4 ms·

But is the readership smaller today than it was 50 years ago? I'm totally fine if SciAm writes for a broader audience because it has grown from a niche publica

But is the readership smaller today than it was 50 years ago? I'm totally fine if SciAm writes for a broader audience because it has grown from a niche publication for academics to something that most American's have at least heard of. But if the reading level has declined AND the readership has declined, that might indicate a problem. I still hold out hope that this is a result of knowledge fragmentation more than anything. The computer scientist of 50 years ago, may have been better inform broadly on all the sciences, but maybe gave up that breadth of knowledge to read focused journals on quantum computing, and other topics the computer scientist of 50 years ago would have trouble understanding.

randcraw 8y ago
Would knowledge fragmentation explain why general interest pubs (like SciAm) would have less appeal today, leading to their being "dumbed down"? Conversely, if as I think you suggest, there had been a rise in the number of literate thoughtful in-depth pubs focused on narrow specialization, then I'd accept that today's minds are equally active as yesteryear's but have just turned their attention inward. But I see nothing like that. Even semi-technical pubs like those in the computing space have degenerated into product and project promos (as MIT Tech Review has done). Where are today's equivalents to Creative Computing or Dr Dobbs or WiReD circa 1998 or InfoWorld circa 1985? The closest I've seen might be the Maker/Arduino/Pi pubs, but their agenda isn't insight, it's small specific ideas of projects (like Popular Mechanics often was in the 60's). All deeper fare on science faded out about 20 years ago. I side with the OP's interpretation; their absence is striking and suggests something big has changed. Doesn't such a "shallowing" (a la Nicholas Carr) and narrowing of interests imply we've all become less generally curious? Aren't these signs that we're less inclined to explore novel possible worlds, or we're satisfied to do so in less depth, than a generation (or two) ago? Online forums are no substitute for serious recreational inquiry, even the (very) few that are as constructively and generally clued-in as HNN.

randcraw 8y ago

Would knowledge fragmentation explain why general interest pubs (like SciAm) would have less appeal today, leading to their being "dumbed down"? Conversely, if as I think you suggest, there had been a rise in the number of literate thoughtful in-depth pubs focused on narrow specialization, then I'd accept that today's minds are equally active as yesteryear's but have just turned their attention inward. But I see nothing like that. Even semi-technical pubs like those in the computing space have degenerated into product and project promos (as MIT Tech Review has done). Where are today's equivalents to Creative Computing or Dr Dobbs or WiReD circa 1998 or InfoWorld circa 1985? The closest I've seen might be the Maker/Arduino/Pi pubs, but their agenda isn't insight, it's small specific ideas of projects (like Popular Mechanics often was in the 60's). All deeper fare on science faded out about 20 years ago. I side with the OP's interpretation; their absence is striking and suggests something big has changed. Doesn't such a "shallowing" (a la Nicholas Carr) and narrowing of interests imply we've all become less generally curious? Aren't these signs that we're less inclined to explore novel possible worlds, or we're satisfied to do so in less depth, than a generation (or two) ago? Online forums are no substitute for serious recreational inquiry, even the (very) few that are as constructively and generally clued-in as HNN.