The Grand Illusion
The lead article in the latest edition of The Atlantic is entitled “The Age of Reading is Over.”
The article makes a quite persuasive case for that thesis, and for the sub-thesis that Americans in particular have been seduced by the ease of immediate electronic communication, instant on-demand electronic entertainment, computer/AI-assisted (if not largely/totally composed) schoolwork, technical analyses, books, and speeches.
Part of the reason for this, I’m convinced, is that Americans are far more interested in results than process, and failing to understand processes can result in unfortunate outcomes.
Reading itself is a process by which one perceives symbols based on or representing sounds of spoken language, and extracts their meaning to various ends, i.e., entertainment, obtaining personal or professional knowledge. Those symbols we read are also a means for preserving knowledge, data, and other information.
This process requires skill and active participation by the reader, unlike watching/listening to information or even entertainment presented visually/digitally. Today thirty percent of Americans cannot summarize a two-page document or explain what it means, up from less than 20% ten years ago.
But what happens when fewer and fewer people in a culture can actually read and understand the information?
We’re already seeing some of results from the decline in reading, including an ongoing decline in both non-fiction (you know, “factual” books) as well as declines in virtually all fiction except romantasy and fiction about dragons. From 1930 to 2000, the average IQ of Americans increased steadily. Since then, it has declined by three points a decade. American adults now have, on average, a smaller vocabulary than they did fifty years ago. At the same time, the ability of students to understand and analyze written work has declined, as has their ability to compose a coherent sentence and paragraph.
I’ve also noticed a decline in the ability to discern between lies and what is actually supported by verifiable facts (otherwise known as “truth”), and I suspect, but cannot prove, that readers are better at such discernment, primarily because readers can assimilate more information more quickly than viewers.
Not that verifiable facts make much difference to most people now that the age of reading is passing.
> But what happens when fewer and fewer people in a culture can actually read and understand the information?
Then you get people in a culture who make their decisions without any understanding. Who don’t value truth, as you rightly say, and who don’t value thinking, learning, or perhaps even rationality. It’s all “vibes” and emotions. Isn’t it?
Maybe it’s not that bad yet. Maybe we haven’t sunk that far.
But I look at the results from last November’s elections, I look at the continuing support for the “winners” of those elections, and my pessimism only deepens and deepens and deepens…
As well as vocabulary taught at school, I gather there is an increasing online abbreviated vocabulary which, I found recently, excludes people who have been around for some time and is restricted to online media usage.
I was amazed at the speed a child could enter this abbreviated text one handed into a mobile device. I could not match this even with the ability to type reasonably fast with 5 fingers.
When I was young my father was irritated that I was not taught to calculate a square root long hand. I used logarithms which I think he felt was cheating and losing a skill.
Is vocabulary going the same way?
> I suspect, but cannot prove, that readers are better at such discernment, primarily because readers can assimilate more information more quickly than viewers. …
I found Rose Horowitch’s reference to the 1900 article in The Atlantic amusing: – warning readers about “journalism” –
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1900/07/the-invasion-of-journalism/636300/
I have noted for some time that most news-sources have an increasingly large volume of “video-news”. In addition, while videos of their speeches abound, it is increasingly difficult to find the texts of speeches by politicians and other VIPs. Also, since Trump 1.0, the new and some old Bio entries into Wikipedia no longer have interesting details of people’s early life or their personal life. Thus it seems as the library of books (non-fiction and fiction) becomes replaced by digital data centres “libraries” we will have information that is selected by “the people”! Hopefully the research journals will remain available for readers, if in digital format (and significantly high price).
It’s interesting how often Charles Schultz, creator of Peanuts, had wisdom that transcended the comic.
I think I have this quote roughly right.
“Words put pictures in your mind.
TV puts pictures on your eyes.”
When I read a book, at least half of the experience comes from me. The author determines the journey, I provide all the scenery. That can’t be said about a video communication – it provides it all.
Although today’s students may not better readers, I do think they still communicate well, if differently, through presentation media. Certainly better speakers today, on average, than my peer group was at that age.
Schultz was also right – as a child, indeed, “Happiness was a library card”. All those books, all those places to go.
It’s obvious there are massive societal changes in the works, and have been for some time given the effects of modern technology over the past 130 years or so which have far outpaced changes over the previous 1000 years.
Our brains apparently also process reading from a physical book differently from reading the same material from a digital source, with comprehension of the source material from the analog book far out weighing that from a digital source even given the same amount of time spent reading either source. Despite that disparity, the digital source readers also seem to report being far more confident in their comprehension of the material.
It seems evident we are playing fast and loose with the effects of technology on brain neuroplasticity from an early age with no clear idea where we are going as it affects individuals or society in either the short run or long term.
I’d have a few questions on these findings.
First, the claim that people have smaller vocabularies. What was the context of this research? Do they ACTUALLY have smaller vocabularies or are their vocabularies altering with the change in language. The older generations like to snort and make fun of Gen Alpha slang and such, but the reality is it’s not that different from what we did in Gen X and early Millenial and the reaction we got from the Silent Generation and older. Language evolves and changes.
The other question becomes, is the intelligence just moving? I see the note about not being able to summarize a 2 page written document. But, if taught that same information in a different format would the same person still not be able to summarize? I don’t know without sourcing data and finding out.
Either way, that question kind of reminds me of the oft repeated attack on younger people about them not knowing cursive, or how to drive a manual transmission and in response the younger folk ask the older to code or handle some other skill involving new tech. And neither of them know how to Blacksmith.
Skills change, education changes. By no means should we just not care or not potentially worry if we see something that raised concern. But there needs to be far broader study across a wider range before we claim things are actually declining.
The study of IQ started in the 1930s, and the decline has been documented for the past 26 years. There have been studies on reading comprehension for years. Studies show that there’s greater comprehension from printed material, and that taking notes from a lecture and writing (not typing) them down results in greater retention than just listening.
Some of this decline is based on a few facts. The average speaking speed (in English) ranges from 120-150 words a minute. That means it takes a speaker, whether a lecturer, or an AI, roughly three minutes to speak the words of one type-written page. It takes a professional narrator 20 hours to recite The Magic of Recluce. Average readers read at 200-250 words a minute, fast readers roughly twice that. And unless the listener is taking notes by hand, comprehension of printed material is higher than that of spoken material.
I’ve taught, on and off, for over thirty years and I also get to see the written work submitted by students. The comparison is startling. Most beginning college students today have great difficulty writing a coherent paragraph. The majority cannot summarize or draw data/fact based conclusions. Many of their parents can’t, either.
For what it’s worth I can absolutely read The Magic of Recluce faster than 20 hours. Of course I have a southern accent, so if you’re comfortable with a “Hey Y’all!” beginning, I’m a fan who’s always available for a reasonable price! 🙂
Regarding the written work of students, I think we’re glossing over the current situation in public schools. My eldest son is amazing (I admit I’m biased). He’s high IQ, high EQ, and has fast processing. He’s also a prolific reader. But, simply put, he cannot write worth a darn. The reason is he was taught to write for public schools. His writing fills the page, it meets the word goals, and he uses more advanced vocabulary.
But it’s long winded, often pointless, and misses the “forest for the trees”. It’s there to fit a checklist for writing, instead of being viewed as “good” writing.
Add to that he did not learn critical thinking in high school or college. His writing was rewarded for vocabulary, length, and saying what was accepted, instead of questioning assumptions and perhaps arguing the counterpoint.
As a father, perhaps of a now slightly advanced age, I see this in hindsight and it frustrates me. My wife and I have 4 children who are adults, and they all have the same problem to varying degrees. They can argue a point, but seldom look at the other side and reflect on why someone would have a different point of view. They only seek information that reinforces what they already believe.
However, IQ has been ruled out a solid individual measurement. It is good at measuring Cognitive Reasoning and Reading Comprehension in neuro-typical people. It skews away with any type of neuro-spicy personality and doesn’t even begin to consider emotional intelligence or a range of practical skills.
A test showing IQ going down could mean people are getting weaker mentally, or it could show that as we recognize the full spectrum of neuro activity and understand people better that singular viewpoint becomes less and less useful as a measurement.
For speaking speed, I’ve seen claims that it used to be 150-190 about 20-30 years ago. But I’ve also read studies such as papers by Christophe Coupe and Yoon Mi Oh that suggest regardless of how fast we think we can get there’s really a cap on how much we process in a given unit of time (Estimates around the equivalent of 39 bits per second).
I have no doubt that X data is changing, what I question is the immediate notion that the reason it changes is due to a new deficit vs just changing people.
I find it almost impossible to evaluate sources from video as opposed to print. And if you can’t evaluate sources, can you exhibit critical thinking?
Great topic! We are indeed amidst the “tl;dr” generation. Being a rapid consumer of novels, i have seemed to pass it on to my children, who in turn raise their children to enjoy reading. I’ve always believed mimicking environmental qualities, at least the good ones, can have a lasting effect. But, will other members of those recent generations, push for future, through observation? Or, will they continue to hope social media will form the backbone of raising their own children?