The worst is some arbitrary goal of reading X books per year. That clearly optimises for short, easy to read books (eg New York Times Best Sellers) and avoids more technical and difficult books (eg Art of Computer Programming)
I will agree with you that the temptation was there just to read fluff. I think having the list effectively mitigated that. The only downside is that many books reference other books so the list would just expand exponentially.
Am I magically able to access the secrets of universe just because I read a lot? No. But when people ask me “read any good books lately” I can talk about the new Brandon Sanderson book, neuroscience of aging, or the art of non violent communication and the interesting parallels between all three of them.
Reading does make you more interesting but so does watching Sundance film festival movies or listening to obscure podcasts. Anything off the beaten path is interesting by definition.
After reading two of these larger books in 2021, I feel like (and this is nothing new or profound) that concentration really is a lost art and it just takes practice. I also feel like these large books probably help with retaining info because you spend so much time in them, being inculcated on the subject. It's kinda like a giant monthly experiment in SRS.
As for the type of people that do not typically read, I would encourage them to read what they would love reading (even if its NYT Best sellers) until they love reading.
Please?
Anyway, if it's gatekeeping to suggest that people should pursue personal growth through their own authentic interests rather than reading as a chore to be "more efficient", then call me president of the gatekeeping club for all I care.
If someone reads short, easy to read books for any reason, that's dandy. I'm sure they'll get something useful out of it.
On the other hand, are you reading The Art of Computer Programming? (Oddly enough, I can currently answer yes, since I've been playing around with the section in Seminumerical Algorithms on testing random number sources. :-) )
Also, is it actually "gatekeeping" to say that arbitrary numeric goals optimize for a different kind of reading than what you'd get with different kinds of goals?
> That clearly optimises for short, easy to read books (eg New York Times Best Sellers) and avoids more technical and difficult books (eg Art of Computer Programming)
Some will "cheat", but most won't. Even if you cheat, is reading 15 short, bad books better or worse than reading 0?
If it's done as a chore to hit a certain number, or in a performative spirit to show others how much one has read, I think that person would get more value spending those hours doing something in which they have an authentic interest.
Also, it's not an all-or-nothing prospect. A better question might be, "Is it better to read 15 short, bad books or 3 longer, more challenging books that one may not even fully understand on the first reading?"