It's an interesting post, and I'll have to have a look at his "Quantum Country" to see if his ideas work in practice. However, it seems one-sided: He only talk

It's an interesting post, and I'll have to have a look at his "Quantum Country" to see if his ideas work in practice. However, it seems one-sided: He only talks about the difficulties with reading, ignoring the difficulties with writing. He also thinks of reading a book as a one-off activity. But in reality, one of the things we learn from reading books is how to read books - we ideally get better over time at the "metacognition" skills that he notes are needed to absorb information from books. If we look at scientific communication in particular (I know, not what most people are reading for...) these two points interact. Researchers typically try to communicate their findings in the "author describes an idea in words on the page" format because that's the easiest way to do it. Researchers also learn how to absorb information presented in this fashion by other researchers. By definition, research ideas have not been worked over for many years by people skilled at presenting them in an easily-absorbed form. And in any case, it would be rare for the researchers to be particularly skilled at sophisticated methods of presentation. (We hope they do get better at this with time, but they will all have had more practice at reading than at writing, so it makes sense that the joint enterprise of communication will rely more on skilled reading than on skilled writing.) One might wonder in light of this whether the trend in K-12 education away from the traditional lecture / textbook forms is short-sighted. Once students are out of K-12 (going into higher-level academia, or business, or the military, or whatever), lack of practice at reading traditional material may be a problem.