That's interesting. Theory-of-mind develops more completely in those who are exposed to a wider variety of internal dialogues through fiction. I've often wondered why our ability to attribute human characteristics to inanimate objects and pets (anthropomorphism) is increasing. Maybe it's because we practiced it as kids and now as adults through comics, video games and fantasy movies. Hum.
I don't buy this. There are good writers who are observant, eloquent and genuinely insightful about the human mind (Proust, Woolf, Foster Wallace etc). But most of my friends who read fiction read Dan Brown or Stephen King or even worse, Ayn Rand. Not sure that helps. In fact, I think that may actually hinder an understanding of how real people work.
There is no substitute for conversation, engaging with real life IMHO.
I would certainly agree that reading Ayn Rand won't make you better at understanding others.
But then again, it would help you understand those who think like Rand. Reading Dan Brown would help you understand people who think like Brown. You get a glimpse into another person's theory of mind. In aggregate, something will rub off, I think.
King is all about people and characters. All the horror stuff is just an excuse for him to write about blue-collar people getting kicked in the teeth, trying to get back up.
Rand helped me understand egoism. And since most people are at least partly egoist, even those who deny it, that's helped me a lot. Even helped me understand my own egoism better.
). Not sure if it helps, but it does seem like a good idea:
