Overall, reading is also associated with a longer lifespan; one study found a 20 percent reduction in mortality among those who read books compared to those who didn’t. This “survival advantage” was stronger for books than it was for magazines and newspapers…
— from an article by Abdullah Shihipar on Slate.com, January 1, 2025.
I was a bit disappointed, when I came across Abdullah Shihipar’s online article about the ‘survival advantage’ of reading books. I confess to picking up a book now and then. Mostly science fiction and fantasy, and detective stories, but I will occasionally read a cookbook. Typically, however, I read the first couple of pages and determine it’s probably not going to be worth the effort.
Especially the cookbooks.
But I’m much more likely to read online articles, like the ones published on Slate.com. I will even read articles that deal with reading book.
Mr. Shihipar didn’t mention the survival effects of reading Slate.com articles, for the very good reason that the scientific study he mentioned, available on PubMed Central, doesn’t mention online articles. Even though the study was itself published online. Go figure.
If you bother to read the study quoted by Mr Shihipar in his Slate article, it specifically mentions “a 4-month survival advantage.”
Compared to non-book readers, book readers had a 4-month survival advantage at the point of 80% survival…
I’m not a scientist (as should be abundantly clear) so I’m not sure what “80% survival” means. But it sounds a bit… unresolved?
One thing about statistics: they don’t usually mean what people think they mean. Like, when you’re talking about book readers as opposed to non-book readers, the book readers tend to have money to buy books, and are blessed with plenty of leisure time. The rest of us are hustling to just to pay the rent, while book readers sit on the porch, drinking Piña Coladas and calmly flipping pages.
The scientists don’t know exactly why reading books would might give a person a “4-month survival advantage.” They are guessing. For all we know, it could be the Piña Coladas that make people live longer.
Reading books tends to involve two cognitive processes that could create a survival advantage. First, it promotes “deep reading,” which is a slow, immersive process; this cognitive engagement occurs as the reader draws connections to other parts of the material, finds applications to the outside world, and asks questions about the content presented.
This activity is obviously very different from having a screaming argument with your wife, although both involve asking questions about the content presented.
Second, books can promote empathy, social perception, and emotional intelligence, which are cognitive processes that can lead to greater survival.
Again, unlike a screaming argument. I mean, the “greater survival” part.
I would like to propose, however, that even an online article — found in, say, the online Pagosa Daily Post — can promote empathy, social perception, and emotional intelligence. But a decent book will probably take several days to read (unless you quit after the first few pages) while an online article might take you less than 5 minutes. (Like this one, you’re reading at the moment.)
The PubMed study mentioned in the Slate.com article noted that the average hours spent reading by the book readers was about four hours per week. (The magazine and newspaper readers, meanwhile, spent about six hours a week reading. But they didn’t live as long. I mostly blame the newspapers.)
If you spend four hours a week reading books, that adds up to 208 hours a year, which is equivalent to about nine days. (I’m also including the consumption of four Piña Coladas per week into the mix, although the PubMed article makes no mention of them.)
So a person who spends 20 years reading books, will waste six months of their life. If you are a book reader, you are apparently giving up at least half a year of your useful life, in exchange for a “4-month survival advantage.”
Like I said, statistics don’t always mean what people think they mean.
The Piña Coladas, however, are probably not a waste of time. (I hope to read a future PubMed article on that topic.)