I'm not a fan of fiction books.

Fiction relies on made-up characters, plots, and metaphors to explore aspects of reality and human nature.

I find it much more fun to learn the core ideas presented directly.

As a reader who actually reads more non-fiction than fiction but appreciates both, this take keeps coming up and is said so smugly and confidently that it can’t be roasted enough.

I’ve encountered this sentiment many times over the years, from devs and founders to academics to organizers and sometimes even creatives.

One thing they seemed to have in common, aside from a generally dismissive attitude toward the importance of culture, is they were far less imaginative and empathetic than most of their peers in the same field and spoke more in jargon than in vernacular (which limited their ability to communicate complicated ideas to the average person).

Everyone processes information differently so if fiction isn’t your thing then cool. But to argue that non-fiction has a monopoly on “real” and is inherently, objectively better for learning is big know-it-all energy.

Culture is tremendously important.

You're confounding culture with fiction.

The former is much broader than the latter.

https://paragraph.xyz/@thedegenpost |

linktr.ee/brownalytics |

DJ who became a rapper who started DJing again and now does both


Co-Founder sablier.com and open-source developer. I have a broad range of interests, including longevity, epistemology, physics, and psychology.


Mischaracterization of my statement.

You’re confounding correlation with confounding. 

The latter is so much more impactful on the former than you seem to admit.

The irony is that such casual dismissal of literary fiction’s importance to culture is, itself, a kind of fan fiction.

Culture is tremendously important.

You're confounding culture with fiction.

The former is much broader than the latter.

https://x.com/PaulRBerg/status/1809634655240335653