Imaginative Entities

"The close relation between navigating social- and story-worlds has a number of
implications, not the least interesting of which is the proposal that readers of predominantly
narrative fiction may actually improve or maintain their social-inference
abilities through reading. The same is unlikely to be true of non-fiction readers.
Although in both cases individuals are removing themselves from true social interaction
by virtue of the solitary nature of reading, non-fiction presumably does not
sponsor the same simulation of the social world as narrative fiction. Frequent readers
of non-fiction, then, by sacrificing human interaction and replacing it with no similar
substitute, may actually impair their social skills. Individual differences in reading
habits and preferences, then, may relate systematically to individual differences in
social-processing ability." By Raymond A. Mar et al. "Bookworms versus nerds: Exposure to Fiction
versus non-fiction, divergent associations with social ability, and the simulation of fictional social worlds"

         This study opens with a discussion of social stereotypes that comment on the charisma of those who predominantly read more than other activities. It brings up the hypothesis that, while those who read non-fiction may be inept in social situations, those who read fiction are actually better in social situations and are stronger in things dealing with the "Theory of the mind." It tells the process and subjects used in the study (which included a wide age range and many types of tests). The article takes into account some uncontrollable variable (like age leading to wisdom or knowing English for longer period of time) by halving results multiple times to ensure trends. This resulted in a slight but significant correlation between fiction and social ability.
           While these were taken into account, the main fact was that the narratives found in fiction novels are the main result. However, the question I have is, "Can this be taken further?" My question is fueled by curiosity but more importantly in pursuit of education. Perhaps a study comparing those who read fiction very little if at all and those who read fiction a lot. One point I would like to raise is reminiscent of my talk about the education of language. If one can learn to pronounce words and talking in ones mind and experience language without a personal attachment (through a computer for example) then can one learn social actions and personality from fiction alone? Of course one would have to read the books of the culture of the time because of the ever changing social aspects of different cultures. If this could be overcome, then can one learn how to socialize in a manner that seems very unorthodox, but perhaps has an educational and social validity.
         One other idea that could be interesting is to try and teach other primates about human society. Primates have the ability to learn sign language and memorize with great speed and accuracy. If there was a way to have these animals "read" fiction novels with great narration, could they be able to function in society. Charles Darwin commented on humans and other animals saying, "their differences are in degree not kind." Other ethologists have said that animals show emotions and other human actions to a lesser degree, and by accomplishing a feat such as this perhaps we could see that the development of complex society is not unique and rather can be learned. The foundation for such social intricacy then can be implied as being biological. This would have to be taken cautiously because this could be twisted into a dark place (i.e. sociobiology and eugenics). However, it could lead to a revolution in not only animal biology but in cognition as well. It could help us perhaps trace the lineage of different thinking processes among species and more.