This was one of my favorite stories as a young semi-rationalist. Over the years, I've gone back to it maybe half a dozen times, each with a realization that it's less relevant and insightful than I remember it. The story does an EXCELLENT job at reifying the emotions and sadness of upcoming loss, and the belief that not knowing may be better than knowing about something out of reach.

Unfortunately, it's fiction - a story provides no evidence that such a thing is possible, and no evidence of what the effects could be if it were. It's just one path through a false universe that the author uses to make a point. It does a HORRIBLE job at noting that the lessons are flat-out wrong in most real contexts. In reality, it's often worth sacrifice to improve your capabilities. It's very often better to know the truth, even if painful. And it's flat-out guaranteed that any intelligence you're enjoying now will fade and cease in a ludicrously short number of decades.

I do recommend it, and it's part of the canon for good reason. But don't generalize it as evidence for anything real, and don't accept it's "lessons" as necessarily applicable to any decisions you're going to make.

Useful reference: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bkowF2N9uyYh4DXSe/fictional-evidence-vs-fictional-insight [LW · GW]