Another site about intelligence based on literature, but this time it's by what you read, not what you write.
This one ranks the intelligence of readers by their favorite books, as determined by the average SAT of the school the person who listed the book as their favorite on Facebook claimed to attend.
It bothers me because it says that The Color Purple fans are the second-stupidest out there and that people who liked Choke are more intelligent than people who liked Fight Club.
They have a music version, too.
So a book about a pedophile produces smart people? I call shenanigans.
Choke was about a pedophile? What? Are we talking about the same book?
I think he's referring to the fact that Lolita is the #1 book on the list. It had an average SAT score of 1600 (on the old scale of 1600.)
This is why I don't trust the site. Books that are universally understood like The Color Purple and Their Eyes Were Watching God are at the bottom of the list, but there's no doubt that both contribute to intelligence. Lolita is a book that you can't read if you're dumb, but you don't gain intelligence by reading it.
Plus, there are no books with the category of "African American" above the bottom twenty. I think it's interesting from a sociological stand-point. Books like Atlas Shrugged top the list; it's pretty rare to find a poor person who agrees with Ayn Rand. Poor people go to worse schools not because they're dumb but because they can't afford the top schools.
I think I'm reading too much into this.
according to the music list; "nickleback" is smarter than "jazz"
i call bullshit
according to the music list; "nickleback" is smarter than "jazz"
i call bullshit"
Courtney,
I do not think you're reading too much into this. Is there really such a thing? You seek knowledge. Keep at it.
As for books that make one dumb, to tell you the truth, I can not think of a single solitary one. Books don't kill people. People kill books.
but you don't gain intelligence by reading it.
-Really? I think Nabakov, Goethe, Miller, Proust and Twain should all be banned. They are too smart and run the risk of intelligencing the masses. And we would not want to see that. Dumb is good. It placates and keeps lips zipped. The last thing this world needs right now is a bunch of intelligent people.
Dan Brown. Enough said. Pseudointellectual bull shit and drivel.
On music - #19 Weezer. Seems legit.
The Da Vinci code is special. I also rate lit on its ability to produce astronomical amounts of money.
In the end, hardly any do.
The numbers are staggering.
I need more booze. Wine? Yes. My memorial day weekend starts now. Well, actually it started earlier at the strip joint, but that is another story.
More wine! Bring this man more wine!
Also, I kind of liked Blue Like Jazz. I can't believe it's on the worst list. C'est la vie.
My weekend starts tomorrow. My DRINKING starts tomorrow at....4pm. Everyone watch the fuck out.
I'm trying to determine exactly how much of a bender I need to go on. It's been too long since I embarrassed myself and others.
Or, I'll read a book. Oh look - there's a list of them up there!!
You can read later, BENDER!
I fell in love with Blue Like Jazz the first time I read it, but I read it again and felt like I had missed the fact that it wasn't very well written.
I don't think it makes you intelligent. I think it can make you a better writer by proxy and it's one of my favorite books of all time, but I don't think reading it makes you have a deeper understanding of anything. Of pedophiles, maybe, but not really. It does more for your linguistic skills than your actual intelligence.
But then again, who actually reads books like Lolita? Not uneducated people. Not people who look for easy, quick reads.
"I Don't Read" is higher than Fight Club and The Color Purple. Again -- interesting from a sociological point of view. People who don't feel the need to read and are proud of it probably had Mommy and Daddy, PhD to do their homework, thus getting them into a decent school.
Type -- I feel like Nickleback is higher than jazz because a lot of people who declare jazz as their interest are idiots trying to feel smart. I used to see that a lot on Facebook, before I got rid of mine.
There are innumerable other books people might choose as a favorite. Choke higher than Fight Club? If your favorite book is Pygmy you're not even counted, right? Regardless of whether you're smart or dumb. There might be something to the scale, but it's by no means authoritative.
According to the website, the data is taken by finding the average SAT score for books that are listed as "favorites." Then, they rank them accordingly -- and this survey was taken well before Pygmy, but let's say that I listed Pygmy as a favorite. I got a 2010 on my SAT, which would reflect well on Pygmy, but I'm going to IUPUI, whose average SAT score in 2008 was 1064.
It's based on the school, not the person. That's the reason I find it interesting to look at it from a sociological point of view. Because if I'd had money, I'd have gone to one of the Ivy Leagues that recruited me. But since I don't, any book I list as a favorite on my Facebook will automatically get a 1064 SAT score factored into their score, which is unfair.
But if you were the only one at your school who listed Pygmy, it wouldn't count for anything, right?
I think it's based on the conglomeration of SAT scores from everyone who listed Pygmy, not just those at a certain school. If I listed Pygmy from IUPUI and you listed it from, say, Harvard, they'd average our two SAT scores together. Assuming Harvard's average is 1600, Pygmy would get a score of 1332.
It doesn't get any score unless enough people list it, I think. So these books are only the common threads and not necessarily representative of everybody's actual favorites. ---- Lots of people list The Holy Bible. Fewer people list Lolita. Even fewer list The Brothers Karamazov, so few that it's not even on the list, regardless of the SAT scores of the few people who list it.
Am I totally off about this? Maybe I didn't understand how they got the data.
So a book about a pedophile produces smart people?
We talking about Twilight?
"We talking about Twilight?"
Thank you. Because why isn't a story about a 100 year old guy getting with a high school girl considered sick by society?
Just so you know...Edward originally died at 17 and then became a vampire. Bella was a year older than him when she became a vampire...d'oh! Spoiler alert!
I find Twilight more sickening than Lolita, but it has a lot less to do with pedaphilia and more to do with writing.
@Courtney
"This is why I don't trust the site. Books that are universally understood like The Color Purple and Their Eyes Were Watching God are at the bottom of the list, but there's no doubt that both contribute to intelligence. Lolita is a book that you can't read if you're dumb, but you don't gain intelligence by reading it."
"Plus, there are no books with the category of "African American" above the bottom twenty. I think it's interesting from a sociological stand-point. Books like Atlas Shrugged top the list; it's pretty rare to find a poor person who agrees with Ayn Rand. Poor people go to worse schools not because they're dumb but because they can't afford the top schools."
I think you are pretty much right on with this. The SAT scores are based on the average SAT score of the college they listed, which means that cheaper public universities with lower admission standards are going to score lower than private colleges, despite still haveing gifted academic students. There is definitely going to be a socio-economic impact on the list.
I wonder what impact the books taught at particular universities makes?
I've been meaning to get around to reading Lolita.
Lolita is really good in Audible form. I don't know if I could have read it, though.
Just so you know...Edward originally died at 17 and then became a vampire. Bella was a year older than him when she became a vampire...d'oh! Spoiler alert!
Becoming a vampire just means you don't physically age. It doesn't mean you're not a 100 year old creepy highschool-girl stalker.
A'right, alright, a'lright.
@J.Y. They downloaded the data for favorite books and then downloaded the data for schools listed by those people. It's explained (poorly) on the front page. I'm going based on the assumption that their list only includes novels they think will resonate with viewers (because, really, who knows what The Brothers Karamazov is about if they haven't read it? We all know what Lolita is) and make the list based on that premise.
@Verbose I'm with Howie. I think mental age is more important than physical age in this context and in most relationships in real life. It's creepy that a sixty year old is dating a seventeen year old not only because he's wrinkly and saggy but also because he's taking advantage of her naivety. It's why you can't fuck an underage kid -- even if they consent, they still had undue influence. It's why a teacher or someone in an authority position can't fuck a subordinate; it's still influence.
@Jack Coming straight out of high school, I'd say that novels taught in school are going to be more likely to appear on the list. To Kill a Mockingbird is fairly high, and I wouldn't say it's because it "makes you smart" (I'm still a little iffy on the concept of a book influencing your intelligence, because you could easily turn around and say that it only influences your opinions, but I digress) but because those who actually read it in high school are more likely to appreciate it and list it. The people who don't care about school and don't read assigned work won't list it because it's taboo for some subcultures to like reading. Anyone in a position of power can influence your likes and dislikes. I hated Mark Twain because my teacher, who was ignorant and bought into whatever she was told, pushed him on us. Then I read The Diary of Eve and The Diary of Adam and went to apologize to her this year because I yelled at her for making us read Huck Finn and not The Red Badge of Courage.
@Jacks Totally worth it. I preferred Ada & Ardor, though, because Howie's right -- Lolita can be hard to read, but fun to listen to.
I'm going based on the assumption that their list only includes novels they think will resonate with viewers (because, really, who knows what The Brothers Karamazov is about if they haven't read it? We all know what Lolita is) and make the list based on that premise.
If that's what they did then the stats are artificial and ultimately meaningless.
For ranking purposes, yes. In general, their data is still sound -- Lolita still scored an average 1600 SAT, for example. But these aren't the only hundred novels, and there might be ten books between Lolita and Atlas Shrugged. That doesn't mean Lolita readers didn't score higher on their SAT than Atlas Shrugged, though.
Are we looking at the same thing?
Lolita
Book Statistics:
Average SAT 1317 + 38.974
Popularity Rank 62 out of 100
#Schools with book 14
Genre Classics
#Books in genre 23
They took the 100 most common favorite books (that is to say, most commonly listed in a group of favorites, not the most common #1 pick.)
I didn't see that. I was basing it entirely on what I read on the front page, sorry; you're right.
Mistake aside, I'm kind of surprised Lolita had such a strong number.
Courtney, Ayn Rand also appeals to poor people who are too dumb to know they'll never be rich.
Courtney, not all teacher-student love stories are bad, but that's a rare situation. May I offer an Asian love story? It's called Return of the Condor Heroes by Jin Yong. It's very famous everywhere but the United States, I feel. The age gap between Yang Guo and Xiao Long Nu isn't huge...maybe a 5-6 year difference? I'm going from memory here. There's a thing about mutual respect. Teacher-student relations don't just apply to adult-child. Perhaps I'm just rambling on, because I tend to write whatever pops up in my mind.
I just deleted three paragraphs. I think I'm the only Twilight fan on this site. I've learned a lot of hidden lessons through those stories.
Let's just say...Bella should have ended up wtih Jacob...the right fit. But love is blind, I think. I feel very strongly that love is blind. In the end, Bella ended up with Edward...and when you live forever, it doesn't matter who has more knowledge, it just matters that one has found a companion so loyal enough to defy all odds.
I wanted to point something else here, but I'll stop there. Perhaps I will share my discoveries another time.
@Nick You're right -- I'm pretty sure those are the only people who fall for it.
@Verbose I don't want to get into a discussion about what types of love are right, but I'll say this: any relationship that could have come to fruition under undue influence is wrong.
I think this should be a WAR subject.
A relationship that begins under influence (such as teacher, doctor, role-model).
*adds to big list*
Is it bad I can't bring myself to read anything Oprah has in anyway been involved with?
I mean, there are some cases where that might work out well for you, but The Color Purple and White Oleander are two of the most beautiful, sensual novels I've ever read.
I LOVE White Oleander. That's one I can read over and over again. It's in my top 20 of favorite books.
I read it when I was fourteen or somewhat younger than that for the first time, and my mom and I trade the paperback around. It's one of the books I feel comfortable opening in the middle and reading wherever I land because I'm so in love with every story in it.
Yes. And for better or worse, I take some of the things there as gospel. When she decides that in any relationship one person loves and the other person gets to be loved, I think that's true, and smart. I was older when I read it, because I'm older than you - haha.
I'll probably leaf through it later...
I used to think about getting "We hang our gods from trees" as a tattoo. Thank God I grew out of the "tattoo every phrase you enjoy on your body in prominent places" phase before I was old enough to get a tattoo.
I loved Lena's story the most, and the idea of "be happy because you have nothing left to lose," but I have a thing for Russians. The scene where they go to the museum on acid made me love modern art. I think I took more from that book than any one I've ever read, honestly.
Thank God I grew out of the "tattoo every phrase you enjoy on your body in prominent places" phase before I was old enough to get a tattoo.
Bullshit. I love people covered in quotes.
I also liked the acid part, because I related to it. Olivia's story was my favorite. How she was going along just to survive, and then she saw this whole other way. I liked that.
Her name was Olivia, wasn't it?
If I had gotten it my way, I'd have had My Chemical Romance lyrics and those quotes and Palahniuk quotes and a thousand other stupid phrases covering me from head-to-toe. I'm getting the number twenty-seven tattooed behind my ear next month, though, so it's still kind of a nod to White Oleander.
The black woman she meets when she lives with the white trash, right? She sneaks to her house and sleeps there, drunk, on Christmas. I liked the story a lot, but the scene where she sucks dick for a bag of dope kind of turned the story on its head for me, because it made Astrid seem desperate. Which she was, of course. I just liked her in Rena's story and when she meets Paul and lives with him in Berlin. It's such a quiet, potent desperation that doesn't explode like she does with Olivia or her mother.
People with words on their body are great because if you get sick of listening to them, you can just start reading.
Unless the words are "white pride". That's just obnoxious.
I liked (yes I am saying this) when she sucked dick for weed. Because to me it was her way of making the rules. Not that they were GOOD rules, but whatever.
But yes, the high end prostitute was one of my favorite people. I loved that she was a loan officer in a bank.
What about Claire? I think about that a lot. Probably for the same reasons I liked Olivia, I would have let Ron adopt me and had my dream life and gone to college and said what I needed to say. Astrid was either stronger than I am, or more broken. Or just cracked in different places. Actually, I say that now, and it doesn't feel true. I guess when I first read the book, that's what I would have done. Now, today, I probably wouldn't. Personal growth I guess. Hm.
Or the guy who had "fuck cops" tattooed on his face. Not sure how I'd wind up talking to him in the first place, though.
I could see the strength in her decision, but it was almost embarrassing when she admitted it to Olivia because it was so obvious that Olivia was disgusted by the fact that she perverted what she tried to teach her. I loved the description of who Astrid wanted to be when she modeled herself after Olivia, when she talked about wearing a scarf and meeting Ray and saying in a deep voice, "I wasn't sure you'd come." That was what sealed it for me when I read Olivia's story. That idea of Astrid having three lovers, her personal perfection. I'm a sucker for Astrid's fluidity.
Claire pissed me off. Ron was a horrible character, and I wouldn't have lived with him. I'd have spit in his face and taken his money, not one or the other like Astrid thinks. I loved Claire's beauty and superstitions, though, and Ron's cynicism in the face of his job. I think Astrid had to leave or she'd have wound up gluing mirrors to rooftops and stealing pens, though. It almost felt like an admonition about the dangers of domesticity to me. Like Finch was saying "Don't get too comfortable. You have to be at ease, but you have to keep moving or you'll die."
"you have to keep moving or you'll die."
Yes. That's perfect.
