Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sci-Fi Movies Science

'Sci-fi Makes You Stupid' Study Refuted by Scientists Behind Original Research (theguardian.com) 107

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
The authors of a 2017 study which found that reading science fiction "makes you stupid" have conducted a follow-up that found that it's only bad sci-fi that has this effect: a well-written slice of sci-fi will be read just as thoroughly as a literary story. From a report: Two years ago, Washington and Lee University professors Chris Gavaler and Dan Johnson published a paper in which they revealed that when readers were given a sci-fi story peopled by aliens and androids and set on a space ship, as opposed to a similar one set in reality, "the science fiction setting triggered poorer overall reading" and appeared to "predispose readers to a less effortful and comprehending mode of reading -- or what we might term non-literary reading." But after critics suggested that merely changing elements of a mainstream story into sci-fi tropes did not make for a quality story, Gavaler and Johnson decided to revisit the research. This time, 204 participants were given one of two stories to read: both were called "Ada" and were identical apart from one word, to provide the strictest possible control. The "literary" version begins: "My daughter is standing behind the bar, polishing a wine glass against a white cloth." The science-fiction variant begins: "My robot is standing behind the bar, polishing a wine glass against a white cloth."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Sci-fi Makes You Stupid' Study Refuted by Scientists Behind Original Research More

'Sci-fi Makes You Stupid' Study Refuted by Scientists Behind Original Research

Comments Filter:

  • My daughter is a robot! (Score:5, Funny)

    by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Monday November 18, 2019 @09:12AM (#59425954)
    My daughter is a robot you insensitive clods!

  • Seems like another pointless study.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Monday November 18, 2019 @09:13AM (#59425956) Journal

    You decided to re-do the original study by giving people a story that wasn't sci-fi at all, but you're claiming it became "good sci-fi" by changing one word in it?

    Not convinced EITHER of these studies proves a thing?

    Seems obvious to me a good story is a good story, regardless of the setting. And with sci-fi, I'm sure we're all well aware how a lot of it out there is pretty bad and written at a juvenile level. But there's also a lot of it that's not only really good, but gets really in-depth and makes the reader ponder some serious life questions. If you're just skimming that and blowing it off, you're not *really* focusing on the content or just lack interest in it. Same thing people do with any book they're not getting into.

    • King_TJ, you've obviously been reading only bad sci-fi.

      They DO NOT claim either version is a good story. They DO claim that the story is essentially the same except the one word that shifts it from reality to sci-fi. It's kinda clever, actually.

      • Maybe if they used 'android' instead of 'robot', but those also exist (and then some people will think there is a phone out there that now can wash wine glasses).

        This study is just bad and the people involved should never be allowed to science again - or at least until they admit how stupid this whole mess is.

    • Except, if I am honest, I will still read bad sci-fi even if I'm not engaged in it. Often sci-fi presents a world that has overcome the illegitimate social hierarchies of our current society, perhaps by having already passed through a crisis, or it amplifies them by drawing the trends to their natural conclusions, which in both instances subverts the narrative that we live in the best possible world. I enjoy that escapism/criticism at face value. So, even if the story itself is shit I have a bias to indulgi
      • What's the difference, in your view, between legitimate social hierarchies and illegitimate social hierarchies?

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by kjshark ( 312401 )

          The social hierarchy is legitimate if I am successful. -Americans

        • I suppose that depends on how you want to look at things. You could take the democratic view and say that anything that has the consent of the people (i.e., they voted for it) is legitimate regardless of how awful or tyrannical it might be. Of course tyrannical social hierarchies tend not to be democratic even if they originated as such, but if there's an election system in place and it's free of fraud then it's hard to argue that it's an illegitimate application of society's will.

          You could take a more l

          • Or another, if you're talking democracies specifically: do the actions of the government reflect the will of the people? If they verifiably do not - e.g. the government does things that the large majority of people oppose, or alternately fail to do things they overwhelming majority desires, then the government is failing in its sworn duty as a democracy, regardless of how many "free and fair" elections are held. The politicians have clearly learned to game the system for their own ends. And unfortunately

        • the letters "il"

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          Advancement and accolade through service rather than birth, luck, cheating, or lawbreaking, and respect in one's field based on merit, rather than stealing, lying and sucking up.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by darronb ( 217897 )

        I think what that original study really found was that the people running the study were too stupid to imagine worlds way different than our own.

        Some of the most inspiring, thought provoking, deeply meaningful stuff I've read has been science fiction. I can guarantee you that most of the people I know that do not like science fiction simply don't have any real ability or inclination to understand what's going on in the stories.

        If you consider sci-fi to be poorly written trash as a whole then I'm going to a

        • Re: Seems like another pointless study.... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by darronb ( 217897 ) on Monday November 18, 2019 @11:06AM (#59426496)

          To expand on this... I find it very strange that some people would idolize a simplistic story setting like Lord of the Flies as great literature simply because the character development and interactions seem more realistic, and yet find Tolkien to be childish nonsense.

          That amazement and wonder at imagining how those boys deal with such a strange and difficult situation and how it shapes them as human beings? Yeah, science fiction has that in spades. If you could wrap your head around the setting or get past this sad notion that how people act or interact with each other is the only thing worthy enough to be thought about... maybe you could see that.

          Discounting something you don't understand is simply anti-intellectualism.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Moryath ( 553296 )
            some people would idolize a simplistic story setting like Lord of the Flies as great literature simply because the character development and interactions seem more realistic

            The same people who read Ayn Rand and think it has any connection at all to reality, apparently. What was the lesson of Atlas Shrugged again? Ah yes... "Laissez-faire capitalism will always win, provided it gets hold of a perpetual motion free-energy machine, a cloaking device, runs off to establish basically a hippie commune where p

            • Laissez-faire capitalism will always win, provided it gets hold of a perpetual motion free-energy machine, a cloaking device, runs off to establish basically a hippie commune...

              Having never read it, thank you for the book review.

              Most of the founding novels of libertarianism are sheer fantasy, as far as I can see, but that's more blatant than most.

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by Moryath ( 553296 )
                @Areyoukiddingme it actually gets WORSE.

                There's a whole mess of "women only feel feminine if they're being treated brutally during sex, their feelings/safety not cared about at all" and "consent is for losers" bullshit.

                There's the whole "you know these people are good, because they look beautiful/handsome, whereas everyone who is bad looks like vogons" thing. Which gets doubly weird when you see real-world people like Paul Ryan who are obsessive about the book and also cultish about stuff like P90X, w

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by darronb ( 217897 )

              Ayn Rand people are something of a trigger for me. I read Atlas Shrugged, it's okay. Obviously naive as hell. That's fine, lots of enjoyable science fiction is. This definitely takes some of that suspension of disbelief stuff I was talking about.

              The problem is, I know/worked with several extremely wealthy people who think it's a vindication of their whole lifestyle. The ridiculous thing is they are EXACTLY the loser exploitative establishment the brilliant protagonists are trying to avoid... but they think

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

              I had no idea. I've put it on my list of to-read surreal fiction. I'm almost done the bible.

        • Since Joyce, literature people don't read for the content of the story, they only read to find the hidden meanings and puzzles embedded by the writer. By their measure any story written to be read for pleasure is meaningless trash that only stupid people read. This is if course why "literature" is incomprehensible junk that normal people no longer read.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

      You decided to re-do the original study by giving people a story that wasn't sci-fi at all, but you're claiming it became "good sci-fi" by changing one word in it?

      Eh, what do you expect from a school where almost every student is a member of a fraternity or sorority? I went on a football recruiting visit there and that fact was...interesting. I ended up not even trying to go there because I had already taken the SAT (and scored pretty well) and they wanted ACT and I wasn't feeling taking another test.

      On another note though, beautiful campus. Parts of Gods and Generals (Gettysburg/Killer Angels prequel) were filmed there, and Lee's horse Traveller is buried under t

      • and Lee's horse Traveller is buried under the chapel.

        Not sure which take would be more awkward...
        Building a church on top of a pet sematary, that a christian priest would actually give sacrament to a dead horse, that people there would in effect be worshiping a corpse of a dead horse...
        I mean... Moses killed his bro for far less.

        Pity the story isn't really true. [wikipedia.org]
        Still... that's a lot of mileage those racist-worshipers got from beating off a dead horse.

        • Once again, horse fucking racists think they can bury the truth... like how they buried that dead horse's bones.
          Sad...
          Anyway...

          and Lee's horse Traveller is buried under the chapel.

          Not sure which take would be more awkward...
          Building a church on top of a pet sematary, that a christian priest would actually give sacrament to a dead horse, that people there would in effect be worshiping a corpse of a dead horse...
          I mean... Moses killed his bro for far less.

          Pity the story isn't really true. [wikipedia.org]
          Still... that's a lot of mileage those racist-worshipers got from beating

    • Re:Seems like another pointless study.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Ranbot ( 2648297 ) on Monday November 18, 2019 @10:12AM (#59426232)

      Seems obvious to me a good story is a good story, regardless of the setting.

      Exactly. The entire premise of the study is biased because it cherry-picked Sci-Fi for this comparison out all of the other genres. Let's see a study [or three] comparing mental responses to just good literature vs bad literature, before zeroing in on Sci-Fi alone.

      • Let's see a study [or three] comparing mental responses to just good literature vs bad literature, before zeroing in on Sci-Fi alone.

        My kids' school system has been running such a study for years, though I have serious issues with their methodology ...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by HiThere ( 15173 )

        It's worse than that. Just putting a robot into a story doesn't make it science fiction, not even bad science fiction.

        The basic idea of good science fiction is "given these alternative postulates and axioms, what is a reasonable result". Some good science fiction is bad literature, and some bad science fiction is good literature. They are really incommensurable ways of measuring written materials. Try "Masters of the Metropolis" (not the movie) http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/t... [isfdb.org] and be aware that this is

    • Ridiculously stupid study.

      Niven's first rule of science fiction: Unless the story CANNOT be told unless it is science fiction, then it IS NOT science fiction and should not be claiming to BE science fiction.

      The example he used was the movie, High Noon, where the brave lawman was waiting, laser pistol drawn, in the frontier town on a far off colony planet, for the bad guy and his minions to arrive on the shuttle from the asteroid prison. Nothing in that story requires a science fiction setting.

      Anot

  • Scientists can't write stories well (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ranbot ( 2648297 ) on Monday November 18, 2019 @09:17AM (#59425972)

    You can't take "good" literature, do a find/replace search for one word (i.e. "daughter" to "robot") and call it good sci-fi literature. This is lazy research methods hiding under the guise of removing bias.

    • Re:Scientists can't write stories well (Score:5, Interesting)

      by sg_oneill ( 159032 ) on Monday November 18, 2019 @10:25AM (#59426314)

      Yes, but there is actually "Sci-Fi" that is also "Literature". Books like Gravitys Rainbow by Pynchon (which is a combination WW2 / Sci-Fi / Total headfuck) is both traditional Sci-Fi and highly regarded literature. Iain Banks wrote books both of the Literary bent (The Wasp Factory) and straight up rolicking Space Opera (The culture series) and occasionally both, as in Feersum Endjinn , which kind of reads like James Joyce , if James Joyce wrote space opera. William GIbson is highly regarded amongst the literati , and on it goes.

      The truth is the whole Sci-Fi/Literature divide is kind of bullshit, aristocratic high vs low culture shit. Its got little to do with what actual working writers do with their pens.

      • Gravitys Rainbow by Pynchon

        If you're going to recommend [whatever the fuck that is] in the same paragraph that you mention Mr. Iain M. as well as ole' Willy G. (whose editorial in Wired wenty years ago was how I found out about eBay), I'll have to hunt down a copy - as soon as I find the time to do anything other than act like an asshole on here.

        For what it's worth, my thing was nearly always hard sf and very rarely fantasy... but I can wholeheartedly recommend Steven J Brust (particularly his 'Taltos' series) and [what little I've b

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by HiThere ( 15173 )

          All science fiction is fantasy, and so is most literature.

          The stuff currently called fantasy, as a category, is a lot different than what was called fantasy in the 1930's, and that was different than the 1920's (though James Branch Cabell has held up fairly well.) But try Edison's Mistress of Mistresses or even the pre-Cthulu horror fantasies. Only the ones that were more literary than fantasy have held up.

          The difference here seems to be:
          1) literature has multiple layers, and if you re-read it you can get

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Ranbot ( 2648297 )

        Yes, but there is actually "Sci-Fi" that is also "Literature"... The truth is the whole Sci-Fi/Literature divide is kind of bullshit, aristocratic high vs low culture shit. Its got little to do with what actual working writers do with their pens.

        I am aware, you are preaching to the choir... Stranger in a Strange Land by Heinlein; Dune by Frank Herbert; 1984 by George Orwell (sci-fi when written); I Robot by Asimov; Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card; Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson; Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton; Brave New World by Aldous Huxley; Make Room! Make Room! by Harry Harrison (inspiration to Soylent Green)... all great stories with insights/commentary on our society, as good literature does. The magic of sci-if is you can add or bend the

  • Does this entire study seen inane. Reading of any kind isn't going to make you more "stupid" or as Webster's would say, "slow of mind."

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jwhyche ( 6192 )

      Does this entire study seen inane.

      Go with that feeling. I just hope this study wasn't something we, the public, paid for. I sense a Ignoble Prize in someones future.

      • We can't hit home runs without some strike outs.

        A friend of mine in the advertising business once said: With any advertising budget on the planet, half of it is wasted. The problem is, nobody can predict ahead of time which half is the waste.

        Back to scientific research, the problem with the "i don't want to pay for stupid research" argument is it leads to increasingly conservative choices in research which means no big breakthroughs. See home runs/strike outs analogy above. To get the benefits of

        • A friend of mine in the advertising business once said: With any advertising budget on the planet, half of it is wasted. The problem is, nobody can predict ahead of time which half is the waste.

          I'm not even sure that's true. It's not difficult to envision a case where four competing companies spend some amount of money on advertising campaigns (and one company does) and all five companies see increased sales as a result of increased consumer awareness of a product even if it isn't their brand. It's similarly not too difficult to imagine another case where all five companies spend some amount of money on advertising campaigns and see no change or even a decline in sales due to the market being satu

      • Often the studies which win ignobles are really good studies which tell you something very interesting about the world, it's just that the surface topic is seemingly absurd.

        The folks behind the ignoble are not looking for stuff which is a waste of money or badly done studies.

    • Does this entire study seen inane. Reading of any kind isn't going to make you more "stupid" or as Webster's would say, "slow of mind."

      So, you'd misspell "seem" even if you hadn't been reading bad scifi? ;-p

    • I'm pretty sure though that reading these studies makes us more stupid.

  • - come the revolution. These researchers should get a job in climate denial or tobacco promotion as they seem to be able to come out with any controversial result they desire. I do hope they don't get to teach any young people.

  • I'm only surprised that the researchers were surprised. Why would you expect the results to be different if you only change one word of a story?

  • Have no rights! That's all this proves is that Robots need rights now! Get the pitchforks and cardboard signs... we march on Washington before attack ships at Orion are necessary!

  • Both studies suck (Score:4)

    by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Monday November 18, 2019 @09:38AM (#59426064) Homepage

    First, the idea that you can take two (or more) stories and declare them a stand in for entire categories of fiction is innane.

    That's like taking a black, female, 17 year old, straight, New York, American, testing her math skills and finding them better than those of a white, male, 14 year old, gay, Sidney Australian and declaring that you have proven that Americans have better math skills than Australians.

  • I venture to say that the problem with some science fiction stories may be the same as with fantasy stories where magic is involved:

    Which is the author using magic/science fiction as a "crutch" for a piece of history that has no logic or is very "WTF?" and therefore does not ask the reader to wonder if that would even be plausible, the explanation given by the author is more or less "It's magic, don't argue", where in science fiction he switch to "It's too advanced technology for you to understand, don't
    • "troll"? I think I offended a science fiction writer ... *shrugs*

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ranbot ( 2648297 )

        FWIW, I don't think you were being a troll. I think you accurately stated that fictional magic/science/tech can either make contextual sense to the reader and elevate the story, themes, and characters; Or it can be a narrative device authors apply to a poor story to move it along or fill plot holes.

        More reason you aren't a troll, many sci-fi/fantasy authors agree with these ideas, which are probably best described in Brandon Sanderson's Laws of Magic. See: https://brandonsanderson.com/s... [brandonsanderson.com] Links to Laws 2 a

    • Just because the 'logic' that an author creates which applies to a piece of technology or to magic doesn't correspond to reality doesn't mean it's invalid or a 'crutch', it simply means you don't get it, you're too literal-minded to suspend your disbelief, relax, and accept someone else's reality for sake of the story they've created for your entertainment. ;-)
      • It's a little more complicated than that. I do not know if I'm being clear enough, but the idea is that even when you use something "magical" that something needs to be at least plausible or make some sense. For example, some time ago I saw a story where the protagonist used a... "metallic hydrogen sword" (which as far as we know can only be metallic if kept under the pressure of a gas giant). I had a good "WTF??" moment in this occasion (and no, the author didn't even try to explain how his character would
        • Here's the thing: not everything in a story needs to be explained for the story to have merit.
          Star Trek, for instance, doesn't attempt to explain all the 'scientific' theory behind how Warp Drive works or how Transporters and Replicators work; they give you a 'black box' understanding of how they work. These examples could be considered 'magical solutions' like you're talking about. But if all you do is focus on the fact that these things aren't real and likely never could be then you're not going to enjoy

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ranbot ( 2648297 )

        I think OP accurately stated (all-caps added by me for emphasis)...

        ...the problem with SOME science fiction stories...

  • Wrong conclusion. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jythie ( 914043 ) on Monday November 18, 2019 @09:59AM (#59426150)
    Looking at the original study, all it seems to show is that people who don't take sci-fi seriously get sloppy when reading it, thus the researchers blamed the material rather than the attitudes of the readers.

  • Wrong books, Wrong Study (Score:5, Funny)

    by Holi ( 250190 ) on Monday November 18, 2019 @10:01AM (#59426160)
    They should have had them read War and Peace and Foundation then timed how long people stayed awake.

  • Scientists, really? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Austerity Empowers ( 669817 ) on Monday November 18, 2019 @10:08AM (#59426198)

    Chris Gavaler is an associate professor of English. Decidedly not science, even in name. Dan Johnson is a professor of cognitive and behavioral sciences, which is very, very loosely science. Much like all "science" in his field, facts are whatever the paper says they are today and are subsequently refuted (in this case by himself). I am assuming they got insufficient attention and funding on the first pass.

    Obvious trash that should be ignored vigorously.

    • Cognitive science can be very rigorous science. It can also be crap. It's a hugely varied field.

      Don't discount work done there just because of the field name. You often get good studies which are taken to conclusions they have no power to prove, because the topic is something mainstream people have something to say about. You cannot take a beam-bending study which tells you the strength of steel with a certain percentage of tin in it and suggest it proves something colossal, but you can jump to stupid

    • Dan Johnson is a professor of cognitive and behavioral sciences, which is very, very loosely science.

      There's a lot of excellent science in the field of cognitive and behavioral science. There's also a fair amount of crap.

      One book -- which is actually a middling representative of the quality overall -- in the space of cognitive science really opened my eyes to the fact that it is in fact possible to take a "squishy" subject like "human thought" and apply very rigorous treatment to it. Sharp definitions, well-designed studies, rigorous analysis... all the hallmarks of serious science can be and are done

    • That's what I immediately thought of from TFS. Two incompetent professors at bumfuck U decide they need clickbaity headlines so they decide to bash sci-fi and then retract the bashing once they got enough attention.

      They're about as qualified to talk about Sci-Fi as Rian Johnson is to talk about Star Wars, in that both parties have a credential, a publication, and the ability to talk squarely from their asses.

  • I'm reminded of the story of the origin of Sturgeon's Law [wikipedia.org]. He said it in response to the suggestion that most science fiction is crap.
  • If you want stupid, look to the District of Criminals. Einstein stated that imagination is more important than knowledge. If the issue is reading or reading comprehension, then look to the overuse of the boobtube; floor, wall mounted or handheld.

    The joy of reading starts at a young age. Read to your children. Lame excuses of being tired, busy, no time indicates a lack of interest in improving your family, society and it's better that people you don't know who are not much better than low wage baby sitters

    • I agree with you. But I think the problem is much worse than even you think. It appears 99% of parents don't want to talk about restricting their kid's screen time, particularly smartphone time, AT ALL. The debate isn't how many hours per day, it's whether there should be any restriction at all. This is because

      1) most 'grownups' are hopelessly addicted themselves
      2) most parents can't or won't actively parent because of reasons
      3) the smartphone is even better than the TV because its more personalized, mo

  • Bad Science Fiction too often ignores the wise words of Gene Roddenberry:

    "Science Fiction has to be good fiction."

    IOW, there has to be a decent story-line, character development, pathos, etc. Not just a mish-mash (or is that MsMash?) of ridiculous, badly-written juvenile prose.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      No that's bad literature. Good science fiction can be bad literature, and conversely. The two dimensions are really incommensurate.

      It doesn't surprise me that Gene Roddenberry got this wrong, because he did a lot of really bad science fiction that was at least decent literature (though not to my taste).

  • Not only is most Science fiction completely not align with other science fiction as totally different truths, they make you stupid too. Lies and stupidity, awesome.

  • It tells engineers to put C4 and rocks behind every computer console that detonates at random whenever a ship takes damage. I will stay on Earth because it's clear interstellar travel will be a death trap. (And how come they never think of turning off the gravity whenever somebody gets trapped under heavy debris?)

    • We got on the ship and went to another planet. Nothing of interest happened along the way, we didn't meet any other ships because space is big, the ship worked exactly the way a ship is supposed to, and we arrived when we were supposed to. The End.

      Not exactly Pulitzer prize or Oscar material now is it?
      If you want to be educated then read textbooks or watch documentaries, or audit a University physics class or something.
      As I said in my own comment, what we have is 'science fantasy'. It exists to entertain us. 'Suspension of disbelief' is a Thing. Stories that have no conflict or problems to solve in them are boring.

  • The idea sci-fi makes you stupid doesn't really pass the smell test since the IQ of sci-fi fans tends to be dramatically higher than the general population.

  • First of all: pretty much everything we see and read these days that is referred to as 'science fiction' is really 'science fantasy'; I read every single night, before I go to sleep, and I'm saying it: it's science fantasy. Actual 'science fiction' would be boring and dry as an old bone, and probably require a PhD in physics to understand. To be fair, there's been a scant few movies and books that have come close to being actual 'science fiction', and I won't name them, but for the most part the above holds

  • I recall hearing a story about a somewhat wimpy kid who was repeatedly harassed and bullied and beaten up at school. So instead of being very social, he mostly stayed home and read science fiction, and some nonfiction science books.
    He went on in later life to be fairly nerdy about his projects, naming one "Just Read the Instructions", after the Foundation series, etc. These days he's always insisting on using real science to determine the methods of approaching his projects, engaging in the first-principles

    • I could be mistaken, but isn't Elon Musk's naming convention on projects more in line with the Culture Series by Iain Banks instead of anything from the Foundation Series by Asimov?

      The Culture vessels abound with memorable and funny names like that: "Prosthetic Conscience", "Trade Surplus", "Unfortunate Conflict Of Evidence", "Just Read the Instructions", and so on.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing ever becomes real till it is experienced -- even a proverb is no proverb to you till your life has illustrated it. -- John Keats

Close