Rich vs Poor: what they read

[Odyne]

Here's an article that I think is interesting.

http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-people-read-self-improvement-books-2014-6#ixzz3NFB3QhXb

Here's how the numbers break down:

• 11% of rich people read for entertainment, compared to 79% of poor
• 85% of rich people read two or more education, career-related, or self-improvement books per month, compared to 15% of poor
• 94% of rich people read news publications including newspapers and blogs, compared to 11% of poor people

I don't know if I can trust the statistics, but I do find that the common person is often immersed and lost in works of fiction, and is becoming disinterested in works that could have tangible and beneficial impacts on their life.

Even looking at the most lucrative genres in books can be a strong indication as to what most people prefer to digest:

1 - Romance/Erotica
2 - Crime/Thriller
3 - Religious/Inspirational
4 - Science Fiction
5 - Horror

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/which-5-book-genres-make-the-most-money/?view=all




What do you guys think?

 

[HunterO]

I'm sure the Biz Insider likes to make all sorts of assumptions diving people into polar opposite socioeconomic statuses, but since the US is an infotainment/entertainment driven industry, perhaps the 233 wealthy patrons that they interviewed weren't being nearly honest with their library collection of various sources of smut entertainment as they really were?

In other nations, entertainment and the arts are typically reserved for the upper classes, while the working class reads self-help books. This business insider article is saying the opposite which kind of raises a doubt in my mind on the survey tactics the writer took to investigate the sources of information.

However, I do know that academics tend to question what is often printed in newspapers, so not sure where they would fit into this socioeconomic scale.

 

[Rcs6r]

"The rich are voracious readers on how to improve themselves. They're reading self-improvement books, biographies, books about successful people, things like that."

I'm calling shenanigans because there is no blueprint for success and many of these self-help books are literary snake oil. The best way to find out how to improve yourself is by doing things out in the world, something that wealthy people excel at because they are ambitious and hard-working****.

Career-related books are a different story (no pun intended. okay maybe a little.) but are only good for keeping your skills up and maintaining a toolset - how you succeed, and what you define as success depends on choices and opportunity: skill and luck.

People reading in general and having access to books is a very good thing; even if it's reading for fiction for entertainment, the imagination and other parts of the brain are being worked.


***The ones who worked their way up, not counting people born into money or parent's good connections, etc.

 

[Odyne]

People reading in general and having access to books is a very good thing; even if it's reading for fiction for entertainment, the imagination and other parts of the brain are being worked.

I agree. There is literature out there that is just as enriching and inspirational to the mind.

One of the books that helped shape my character growing up was a book of fiction; The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho.












Regardless of the OP, my personal opinion is this: I find it a little disconcerting when books like Twilight and Fifty Shades of Gray spread like wildfire. I feel like there are other books out there that deserve more attention than they're getting. Fiction or non-fiction, both.

I guess I am just worried about the quality of what we, and the upcoming generation, are gorging down, as far as reading material goes.


Kind of like junk food, but for the mind.

 

[La Sagna]

This is one of those occasions when somebody is claiming causation with no proof, correlation does not prove causation. Poor people don't have as much time to read as rich people do. Plus the vast majority of people who have the type of wealth they are speaking of have had some sort of 'hand up' apart from reading self-help or business books, like coming from a well-off family, what's the use of reading a business book if you don't have the funds to start a business or you can't afford the education you would need to get a job that pays that well, or know the right people to get you that job? This is one of those articles that tries to make it seem like most people who are rich are because they deserve it more than those that are poor as opposed to the fact that most of them are rich more because they were lucky enough to have the right breaks.

 

[wolkenkraetzer]

I like the stat that states that the rich read more blogs than do the poor. Well, under the heading of "DUH!"...The poor have fewer computers in the first place, a fact over which I shall pass.

 

[DonTaushMe]

Two or more books per month O.O Who has time for that?!?

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

Two or more books per month O.O Who has time for that?!?

Fast readers and/or people who actually enjoy reading

 

[SpecialEdition]

This article doesn't upset me. Looking at my blossoming book shelf I have more Self Help, Science and Cook Books than I do commercial fiction, though the commercial fiction is there and interspersed with classics and winners of literary awards. I have a nice mix.

Personally I feel that the more a novel delves into the literary scene vs. the commercial scene, the more it becomes sort of a journey and pleasure to read it. I believe commercial fiction (50 Shades and other Garbage) is a fast read, it's more of an instant gratification and it helps people escape into a really quick fantasy. The quality of writing is very low level high school and the plots are flashy or erotic and it just grabs people's attention.

Literary fiction is fine dining and wine. Commercial fiction is beer and pizza.

 

[the]

Rich people have more energy to focus on education/career. Poor people are probably trying to forget their shitty position in life.

 

[Cosima]

I think these types of articles and blogs represent "fast food" for mind just as low quality fiction proving "shocking" correlations and facts, when there is much to discuss.

 

[sprinkles]

Mind pollution resulting from a metagame about who or what is better.

Of course people claim some bullshit about what they read because appearances mean everything. If you'r rich, you have to act the part right? Being discerning makes one seem good, smart, likeable. One must be intelligent and have good taste! Except... really most of the time it's bullshit. Literary supremacists love to stroke themselves as if they're inherently of a better caste.

I'll tell you this. Entertainment is frivolous regardless of quality. Only the arrogant finds himself better for having an allegedly more refined pastime. And surely some will say "I'm not arrogant!" but who truly likes to admit their subconscious flaws in public? Additionally, reading educational materials for mere appearances is equally frivolous and ignorant.

 

[Rcs6r]

Came across this quote and thought it was relevant to the OP:

“Habits are human nature. Why not create some that will mint gold?” Which means that we can consciously create positive habits that enrich our lives, improve our health and make us happy.

One of our favorite habits around the studio is study. Particularly reading. ...I love to get schooled on all sorts of subjects so our minds stay open, curious, and well-fed.

 

[Lark]

Years ago I heard the saying you are what you read and I was skeptical then and am still now.

I think its good if people read full stop, its much better than alternative activities and the ability to sit still long enough, concentrate and give a book your undivided attention is real "training" to some people, then again I am probably talking about the people I work with who can be unrepresentative of the society at large.

Some of those genres you mention there, like self help books, are not liable to make someone successful who isnt already, I've read a lot of them on a kind of research trip and they were shite, a lot of the first principles or underpinning principles are unexamined, they provide poor answers to poorly posed questions a lot of the time.

On the other hand there are books which are considered classics which were genre fiction at the time of writing, like Daniel Defoe's Moll Flanders or Fanny Hill (although I think they stand apart from Shades of Grey and even superior modern erotica or womans writing such as Anais Nin) or HG Well's science fiction or even some of the plays of Shakespeare if you want to be academic or pedantic sounding about it.

The books in the sci fi and fantasy masterworks series have been positively life enriching to me, some of the are major pieces of work, maybe their authors took them more seriously than their reading public or the world at large were ever going to take them, like Poul Anderson's Broken Sword, it has verse in it which is modelled upon norse sagas such as Nagal's Saga, those books can be complex and have subtexts or contexts in which they were written, such as Flowers for Algernon being about the celebration of the natural and nature versus meddling science or mad science, I Am Legend, the book not the movies, features one of the first great "flipping" of the hero and the villain or social construction of categories like that in the first place, then there are books such as The Iron Dragon's Daughter or its sequel The Dragons of Babel which are the closest you can get to mind altering drugs without actually taking them.

I read a lot of other supposedly "smart thinking" section material too but some of them are not that good, they can expertly relate the content of dozens and dozens of research projects, the latest findings but even the better ones can be a little journalistic, I read them and sometimes they are interesting but a lot of the time they engage in their own sorts of confirmation bias or reinforcement of views and opinions people have already formed. Its all an elaborate exercise in not being challenged or having to really think that hard.

I even like to read graphic novels, collections of classic comics into showcase or essential volumes, especially the older comics which comprise ghost stories, story telling ghouls or devils, the unpopular ones which emerge now and again like in cameos in Sandman Preludes and Nocturns by Neil Gaimen. I also love photo books and picture books or art books.

 

[Faye]

This just sounds like the myth of the culture of poverty to me. They're looking for more reasons to blame poor people for being poor.

Their statistics don't prove anything. There is nothing to suggest that their 'research' has either internal validity or external validity. His sample size is way too small and seems cherry-picked. I mean, the title of the book that this article is based on is Rich Habits - The Daily Success Habits of Wealthy Individuals. That should tell you something. Just follow these 10 easy steps and you too can be rich! If it sounds too good to be true, it is. He even has his own 'rich habits institute'. If the rich are reading certain types of books, that is probably a result of their being rich, not a cause of it. It doesn't make much sense to read heavily about investing and self improvement if you're working two minimum wage jobs living paycheck to paycheck.

What we do know is that upward mobility is highly unlikely statistically speaking no matter what you do, but our country is enamored with the idea that anyone who works hard can make it big. This is the protestant work ethic repackaged. It is just another version of 'you didn't pray enough'.

Maybe I should write my own self help book that blames poor people for being poor. It sounds like a great scam to make money.

 

[magister343]

So, is basically just someone with a self help book to sell trying to do so by lumping such stupid self help books together with the sort of continuing education materials which many professions are required to read and be tested on in order to keep their certifications/licenses to practice?

 

[Faye]

So, is basically just someone with a self help book to sell trying to do so by lumping such stupid self help books together with the sort of continuing education materials which many professions are required to read and be tested on in order to keep their certifications/licenses to practice?

Its like a meta self-help book. Its a self help book to help you read self help books.

 

[Skarekrow]

Interesting bits.

Are rich people innately more intelligent than poor people?

​

We need to redefine what is intelligence. A successful musician has his intelligence in making music but that doesn't necessarily make him rich.

I'm not saying that rich people aren't intelligent, they can be spectacularly good at what they do. I'm saying that poor people aren't necessarily less intelligent.

First I want to address that there is a huge variety of human intelligence. Someone can be very good at something but at the same time its likely that he is really bad at some other things. It's a biological trade off.

Secondly, what personality we have can have a huge impact on how much money we are going to get. There are people who are more likely to be attracted by extrinsic rewards such as fame and money while others focus on relationships or their passions and interests. Due to the competitive nature of the society, some personalities are more suitable for propelling someone up the ranks while some other personalities resist or simply ignore. For example, extroverts with a gregarious outspoken personality is more likely to be recognized and praised than introverts who are softly spoken and reflective and are often misunderstood as lack of ideas and timid. Further influenced by the extrovert idea, there is a huge advantage for those who are extroverts or those who can successfully mimic them. In addition, under the influence of the extrovert ideal, introverts can think badly about themselves and that they aren't smart enough. This can become self-fulling. And this I believe is only one case out of many that shows certain personalities are undermined. And to further extrapolate this, many talents are thought to be lack of usefulness but this is just merely predicting what the world needs while the world is actually changing-creating new things and adjusting, making use of them every second.

Thirdly, we can't dismiss the fact that many poor people are to be born poor and the rich born rich. Being poor means I have less resources and opportunities that the rich does. There's a huge disadvantage in terms of environment. There are studies that show children of rich families generally have higher IQ than those of poor families. But additional studies found out that income level doesn't play any role in determining how smart in terms of IQ a kid is by studying adopted children. "The crucial finding is that children adopted by high-SES parents had IQs that averaged 12 points higher than the IQs of those adopted by low-SES parents--and this was true whether the biological mothers of the children were of low or high SES. "

My references are mainly drawn mainly from Sir Ken Robinson and Susan Cain but also in countless other articles and my personal experience.

In addition to my points, I would like to suggest an interesting conversation on what inequality does our minds and health, suggesting some grave situations facing not only the poor but also the rich. Here's the link below:
http://ideas.Ted.Com/2014/08/06/wha...l-psychologist-and-an-epidemiologist-discuss/

 

[Tin Man]

94% of rich people read news publications including newspapers and blogs, compared to 11% of poor people

I call bullshit on this, even the most destitute of people I know still read the paper. Even the few homeless I know will try to read the paper on a semi-regular basis. Most poor people still have an active interest in what goes on around them.

The idea that the rich don't read for entertainment is also ridiculous. I imagine that the author's source for these statistics was likely someplace dark, brown, and with a very strong scent.