4 ms·

The author is incorrect, at least according to polls. It looks like the majority of Americans read a book in 2015, with many of them reading more than one. htt

The author is incorrect, at least according to polls. It looks like the majority of Americans read a book in 2015, with many of them reading more than one. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/27-percent-american-adults-didnt-read-single-book-last-year-180957029/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/27-percent-america...

ACow_Adonis 8y ago
The median is apparently something like "4 or 5 books" a year. A YEAR. In a virtue-signalling survey that will illicit higher responses than we might otherwise expect (self reported rates of untested things seen as "good" tend to be over-report on such surveys, while rates of things seen as "bad" then to be under-reported), i think that actually supports the authors point. Especially when he/she mentions people with a stack of books on their bedstand or whom pack their kindles with multiple books at a time for holidaying.
- maneesh 8y ago
  I'm confused. Do you think 4 or 5 books a year is a lot, or a little?
  - ACow_Adonis 8y ago
    I think its appreciably close to nothing (including both the number of books many people will be made to read while at compulsory schooling and education, and I also think its close the kind of number of books a non-reader would respond to such a survey when making up an number given that they really don't read in any practical amount).
    - zith18 8y ago
      I think the real number is close to 0-1 books read a year for most people. 5-6 books read a year would be much more then the average person in my estimation.
- bigpicture 8y ago
  > virtue-signalling survey Oh, well in that case... I probably read an average of 4 to 5 books a day (to my young children) while drinking fair-trade coffee, on my American-made couch with vegan-friendly upholstery, lit by energy-efficient LED lighting that changes color temperature with my circadian rhythm.
majos 8y ago
I don't think this shows that the author is incorrect. As far as I can tell, the author is arguing that it does not make sense to wring our hands over the death or life of "deep reading" because it has always been an unpopular activity. Books were only genuinely popular when people had no other form of passive entertainment, but even then people were just reading the way most people watch TV now, as a way to pass time. The fact that most people say they read at least one book tells us pretty much nothing about the state of deep reading, and therefore is not very relevant to the linked article. Granted, the linked article doesn't cite sources for its conclusions either, but based on the books I see read in public...I believe them.

ACow_Adonis 8y ago

The median is apparently something like "4 or 5 books" a year. A YEAR. In a virtue-signalling survey that will illicit higher responses than we might otherwise expect (self reported rates of untested things seen as "good" tend to be over-report on such surveys, while rates of things seen as "bad" then to be under-reported), i think that actually supports the authors point. Especially when he/she mentions people with a stack of books on their bedstand or whom pack their kindles with multiple books at a time for holidaying.

maneesh 8y ago
I'm confused. Do you think 4 or 5 books a year is a lot, or a little?
- ACow_Adonis 8y ago
  I think its appreciably close to nothing (including both the number of books many people will be made to read while at compulsory schooling and education, and I also think its close the kind of number of books a non-reader would respond to such a survey when making up an number given that they really don't read in any practical amount).
  - zith18 8y ago
    I think the real number is close to 0-1 books read a year for most people. 5-6 books read a year would be much more then the average person in my estimation.
bigpicture 8y ago
> virtue-signalling survey Oh, well in that case... I probably read an average of 4 to 5 books a day (to my young children) while drinking fair-trade coffee, on my American-made couch with vegan-friendly upholstery, lit by energy-efficient LED lighting that changes color temperature with my circadian rhythm.

majos 8y ago

I don't think this shows that the author is incorrect. As far as I can tell, the author is arguing that it does not make sense to wring our hands over the death or life of "deep reading" because it has always been an unpopular activity. Books were only genuinely popular when people had no other form of passive entertainment, but even then people were just reading the way most people watch TV now, as a way to pass time. The fact that most people say they read at least one book tells us pretty much nothing about the state of deep reading, and therefore is not very relevant to the linked article. Granted, the linked article doesn't cite sources for its conclusions either, but based on the books I see read in public...I believe them.