4 ms·

So odd to get this window into a different time. “The economics of content” were very much a topic back then! Aside: “Eight pounds a year covers the cost of

• LeonM 8y ago
  > Folks read a lot of newspapers back then! Well, there was no internet back then. It wouldn't surprise me of we are actually consuming more (written) content in 2018 then we did in 1946.
  • fb03 8y ago
    I am certain that we are reading more. The quality of that content has fell sharply imho, tho. As we are littered by content via our always-on lifestyles, we tend only to skim and read shallow stuff, or stuff that's gonna help us get by our current hurdles. That odd quick read on StackOverflow counts as that too. Sitting down and actually grasping a full book is becoming a rare skill, because of this imposed-adhd lifestyle of ever-greater everything.
    • qubax 8y ago
      > Sitting down and actually grasping a full book is becoming a rare skill Nope. People are more literate today than 70 years ago. People are better educated today and have more schooling. On average, more people have read a full book than before. Strange to think that people are nostalgic for an era were women ( half the population ) were discouraged from going to college and minorities were denied equal access to education. Even stranger that people think that people were better educated then. It's statistically impossible for your version of the past to be true.
      • germinalphrase 8y ago
        And yet, we’re seeing literacy rates drop as the first generation of “always had smartphones” kids exit high school. Our mobile phone literary is more akin to oral language in form and complexity than long form literature or technical writing.
        • syn0byte 8y ago
          We're seeing test scores drop. I'd reserve all other judgement. There are tons of other dubious and dire socioeconomic "firsts" for this generation that would affect such scores. Sugar packed, nutritionally light, chemically flavored foodstuffs. Totally-Not-poverty. 60 hour work weeks across multiple jobs...
          • watwut 8y ago
            Add to it changes in what schools teach and what tests measure. Changes in who is included in those tests against 70 years before (was 16 years old drop out tested 70 years ago? pregnant teenager?).
      • HarryHirsch 8y ago
        People are better educated today and have more schooling Proof by insistence? When you see the written reports the kids produce at my university you can only disagree violently. Two or three years in, and they still have no command of their own native language. If they read books or the daily paper you'd expect them to pick up proper usage by osmosis, but no, not here, not at this regional 4-year college.
        • deleted 8y ago
          [deleted]
        • Nasrudith 8y ago
          Sounds like a case of "elite bias" that crops up in history naturally. Previously mostly the far end of the bell curve would be the only ones you tended to hear about because they were the ones writing stuff down in detail. Roman graffiti while insightful doesn't tell you much more than humanity doesn't change much when it is just some guy boasting about his sexual conquests or insulting his neighbor. Not good for telling you who is in charge or how good a job they did. The noneducated got largely forgotten because they left little trace. Go to a retirement home and ask about what they did for a living and how much education they had - you will find a very high percentage without even a high school diploma - and that is the recent enough that they are still alive past. Look at the internet - when it was just universities everyone was more technically knowledgeable but now that it is widespread and accessible there is a broader range. That doesn't mean that technical adeptness is going down.
          • HarryHirsch 8y ago
            You see the Miners Institutes in South Wales and the Workingmens Institutes in Yorkshire - and the people who founded those were in school until they turned 16 and then went to work for their coal mine or cotton mill. No university required.
        • watwut 8y ago
          Proof by partial anecdote? The one that compares current students to assumed past students? And no, not everyone pick writing ability by osmosis. Some do, others don't. Speaking as someone who read a lot and wrote badly.
      • maceurt 8y ago
        People get confused when they read or watch movies or books from the time, because the majority of them focus on the 1% of the intellectual elite. Nowadays there is a lot less of a barrier to entry for writing and publishing written articles and literature so you see a lot more dumb books now than before, but that is just because demand was less and quality control was more strict.
        • watwut 8y ago
          Also, there was plenty of junk printed - "dime novels" or tabloids. Nobody assigns those books in school anymore, so people tend to assume that everything written in past was classic. And also, past tended to have heavy censorship so sex and such were less in picture.