Tuesday, July 16, 2013

How much reading makes you educated, expert or erudite?

Have you ever encountered one of those deeply literate people who are able to quote aptly and accurately from a wide range of classical literature?  Have you ever met someone who has a prodigious general knowledge?  Did you envy that knowledge?  Did you think they must be superbly well educated?

Most of us assume that formal education is what imparts useful skills and important knowledge.  On the other hand some think formal educational credentials don’t signify real knowledge as much as signal pre-existing intelligence, conscientiousness and compliance.  Nonetheless it’s hard to deny that skill acquisition depends on practice, and that knowledge depends on exposure.  A greater amount formal education should leave a person with more skills and knowledge.  For example on all 5 science questions in the General Social Survey, both a higher IQ and more education increase the chance of a correct answer.  They do so even when the effect of the other (and a number of other variables) is accounted for.  Therefore even if formal education doesn’t impart as much knowledge as we think it does, it does impart some.

However, by no means all extremely erudite individuals are university educated.  Almost half of those in the top 1/3rd of science knowledge, or the top 15% of vocabulary, do not have a formal degree.  Still those with lots of formal education are fairly over-represented among the very knowledgeable.  I asked myself, just how much knowledge do formal degrees impart, and how much formal education, or independent reading, would one need to be erudite?  I hope to answer these questions below.

How much reading is a degree worth?

Recently I read a study done by the National Endowment of the Arts in the USA, entitled “To Read or Not To Read – a question of national consequence”.  This study surveyed the amount of reading done and its relationship to reading scores among children still in school, and showed there is a very strong connection.  Of more interest to me were two small tables.  One looked at the number of books (or equivalents thereof) required to be read in a typical year in college.  The other at the number of hours spent preparing per week.

Table 1


Percentage of Seniors
Number of assigned textbooks, books or book-length packs of course readings
None
1-4
5-10
11-20
>20
1%
28%
39%
20%
12%

Table 2


Percentage of Seniors
Preparing for class (studying, reading, writing, doing homework, etc)
0 hrs/week
1-5 hrs/week
6-10 hrs/week
11-15 hrs/week
>15 hrs/week
0%
18%
26%
19%
35%

I calculated (from Table 1) that over the course of a four year degree the median number of assigned books is about 29 books and (using Table 2) that the median senior spends about 11.6 hrs per week in preparation.  The academic year is roughly 34.8 weeks long, so the median total time spent in preparation over the full 4 year degree is about 1610 hrs.  I also found that it takes around 3¼ min for me to read a page once, and that the typical textbook is about 500 pages long.  Therefore it takes 55.5 hrs to read a 500 page book, or 6.7 min per page, implying that each assigned book in college is being read twice on average.  This is what one might expect if the material were being studied.

How much reading is a PhD worth?

Now about 30% of college graduates go on to graduate school.  Let’s assume these are the top 30% of college graduates.  The median graduate student would therefore be at the 85th percentile of college seniors.  The 85th percentile of assigned books read is 74 books over a 4 year degree.  The 85th percentile of time spent preparing is more than 15 hrs so I used the percentiles to work out z scores and from that estimated that the median is 11.57 hrs and standard deviation is 10.354 hrs.  Using that information I calculated that the 85th percentile is 22.3 hrs of preparation per week, or 3100 hrs over the full 4 years.  That works out 41.9 hrs per book, or 5 min per page.  That implies an average of 1.55 readings per book (or perhaps also twice each if the typical 85th percentile student read 30% faster than the 50th percentile student).

Suppose our graduate goes all the way to a PhD and goes through books at the same pace as during college.  The average PhD takes 5.5 years to complete.  At that rate the PhD candidate will have twice read a total of 102 assigned books after his BA and a total of 176 books since high school.  The average professor who gets tenure takes another 8.5 years to get there.  That’s another 157 books, or a total of 333 books since high school (each read twice on average).

OK, what’s that for those of us who aren’t at university?

The typical text book is 500 pages long but the average soft cover book in the serious sections of bookstores is only 250 pages long.  So let’s convert all the above to a number of such ordinary books, read once each.
 
An associate degree from a junior college is the equivalent of 58 books and 800 hrs of reading.
A basic BA is the equivalent of 116 books or 1610 hrs of reading.
A PhD is the equivalent of 704 books or 7363 hrs of reading.
Academic tenure is the equivalent of 1332 books or 13930 hrs of reading.
Gladwell’s ten thousand hour rule for expert level performance is about 956 good books, or maybe 704 like a PhD, and the rest of the time taken up discussing them.

The complete works of Shakespeare come to the equivalent of 11 such books or 1/80th of what it would take to really be part of the literati.

How much time would it take?

How hard would it be to do that amount of reading?  Only 4% of adults read as many as one book per week.  At that rate it would take 3.7 years to cover 193 books, 16.9 years to cover 704 books (and reach expert level) and 31.9 years to read 1332 books.  You could halve that time by reading 2.5hrs per day – less time than most spend watching TV.  In addition to that some sort of regular discussion and arguing about the material should be taking place throughout.  Still it is easily possible to acquire, by the age of 35, the knowledge equivalent of a PhD on one subject, or of BA degrees in 4 different subjects.

A word on the quality of books read.

These numbers refer to high quality material only, and not to mental chewing gum or cheap thrills.  Serious non-fiction books cover aspects of a subject correctly and in depth.  Serious novels would be those that might be regarded as part of the classics.  Each book should cover new concepts, arguments, facts, angles or points of view, metaphors, new moral choices, and/or involve a fresh or superior style.  The material should require you to be intellectually engaged and should stretch you moderately.  It shouldn’t be no challenge at all (mental chewing gum) or be exceedingly hard to grasp or work through.  When pitched at that level, interest is highest and learning is fastest.  Books that are currently tough should become only moderately challenging after one builds up a larger concept base and masters the easier material on which understanding depends.

If one is smart and well read then being wrong is usually the result of a confirmation bias i.e. always reading stuff that confirms, and never stuff that challenges, your beliefs.  Stepping outside such information bubbles is not really natural for people so one would need to take deliberate steps in that direction.  These would involve making a point of seeking out respected writers on each subject with views you don’t like.  Also in discussing texts it’s more productive to seek out bright informed people who will disagree, than people who will agree.

How much formal approved reading is optimum for creative achievement?

Formal education in the form of officially approved prescribed books, to be absorbed in detail, comes at some cost.  Studies have shown that creativity scores decline with each year of formal education.  Dean Keith Simonton (in his book Genius, Creativity and Leadership) showed that creative eminence has a historically invariant inverse U-shaped relation to amount of formal education.  The peak comes just shy of a BA for the humanities and just into the graduate years for the hard sciences.  Similarly, measures of dogmatism among elite leaders show a U shaped relationship with formal education.  The dogmatism minimum among leaders is at about the same point as the creativity maximum among creators.  Leaders with PhDs were even more dogmatic than those who were high school drop outs. 

To convert the optimum amount of formal education in those studies into a number of prescribed books read, it makes most sense to confine ourselves to students capable of graduate school.  The optimum for creative achievement is therefore 56 for the humanities, and 93 books for the sciences, respectively.  The average book would be 500 pages long and would be read twice.  This converts to a single reading of 224 and 372 ‘ordinary’ books for the humanities and sciences respectively.  That number only refers to the formal approved material in a single subject area.  There is evidence that a high level of other reading aids creativity.  For example creative adolescents tend to read more than 50 books a year.  In other words, the ideal is no more than 224 to 372 solid approved books on one subject area (or the study of no more than 56 to 110 basic text books), and in addition to that the more outside (or unapproved) reading the better.  At least 50 total books, approved and unapproved, should be read per yearThat’s a total of over 1000 books of all kinds in 20 years.

How many books do you need to have read to be erudite?

Let’s return to the issue of erudition.  To be erudite means to be very widely read and knowledgeable.  It would be pretty unusual for a busy person to read as many as 2 ‘ordinary’ books per week or say 2500 by the age of 40.  That’s the equivalent of three PhDs or 6-7 BA degrees.  Such a person would certainly be erudite but is it necessary to cover quite so many books in order to be erudite?  Half that number is 30% more than the 10 thousand hours needed for elite performance.  That many books would be the equivalent of at least 3 BA degrees, or a PhD plus an extra BA in a different subject. On the other hand it seems highly doubtful that as many as one in twenty 40 year olds could be described as “erudite”.  I propose we split the difference between the ten thousand hours type of elite performance and the upper limit.  That means a reading rate halfway between 50 and 100 books a year for 25 years – or 1875 ordinary books.  If one aims to be creative then one should limit the time devoted to officially approved works, or to obtaining a formal qualification.  Approved reading should take up no more than 1/8th of one’s reading time in the humanities, or 1/5th in the sciences.

It helps to be smart

The numbers above assume an IQ of 110 (73rd percentile) for the average college senior, 125-130 (95th percentile) for a PhD, around 135-140 (99th percentile) for academic tenure, and maybe 140-144 (99.5th percentile) for erudition.  By way of compensation lower IQs would require a lot more, or closer, reading.  Compensating for an IQ shortage will be tough because smarter people are inclined to read more anyway

How much fact and how much fiction should you read?

The Literati

One might ask what proportion of the reading should be fiction and how much non-fiction.  It appears from surveys that people read fiction at six times the rate they read non-fiction.  That ratio implies 268 works of non-fiction and 1607 serious literary novels. That’s OK if one was aiming to be one of the literati e.g. an English PhD or commentator like Christopher Hitchens or Stephen Fry. One would have made an in depth study of 67 text book length non-fiction works relevant to literature e.g. literary theory, history, philosophy, psychology and biography.  One would also know, in quotable detail, 34 times as much good fiction as all of Shakespeare, War & Peace, Don Quixote and both Homer volumes, put altogether.

Alternatively the fiction specialist would read 5-6 good novels per month (going back to each novel once again over the years), and just read through an ordinary non-fiction book once, every month.  A ‘novel’ could also be an equivalent length anthology of poetry or a play.

The Sage 

For someone with a non-fiction bent (or career) – Gore Vidal say - a ratio of 6 novels per one non-fiction book is far too high.  Since it is appropriate for 6/7ths of a literature specialist’s reading to be fiction, a similar focus on non-fiction is appropriate for others.  That means 64-65 ordinary books of basic facts, theories and techniques across various subjects, every year.  In addition to that a single reading of 10-11 serious books of fiction – equivalent to reading all of Shakespeare, or War & Peace, Don Quixote plus one Homer volume, every year.

Alternatively, a non-fiction specialist would read one good novel through once, and study a good textbook hard (like one needs to pass an exam on it), every month.

The best way to structure reading

There are two extremes with respect to structuring your reading.  In the first you could exhaustively cover, or master, a single subject or author, before moving on to another.  In the second you dip into subjects and books as you see fit.  Which is best for picking up knowledge? 

There are experiments that shed some light on this.  Studies in sport comparing the performance outcomes of training one sub-skill per session versus training a variety of sub-skills in the same session show that the latter results in better long term performance.  This is particularly so with complex skill sets because one is also learning to combine the sub-skills.  Creativity requires exactly this sort of combining and integrating concepts from disparate sources.  The ideal might be as radical as reading bits of several books per reading session, or as moderate as changing the author or subject after each book or two.

Boredom is the most effective killer of learning so it is essential to keep interest levels high.  Reading that is guided by interest ought to be remembered better than reading dictated by a curriculum schedule.  That implies moving on before getting bored and that might mean putting a particular book aside before finishing it, and starting to read another.

Learning is better over frequent short sessions than a single long session.  It’s not just the boredom factor playing a role here.  Outside of material that is memorable for other reasons e.g. being vivid or emotionally charged, the first and last bits you focus on are easier to recall than the middle.  So it pays to increase the number of starts and ends in your reading.  The same effect as having two reading sessions could be achieved by changing the subject or author in the same session. 

Not all of us have photographic memories so if we are to recall what we read we will have to read the material again – perhaps more than once.  Studies show that repeating the exposure at the point where you are about to forget maximizes long term recall.  The first repeat will need to occur quicker than subsequent repeats.

The ten “How to Become Erudite” rules of thumb.

To become erudite the rules of thumb are
-         read 6-7 ordinary length books per month – that’s on the order of 2½ to 3 hours per day;
-         the books should be very high quality;
-         deliberately read some materials that challenge your beliefs, or debate them with people who do, whatever those beliefs may be;
-         let interest guide your choice of reading matter, even within the official approved list;
-         make sure at least 4 to 7 times as much reading outside the official approved list as in it;
-         vary the subject matter and the authors as much as possible;
-         if you are getting bored with what you are reading change to another book;
-         if you need to know a book well return to it at least once, ideally at the point when you are just about to forget its contents;
-         engage other knowledgeable people on the subject matter of your reading, or apply it to something;
-         keep doing that for 25 years or more


Erudition isn’t everything.  Without an experimental and empirical approach to life i.e. life experience, it becomes mere flash.  Reading copiously, while never leaving a room, will leave large gaps in one’s knowledge of life.  Such gaps would make it impossible to be wise.

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

INTELLIGENCE AND THE BATTLE OVER THE ENVIRONMENT


You can’t watch TV these days without being confronted with the way the environment is endangered. This is not to say everyone is on board. The state of the environment is a deeply divisive issue. Environmental groups of varying degrees of radicalism regularly protest what they see as dangerous environmental destruction or dire threats; environmental skeptic groups are no less vigorous, calling environmentalism a form of religious or political fanaticism; international meetings are held to attempt to reach agreement on measures to take; scientists and political pundits issue warnings, and less frequently denials; economists are divided on the economic impact of environmental issues, and much more. Few issues separate the political left and right as strongly as this one. If ever there was a controversial issue that could do with some light being shed on it, this is it. The Smart Vote is one way to illuminate the issues.

Fortunately the General Social Survey asks a number of environmentally relevant questions. I had a look at them all and using multiple regression analysis I assessed which factors play a significant independent role in determining attitudes toward a host of environmental issues. There are a large number of questions so I am not going to provide a table of regression results but will simply list those environmental issues that have a significant independent association with a particular factor included in the regression. The independent variables in each regression were – IQ, education level, log of personal income, gender, age, year of the survey and political ideology.

Let us start with political ideology.

Political Ideology and environmental attitudes

 Below are the attitudes which were favored by conservatives relative to liberals in the USA.

- There are more important things in life than saving the environment.
- We worry too much about the environment.
- We worry too much about progress harming the environment.
- Economic growth does not always harm the environment.
- Deny that almost everything we do harms the environment.
- Deny that the environment affects their everyday life.
- Deny that nuclear power is dangerous either for the environment or for their family.
- Deny that warming from climate change is dangerous for the environment.
- They are not opposed to eating genetically modified foods.
- Deny that economic progress depends on the state of the environment.
- America needs economic growth in order to protect the environment.
- The US isn’t doing too little to protect the environment.
- Americans are doing enough to protect the environment.
- Government spending on the environment should not increase.
- Spending on improving and protecting the environment is not too little.
- Do not do what they can to help the environment.
- Consider it too difficult for them to do something about the environment.
- Not willing to accept a cut in living standards to help the environment.
- Not willing to pay higher prices to help the environment.
- Not willing to pay higher taxes to help the environment.
- Has not given money to an environmental cause.
- Does not belong to an environmental group.
- Government is not responsible for making business less destructive to the environment.
- Government should not make laws for the protection of the environment, rather people and business should decide for themselves how to do so.
- International bodies should not enforce environmental protection.
- We don’t need international agreements for environmental problems.
- In order to get business to protect the environment they favor the use of education and the tax system to fines.
- In order to get people to protect the environment they favor using education over the tax system.

Conservatives don’t think environmental issues are problems that pose a danger to the environment, the economy or their family; nor do they think they justify greater expense, government interference or personal sacrifice. Liberals tend to take the opposite view.

Studies have found that scientific knowledge does not lead to a convergence of conservative and liberal environmental opinion – rather it further hardens and polarizes attitudes. Obviously values and motivated reasoning – and not facts - are driving opinion here, and the force of these values are very strong.

Gender and Environmental Issues

 Like political ideology gender seems to play a strong role in attitudes to the environment. Specifically women favor the following attitudes relative to men.

- There are not more important things in life than saving the environment.
- We don’t worry too much about progress harming the environment.
- Economic growth always harms the environment.
- Almost everything we do harms the environment.
- Nuclear power is dangerous for the environment and for their family.
- Warming from climate change is dangerous for the environment.
- Genetically engineered crops are dangerous for the environment.
- They are opposed to eating genetically modified foods.
- Economic progress depends on the state of the environment.
- Spending on improving and protecting the environment is too little.
- In order to get business to protect the environment they favor the use of fines or education to using the tax system.

This list is a lot shorter than the one for political ideology but nevertheless women are much more inclined than men to perceive danger to the environment from a wide variety of sources, and to think we ought to be worrying about them. 

Age and Environmental Issues

Given that generational gaps exist on many issues and that environmental issues are relatively recent it would be surprising if age wasn’t related to environmental attitudes, and indeed age is associated with the following opinions on environmental issues.

- We worry too much about the environment.
- We worry too much about progress harming the environment.
- Economic growth does not always harm the environment.
- Deny that almost everything we do harms the environment.
- The environment does affect their everyday life.
- Deny that nuclear power is dangerous either for the environment or for their family.
- Economic progress depends on the state of the environment.
- Government spending on the environment should not increase.
- Spending on improving and protecting the environment is not too little.
- Business and government do more for the environment than people.
- Do what they can to help the environment.
- Consider it too difficult for them to do something about the environment.
- International bodies should not enforce environmental protection.
- We do need international agreements for environmental problems.
- Poor countries should not have to do less than rich countries to help the environment.
- In order to get business to protect the environment they favor the use of education to fines or using the tax system.
- In order to get people to protect the environment they favor the use of education to fines or using the tax system.

The young are more likely to perceive of progress, growth and nuclear power harming the environment and to think we should worry more about it, spend more on it and rely more on international pressure – particularly on wealthy countries. However they are less likely to try to do their bit. They have more faith in the efficacy of financial incentives than education to change behavior. As is so often the case, age has a similar (but milder) effect on attitudes as conservatism. The effect however is independent to that of political ideology.

The Trend in Environmental Attitudes

Over time there has been an increasing trend in the US to endorse the following attitudes.

- We worry too much about progress harming the environment.
- Economic growth does not always harm the environment.
- America needs economic growth in order to protect the environment.
- Government spending on the environment should not increase.
- Spending on improving and protecting the environment is too little.
- We can save the environment even if others aren’t doing the same.
- Do not do what they can to help the environment.
- Not willing to pay higher prices to help the environment.
- Not willing to pay higher taxes to help the environment.
- Does not belong to an environmental group.
- Government should not make laws for the protection of the environment but let people decide for themselves how to do so.

Attitudes toward the environment, except toward more non-governmental spending, are becoming more conservative. Note this does not apply to an increase in personal willingness to spend more.

Income and Environmental Issues

Income often affects attitudes but surprisingly very few attitudes toward the environment proved to be independently associated with income. They were as follows.

- There aren’t more important things in life than saving the environment.
- We don’t worry too much about progress harming the environment.
- Deny that nuclear power is dangerous either for the environment or for their family.
- They know whether their way of living helps or harms the environment.
- Do not consider it too difficult for them to do something about the environment.
- Belong to an environmental group.
 - Poor countries should not have to do less than rich countries to help the environment.
- Government should make laws for the protection of the environment and not let people decide for themselves how to do so.
- In order to get business to protect the environment they favor the use of the tax system rather than education.

The wealthy are more aware of their personal environmental impact and are more active in environmental causes - in spite of being less likely to see progress or nuclear power as environmental threats. 

Education and Environmental Issues


Education is another variable that frequently relates to attitudes and behavior.  Achieving highest qualifications is related to the following attitudes


- We don’t worry too much about the environment.
- We don’t worry too much about progress harming the environment.
- Economic growth does not always harm the environment.
- Deny that almost everything we do harms the environment.
- Deny that nuclear power is dangerous either for the environment or for their family.
- Deny that warming from climate change is dangerous for the environment.
- Genetically modified crops are not dangerous for the environment.
- Do what they can to help the environment.
- Knows if their way of living helps or harms the environment.
- Don’t consider it too difficult for them to do something about the environment.
- Can save the environment even if others aren’t doing the same.
- They are willing to accept a cut in living standards to help the environment.
- They are willing to pay higher prices to help the environment.
- They are willing to pay higher taxes to help the environment.
- Has given money to an environmental cause.
- Belongs to an environmental group.
- Government should make laws for the protection of the environment and not allow people to decide for themselves how to do so.
- In order to get people to protect the environment they favor using the tax system rather than fines.
- In order to get business to protect the environment they favor the use of the tax system over education or fines.

The well educated are more environmentally concerned and active, and are more likely to trust legislation over voluntary action by the general public – in spite of being less likely to attribute environmental harm to economic growth, nuclear power, genetically modified crops, climate change, or to many other things humans do. 

The Smart Vote and Environmental Issues

Finally we get to the light intelligence shines on these issues – independently of the other factors. The attitudes that were significantly associated with higher intelligence were the following.

- We don’t worry too much about the environment.
- We don’t worry too much about progress harming the environment.
- Economic growth does not always harm the environment.
- Deny that almost everything we do harms the environment.
- Deny that nuclear power is dangerous either for the environment or for their family.
- Genetically modified crops are not dangerous for the environment..
- They are not opposed to eating genetically modified foods.
- Deny that economic progress depends on the state of the environment.
- America doesn’t need economic growth in order to protect the environment.
- Americans are not doing enough to protect the environment.
- Government spending on the environment should increase.
- Spending on improving and protecting the environment is too little.
- Poor countries should not have to do less to help the environment.
- Don’t consider it too difficult for them to do something about the environment.
- We can save the environment even if others aren’t doing the same.
- Knows if the way they live helps or harms the environment.
- Willing to accept a cut in living standards to help the environment.
- Willing to pay higher taxes to help the environment.
- Government should make laws for the protection of the environment and not allow business to decide for itself how to do so.
- In order to get people to protect the environment they favor using the tax system over fines.
- Government does more for the environment than does business.

 It’s more intelligent to reject most green hysterias but nevertheless be aware of one’s own environmental impact and be optimistic about effective personal action, and to consider the environment something to worry about and doing and spending more to protect and help – including accepting significant financial sacrifices. It’s smarter to think government does more for the environment than business, and that it should make laws for business to do more.

It’s also instructive to look at those attitudes toward environmental issues for which intelligence is irrelevant. 

The following environmental attitudes are not associated with intelligence.

- The environment affects one’s everyday life or whether there are more important things in life than saving the environment.
 - Government is responsible for making business less destructive of the environment and the US state does enough to help the environment.
- International agreements are needed to help the environment and international institutions should enforce the rules.
- The general population does more for the environment than either the government or business.
- There is no way to decide between government making laws or letting people decide for themselves how to help the environment.
- Education isn’t preferable to fines or using the tax system to motivate people or business to help the environment, and there isn’t anything to choose between fines and the tax system for motivating business either.
- Doing what one can to help the environment, joining environmental groups, donating money to environmental causes or paying higher prices.

It isn’t necessarily intelligent to consider the environment the most important thing in life, to believe that it impacts your personal life or to actually donate money or time to environmental causes. Furthermore intelligence doesn’t shed any light on whether it is any business of the US government, or an international institution, to be involved in environmental action and has little to say about how much the general population is doing for, or how they should be encouraged to help, the environment. Finally it sheds no light on whether or not climate change is an environmental threat.

In sum it’s stupid to accept green hysterias but still smart to favor more concern about, and action and spending on, the environment, but it isn’t necessarily smarter to make the environment your dominant concern or even do anything about it personally. While it’s smarter to think governments do the most for the environment it isn’t necessarily smarter to think governments or international bodies should be involved.

Overall Conclusion

It’s liberal to be indiscriminately green and conservative to be indiscriminately anti-green, and even though the youth are greener in attitude the conservative attitude is becoming more fashionable in the US. In spite of the lower classes being more prone to perceive various things as being environmentally threatening, environmentalism is an upper class concern – those with more education and money are better disposed toward it and more involved. It’s a girly bias to be scared of environmental threats and manly bias to dismiss them.

One can see clear bias operating with gender and ideology, and to a large extent one can detect the imprint of self interest with class i.e. education and income. Hopefully most of the bias and interest effects have been stripped out of the Smart Vote by including these variables in the regressions.

So what does the ‘unbiased and disinterested’ Smart Vote say about environmental issues? Well it doesn’t lend support to either extreme of the environmental controversy. It says simply that the smart thing is for more people (not necessarily everyone or governments) doing something, and spending more, to help and protect the environment, but it would be stupid if that action and advocacy took the form of repudiating or resisting technological and economic progress.

Seems reasonable to me.