- cross-posted to:
- science@mander.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- science@mander.xyz
Brain structure can tell us a lot about reading skills. Importantly, though, the brain is malleable — it changes when we learn a new skill or practice an already acquired one.
For instance, young adults who studied language intensively increased their cortical thickness in language areas. Similarly, reading is likely to shape the structure of the left Heschl’s gyrus and temporal pole. So, if you want to keep your Heschl’s thick and thriving, pick up a good book and start reading.
[…] it’s worth considering what might happen to us as a species if skills like reading become less prioritised. Our capacity to interpret the world around us and understand the minds of others would surely diminish. In other words, that cosy moment with a book in your armchair isn’t just personal – it’s a service to humanity.
it’s worth considering what might happen to us as a species if skills like reading become less prioritised. Our capacity to interpret the world around us and understand the minds of others would surely diminish.
Complete speculation. I hate when scientific articles end with a completely made-up supposition that’s not supported by any of the evidence in the actual studies.
This view also betrays quite a discriminatory view of the illiterate, who by the way are perfectly capable of interpreting the world around us and understanding the minds of others.
Most people couldn’t read for most of human history and they did well enough to people the entire world.
That view also diminishes the people who lived before writing was developed.
Check out my thicc cortex baby. You like?
Good at reading or read more?
I just finished digging into this so you don’t have to— his actual research article is the former (out of a cohort of 1200 people some scored higher on a test and after studying their brainMRIs there are some consistent differences).
The title and the stats about how much reading has declined in the UK from the conversation article seem to be just fluff for interest. The amount people read wasn’t a subject of the research (and wasn’t mentioned). I think the author was just trying to make his work more relatable but framing the article this way was a bad call imo.