/lit/ - Literature

>>23288827

Most leadership skills are learned hands-on rather than from reading books about leadership. Picrel has plenty of good recs but a lot of them either speak extremely generally, are reiterating stuff that any neurologically stable and reasonably social person knows intuitively, or are basically trying to initiate the reader into some sort of decentralist cult. I'd look into programs the Navy offers for people who want a fast track to being an officer since that'll actually involve doing the things that cultivate the personal and occupational qualities of an officer. Of course, that might end up with you being shoved down a similar self-help pipeline or otherwise exploited.

>>23252464

Post books that actually helped you in general.

Fiction at its best is brain washing. It is programming. It is an argument saying something like "this character will demonstrate how you should become better" or "is an honest depiction of 2 sides arguing" or "is what this complex type of state of mind looks like" etc etc. It doesn't do it straightforward though. Authors make emotional appeals by putting you in the shoes of its characters. They create complex situations and have a character work in a very specific manner to reach a planned end regardless of whether it is a realistic or believable outcome. Fiction does not tell the reader what it is they want to get across. Sometimes the author does not even know. Its like the author and the reader just hope to figure it out together.
At its worse, its just mindless stories that exist solely to entertain. You could extract meaning from them if you try hard enough, but its unlikely to reveal anything profound that isn't extrapolated on more deeply elsewhere.

Nonfiction on the other hand is still brainwashing, but it is straightforward. In 1 chapter, an author can layout a premise, theory and evidence that simply handout the information that they are trying to give the reader.

Is there any place for fiction in the reading list of an intellectual, other than leisure or culture? I understand allegory is one of the oldest methods of teaching, but I feel that this is practically an objective flaw of the human mind.

Fiction at its best is brain washing. It is programming. It is an argument saying something like "this character will demonstrate how you should become better" or "is an honest depiction of 2 sides arguing" or "is what this complex type of state of mind looks like" etc etc. It doesn't do it straightforward though. Authors make emotional appeals by putting you in the shoes of its characters. They create complex situations and have a character work in a very specific manner to reach a planned end regardless of whether it is a realistic or believable outcome. Fiction does not tell the reader what it is they want to get across. Sometimes the author does not even know. Its like the author and the reader just hope to figure it out together.
At its worse, its just mindless stories that exist solely to entertain. You could extract meaning from them if you try hard enough, but its unlikely to reveal anything profound that isn't extrapolated on more deeply elsewhere.

Nonfiction on the other hand is still brainwashing, but it is straightforward. In 1 chapter, an author can layout a premise, theory and evidence that simply handout the information that they are trying to give the reader.

Is there any place for fiction in the reading list of an intellectual, other than leisure or culture? I understand allegory is one of the oldest methods of teaching, but I feel that this is practically an objective flaw of the human mind.

>>22410637
Have another one

>>22099359