It’s not obvious to me that reading arbitrary non-fiction gives you more accurate beliefs than arbitrary fiction. No adult updates their probability that dragons are real after reading Game of Thrones, and nonfiction is full of both literal lies and statements that are technically true but deeply misleading that give you the feeling of being accurate information, such that you update on them.
I think it depends on the category of belief. My gut says that fiction is particularly good at instilling beliefs about things like:
What constitutes moral behavior
Normal and effective modes of social interaction; the mechanics of social status
What constitutes a normal level of beauty, power, wealth, intelligence, wit
I think that fiction can be powerfully misleading on these subjects. Nevertheless, I don’t agree with the OP’s argument that we should avoid fiction. That seems to me an example of safety culture taken to an extreme. I don’t feel a need to helicopter parent my own mind!
No adult updates their probability that dragons are real after reading Game of Thrones
Without fiction, the hypothesis “dragon” would not even exist in our minds. We are wasting cultural bandwidth on this concept, and our probability estimation of it is orders of magnitude more than if we did not have it plastered everywhere in fiction.
such that you update on them.
This is a valid point, and I think an extreme case of it can be seen in fundamentalist religions. But my prior is that anyone who understands the argument the OP has presented, is smart enough to curate the non-fiction they consume such that they end up vastly better informed.
Even outdated, dumbed-down popsci books usually make one better informed than the default cultural memes. Usually, the important themes are correct; e.g., you’re more or less guaranteed to see spaced repetition as an effective tactic if you read popsci books on learning. The failure mode is probably garbage like The Secret that is easy enough to filter.
No adult updates their probability that dragons are real after reading Game of Thrones
Not sure about it. Can’t find a poll specifically about dragons, but ~80% adults in the US believe in angels, and ~30% believe in bigfoot.
Humans are not good at discerning reality from fiction, especially if the fiction is presented in a visual form. An emotionally charged movie scene, if well made, will cause the same emotions as a direct participation in the depicted event. Humans do learn from fiction, and there is no build-in filter that allows us to learn only realistic parts from it.
nonfiction is full of both literal lies and statements that are technically true but deeply misleading
I agree, one must exercise caution in selecting nonfiction, as some nonfiction could be more harmful than fiction, for the reasons you mentioned. But I think only a rare excellent fiction book is as helpful as a mediocre nonfiction book.
how are you defining nonfiction? amazon lists over a thousand books on bigfoot in the “science and math” section, and the first 10 all look like they’re on the “definitely real” side. so a nonfiction label is no help.
possibly you mean “actually true” not “labeled as nonfiction in the bookstore”, but that requires the reader know what’s true ahead of time. which would of course be great, but remains elusive.
I should make clearer that I’m extremely in favor of people being much more careful what they include in their media diet, and that I agree fiction has risks people aren’t cognizant of. I just don’t think the nonfiction label is any protection against misinformation.
It’s not obvious to me that reading arbitrary non-fiction gives you more accurate beliefs than arbitrary fiction. No adult updates their probability that dragons are real after reading Game of Thrones, and nonfiction is full of both literal lies and statements that are technically true but deeply misleading that give you the feeling of being accurate information, such that you update on them.
I think it depends on the category of belief. My gut says that fiction is particularly good at instilling beliefs about things like:
What constitutes moral behavior
Normal and effective modes of social interaction; the mechanics of social status
What constitutes a normal level of beauty, power, wealth, intelligence, wit
I think that fiction can be powerfully misleading on these subjects. Nevertheless, I don’t agree with the OP’s argument that we should avoid fiction. That seems to me an example of safety culture taken to an extreme. I don’t feel a need to helicopter parent my own mind!
Without fiction, the hypothesis “dragon” would not even exist in our minds. We are wasting cultural bandwidth on this concept, and our probability estimation of it is orders of magnitude more than if we did not have it plastered everywhere in fiction.
This is a valid point, and I think an extreme case of it can be seen in fundamentalist religions. But my prior is that anyone who understands the argument the OP has presented, is smart enough to curate the non-fiction they consume such that they end up vastly better informed.
Even outdated, dumbed-down popsci books usually make one better informed than the default cultural memes. Usually, the important themes are correct; e.g., you’re more or less guaranteed to see spaced repetition as an effective tactic if you read popsci books on learning. The failure mode is probably garbage like The Secret that is easy enough to filter.
Not sure about it. Can’t find a poll specifically about dragons, but ~80% adults in the US believe in angels, and ~30% believe in bigfoot.
Humans are not good at discerning reality from fiction, especially if the fiction is presented in a visual form. An emotionally charged movie scene, if well made, will cause the same emotions as a direct participation in the depicted event. Humans do learn from fiction, and there is no build-in filter that allows us to learn only realistic parts from it.
I agree, one must exercise caution in selecting nonfiction, as some nonfiction could be more harmful than fiction, for the reasons you mentioned. But I think only a rare excellent fiction book is as helpful as a mediocre nonfiction book.
how are you defining nonfiction? amazon lists over a thousand books on bigfoot in the “science and math” section, and the first 10 all look like they’re on the “definitely real” side. so a nonfiction label is no help.
possibly you mean “actually true” not “labeled as nonfiction in the bookstore”, but that requires the reader know what’s true ahead of time. which would of course be great, but remains elusive.
I should make clearer that I’m extremely in favor of people being much more careful what they include in their media diet, and that I agree fiction has risks people aren’t cognizant of. I just don’t think the nonfiction label is any protection against misinformation.
https://smile.amazon.com/s?k=bigfoot&i=stripbooks&rh=n%3A283155%2Cn%3A75&dc&crid=3S0BLIWO5DPKW&qid=1642841717&rnid=283155&sprefix=bigfoot%2Caps%2C146&ref=is_r_n_26