Is reading really useful? I'm confused.

To answer your question, you must first understand what you are thinking. Most people ask this question because they find that many people who have studied for many years and received higher education earn less than those who have not studied much or have low academic qualifications. In other words, he used money to measure the usefulness of reading. If money can buy knowledge, then I want to ask: Are there so many people studying hard?

Our ancestors told us that there is a golden house with a charming face in the book and Yan Ruyu in the book. However, if people are guided by this idea, learning is definitely useless. Because, he found that there was no Golden House in the book, and there was no Yan Ruyu in the book. Don't be too utilitarian in reading. Don't be bound by money. If you study with a utilitarian heart, it is normal to think that reading is useless. In my opinion, reading is not about how much knowledge you have mastered, how much truth you have learned, or how many topics you can do. On the contrary, reading can change one's thinking, shape one's personality and improve one's quality. Many people read a lot of books, but they don't know how to use them. They only know exams. The practical application is completely unknown or little known. Reading should emancipate our minds and broaden our horizons. But many people become nerds after reading it. There is nothing in my mind except the ideas in the book. Don't think that the nerd I said is the nerd that people often understand. When I say nerd, I don't just mean those nerds who only know how to study hard, do problems and take exams, but don't know how to communicate with others. More including those. After reading the book, my mind was not liberated and my vision was not broadened. People who only believe in the knowledge and theories in books, can only apply them mechanically when encountering problems, and can only say some grandiose, big and useless truths.

For example, people saw a man lying on the side of the road, but no one helped him. I began to accuse and insult passers-by. Imagine: why don't people help? Because he's cold? No compassion? It can be said that most people who don't help are not indifferent, but afraid of being blackmailed. More interestingly, some governments actually intend to make laws to make bankruptcy illegal. This is ridiculous. How many people are willing to do good deeds if they are blackmailed for doing good deeds?

Another example: Others ask: Do ghosts exist? Answer: No, because there is no way to prove its existence. The questioner asked: Do you have any way to prove that ghosts don't exist? Obviously not. How dare you say it doesn't exist without evidence? First of all, I won't talk about the existence of ghosts so as not to cause saliva. I'm just explaining this conversation. This conversation sounds reasonable, but it's absurd. There are obvious mistakes in this. First of all: obviously, what you can't prove exists can't be said to be nonexistent, but if you can't prove it by all means, you can only treat it as nonexistent. Note: I'm talking about exhausting all means, not who or who can't prove it. Otherwise, anyone can assume that there is a creature in the world, and no matter how you use it, you can't prove its existence. That's not bad. The world is full of such things that cannot be proved to exist, and everyone can create creatures at will. What's the point? Secondly: Can something that cannot be proved to be non-existent be regarded as existence? Is it funny? If you can't prove it doesn't exist, you can only doubt it.

Some people say: Why is the religious statement about God superstitious? I also said that science is superstition. Facts have proved that scientific knowledge will be overthrown sooner or later. For example, Newton's theory was overthrown by Einstein. So believing in science is also a superstition. First of all: I don't make a statement about whether God has a religion, I just state the facts. So as not to cause saliva. The person who said such a thing showed that he didn't understand religion and science. The biggest difference between theologians and scientists is that scientists know that his things will be replaced by new theories, while theologians believe that God exists for no reason. Scientists always try to prove the correctness of theories based on facts. But which theologian can prove the existence of God? Scientists will not use the truth of things that have not been proved to exist, but theologians will. Scientific theory will definitely be replaced by new theory. This is inevitable. Because you use 10000 times to prove that something is correct, using 1000 1 time cannot guarantee that it is correct. People's understanding is limited, and it is impossible to reach the goal in one step. But everything that has been proved cannot be overturned, and only the scope and accuracy of use can be determined. Newton's theory was not overthrown by Einstein, but the scope of application was determined.

People always complain that it is useless to read a lot of books. Imagine what you read in the book you read. Think again, how many people in China are at the same level as themselves? I feel very talented and unappreciated. But how many talents do you have? I just graduated from college and want to succeed in one step. Maybe you are really talented, but you are a rookie. How do people know that you are talented?

The world is developing too fast, but people's minds have not kept up. Although people know that college students are not as good as they used to be. But subconsciously, I will still compare the current college students with the former college students. Found that the gap is too big. If we know that there is no comparability, why compare it?

Is reading useful? This question is meaningless. Reading must be useful, or no one will read it. The question is whether you can use it!