accomplishing something small snowballs into productivity for the rest of the day". Well, that sounds plausible but it's also post-hoc reasoning instead of something scientifically proven.
A lot of writing about history, diets, self-improvement, hiring, etc is like those examples above. Take an idea that feels true to me and therefore, it must also apply to everyone else. Some computer people do the same thing... we find that our knowledge of loops and IF/THEN statements is helpful to us outside of programming domains so we think everyone should learn to code. However, if we apply scientific rigor to that advice, we must be willing concede that forcing a child to write loops in elementary school may have zero measurable changes to the adult fireman or ballet dancer. (I'm not saying we shouldn't try it but let's not be seduced by post-hoc reasoning.)
Yes, the world is still a mystery in many ways and no one has cracked the code. But the ideas put forward by kooks like Trump, anti-vaxxers and creationists are still idiotic and vastly inferior to the general mainstream ideas advocated by serious scientists and researchers. Just because there's a possibility of being wrong, isn't a reason to succumb to defeatism or paralysis-by-analysis.
There is a wealth of knowledge out there that can help you better understand the world and live your life. Yes, finding and vetting this knowledge is hard work, but it sure beats watching The Jersey Shore.
I feel that I'm cynical about facts like you are, but quality fiction is an amazing view into the world of the past or of different people. The thing about fiction is that it's not trying to convince you of something, its not true or false, its a story with some historical and cultural backdrops.
Read some Camus, Hess or Hemingway. Read literature that wasn't originally written in english like Season of Migration to the North, The yellow sofa, I am a Cat or something by Naguib Mahfouz.
Reading physical books is a great way to maintain your focus, you think differently when you are digging into a real book. It encourages you to think deeply and avoids the surface thinking that we are so used to with all our modern technology.
I'm totally with you on the absurdity of 'facts' these days, but good literature is something else all together.
That being said, reading is still invaluable, you just have to be thoughtful about what (and how) you read. Don't pick up a book without something you want to learn that has real value ahead of time. If the book isn't leading you towards your goal, stop reading it and find another book.
Additionally, look for books that enlarge your picture of the world. Occasionally, pick up a book written by someone with a very different viewpoint from yourself and try to take the author's perspective. Find books that draw connections between disparate ideas.
Millennials are growing up in an environment completely filled with a lot of paid for bullshit information, and can only find culture that isn't venal dishonest marketing controlled by Baby Boomers in the cracks between commercials. I get why they hate information. I'm from Gen X - I've had to walk for a half-hour to get to a payphone to call someone who may or may not be home (depending on if someone I ran into the day before told them that I would call, for which they remained home and near the phone.) Space was limitless back then. Millenials know they've been robbed, and that makes me happy with them and hopeful.
Sure most of what's written is bs. But I really like books as a medium , reading inspires a reflexive form of cognition. Even if you read the same content,online you're more likely to just alt-tab away and forget about it while reading will kinda force you to understand things slower, to digest information in a different way. I think good romances are like transformers, there's more than meets the eye.
It's a bit like holding seminars on why people don't exercise at a gym, or about how bad it is that people don't learn to code at a developer convention, right?
“I have a second book out this year that says to young people ‘for god’s sake, you are educated, why don’t you read!’”
I find this an odd idea given that you're a lawyer. And an appellate lawyer at that. You have to have read to understand how to frame your cases, how to argue effectively by being knowledgeable about other relevant cases and law. Did you learn these things by osmosis?
When I realized this, I stopped feeling guilty about pretending to be knowledgeable about topics I truly know nothing about. Outside the realm of the hard sciences, where objective data are sovereign, the experts are pretty much just better bullshitters than everyone else.
In a world where "might makes right" is still the deepest foundation stone of civilization, convincing the mighty to agree with you makes you right. While being technically correct is still the best kind of correct, being believable gets you paid more.
What really chaps my backside now is reading my kids' textbooks.
The "objective data" isn't some inherent peculiarity of hard sciences. It's a feature of long tradition of aspirations towards intellectual honesty, distilled in the usage of mathematical methodology.
You can get a good data softer sciences, but this demands lots of work and paying attention to proper statistical methodology.
It gets more difficult less you can apply mathematics, but there's nothing in particular that makes bullshitting acceptable. Even in non-mathematical fields such as history and archeology, there's still possibility of hard evidence; it just requires lot of humility what you reasonably can infer from it, and sometimes you have to accept that there's not enough data for making conclusions.
The possibility of knowledge requires that everybody does their best to pay the necessary respect to the gods of science that enable its existence. Science is a social project that can't function unless participants believe in it and demand intellectual rigour of each other, work to reduce bullshitting. Giving up and joining the bullshitters does not make you more knowledgeable; it just amounts to treason.
If you want the BS to go away, you have to put an end to the entire world consistently rewarding it. Good luck accomplishing that with nothing more than reasoned, logical arguments.
I think we have seen so much more value created by people thinking perpendicular to the norm. Do you need to know the history of the taxi industry to create Uber? Do you need to know the history of the grocery industry to create Blue Apron? I would argue that knowledge of the history can bog you down and influence your approach to solving problems.
Do you need to know the history of monarchies to understand that the person who was born into power is not representing your needs? Knowing the history doesn't help you decide that being governed by somebody who you and your peers are able to elect would more effectively represent your needs.
I would argue that ideas aren't born out of a historical perspective, but that they're born out of current need and that the historical perspective only serves to tell you why you can't do something.
Go to museums.
People writing nice-sounding words does not in fact necessarily constitutes wisdom.
Sure -- it's just a pity neither you or me or anyone will ever come in contact with them. Everything we think/write/read is based on assumptions/axioms. You don't even have to "dig" to realize that, you just have to scratch the surface.
And here is precisely why you should read, because you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Sure, nobody's omniscient, nobody can have perfect knowledge of even one subject. But not everyone is equal - there are some people who know more than others. Typically, those who know more are those who read more, and it's not just by reading better material (here's where paying for content is really a good idea), but by reading all sorts of stuff, including the bad and just plain wrong, and being able to recognize it for what it is.
And yes, I know the inevitable comeback will be "but how do I know the bad from the good?" and the answer is again reading, but also being humble and taking advice from those more knowledgeable than you, and reading what they recommend. Hell, one of the best recommendations I ever had was to read Rippetoe's "Starting Strength" and that came from HN. I've also found that if I get a lot out of a book, the best thing to do is follow up on it's sources. Bibliographies are highly under rated.
And then there's the other standard reply that gets trotted out: "I don't have enough time". Really? How much time do you spend watching TV (including streaming)? How much time do you spend playing video games? How much time do you spend reading "free" content that's only written to sell your eyeballs instead of reading something you paid for, written by a knowledgeable author?
Not all content is created equal.
Please make your points without stooping to personal attack. Your comment would be much better without the first sentence, which is just a slap.
Sometimes I wish HN had a highlight function like Medium.
As an older millennial that's gotten pretty cynical: why should I read? Most of what is written is just like this article: an attempt to mash some ideas together and explain an underlying phenomenon that the author doesn't really understand. I'm pretty bitter about how much time I wasted in school reading things that were bunk (wait, Columbus did what?) And as study after study gets debunked (until last week, I used to believe exercising willpower sapped physical energy--thanks HN), and "experts" can't agree on questions like what caused the financial collapse, I've become pretty convinced that most of the theories underlying public policy, diplomacy, and the course of history are pseudo-science if not outright fantasy.
Millennials, I think, are utilitarian and unromantic. Fancy ideas in books don't hold much appeal to us because as the web makes information more available, we realize nobody knows what they're talking about.