5 ms·

I think the problem is wider. In Poland average Pole doesn't read even one book a year. I don't think we can keep having modern society if most of the people do

I think the problem is wider. In Poland average Pole doesn't read even one book a year. I don't think we can keep having modern society if most of the people do not read.

piokoch 6y ago
You don't need to read books to be literate. You can read magazines, newspapers (paper or electronic), if you look on such statistics [1] then, well, numbers are different. Here Poland is on the 3rd place in Europe in terms of time spent on reading - I think this includes not only books, not sure, as this article is a typical XXI century click-bait journalism that does not provide any substantial details about the subject. Besides, the good question is, what is more valuable and mind opening: reading stupid book or watch a good documentary on TV or some scientific channel on YouTube. It is 2021, times has changed, we have more media of idea exchange. Reading books is no longer such a good measure of ones "intellectual development". [1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/05/chart-of-the-day-where-europeans-read-the-most-and-least/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/05/chart-of-the-day-wher...
- coldtea 6y ago
  >You don't need to read books to be literate. You can read magazines, newspapers (paper or electronic) Where, even in the best, you'll find 1/10th the substance you'll find in the best of books, packaged in vacuous snippets for quick consumption, and written to gather advertising... The person who wont read any of the classic books (be it science, non-fiction, literature, history, etc.) but will still read magazines and newspapers, I'll still call illiterate - even if the magazine was the Economist or the National Geographic, and not Men's Health and Cosmopolitan (which more often than not, is).
  - donbrae 6y ago
    Surely being literate is simply being able to read and write coherently? Whether you read books, the Economist, academic papers, Hacker News, or whatever, I don't see how it matters.
    - zo1 6y ago
      Does it include "reading comprehension"? I understand being able to read and write, but understanding what you're reading should be part of it I think. And I don't mean "deep thought" level critique and understanding. More like following a paragraph and understanding what is being said.
      - wzel 6y ago
        > Does it include "reading comprehension"? "Literacy"? Not really. AFAIK, there's the "functional literacy" term for that.
        coldtea 6y ago
        What good is literaracy (alone) without reading comprehension? Being able to read road signs and the like?
        wzel 6y ago
        I'd say that there can be degrees of reading comprehension, and I tend to view functional illiteracy as literacy attrition, kind of secondary illiteracy. I guess it's useful to distinguish it from strict illiteracy (somebody not having learned how to read in the first place), as it requires a different kind of treatment, even if the symptoms of both are similar.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      >Surely being literate is simply being able to read and write coherently? In an idiocracy, it doesn't. Literacy meant more than simple being able to read and write on a technical level. (Not that most people not reading "even a book a year" can read and write coherently or "read the Economist" otherwise).
      - noobermin 6y ago
        While I believe I'm sympathetic to you, I think the hang up people have is in your use of the word "literacy." I think most people wouldn't call people who can read a news article illiterate. I do agree it would be better if people read more actual books but this seems like a degree of literacy issue while illiterate tends to mean "completely unable to read."
  - Tade0 6y ago
    Where, even in the best, you'll find 1/10th the substance you'll find in the best of books That's assuming people read the best books. Let's not forget that Fifty Shades of Grey was the best selling book of the decade (in the US): https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/2019/fifty-shades-of-grey-was-the-best-selling-book-of-the-decade-in-the-us-the-npd-group-says/ https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/20...
    - coldtea 6y ago
      >That's assuming people read the best books. Not doing that would still make them illiterate in some degree. But even with mediocre books, at least they wouldn't be reading the attention-killing dopamine chasing snippets of BS on most online websites. Do it sound like these "don't read even a book per year" people read The Well or LessWrong or something of the sort online?
      - tapland 6y ago
        You don't have to read books at all, and many people who do score poorly on literacy tests. It's not your ability to read words that is relevant, but your ability to understand contexts and meanings.
      - alpaca128 6y ago
        > Do it sound like these "don't read even a book per year" people read The Well or LessWrong or something of the sort online? Your reading preferences are not the gold standard in what makes a good book or makes one "literate". The same applies to every other single individual. At the same time the internet obviously doesn't only contain "dopamine chasing snippets of BS". Online discussions and articles can improve critical thinking or make someone think deeper about their views and motivation just like literature can. Yet you deny that by bluntly saying all people reading no books are illiterate. As a side note, before you start gatekeeping literacy you may want to avoid grammar mistakes in your own writing. Though it will not make your point come across less elitist, unfortunately.
        6y ago
  - tester34 6y ago
    blogs of strong people, forums tend to be good too
- d3ckard 6y ago
  I agree that you do not need to read books, but books are a good proxy for demanding content. If I count articles, the short texts from some gossip portal are valued as much as Harvard Business Review, science journal or whatever else, but their value is wildly different. Same goes for books by the way, but effort to finish a book is much higher. I also do not believe reading time stats, as people are not that good on self reporting, especially without hard criteria. The problem is that if you do not read demanding content, your ability to comprehend gets smaller. We made a society that you can live in without much intellectual struggle, but the question is whether we can keep having that society if we permanently cease to pursue intellectual interests.
ReptileMan 6y ago
But how much they read on the black mirror they hold in their hands every day. A good discussion on HN is probably a novella size.
nobodyandproud 6y ago
In the US, teachers sometimes count graphic novels (comic books) as reading material, especially for “read-this-many-books-this-week” homework assignments. There are so many entertaining distractions that just being able to get kids used to reading something is an achievement in of itself.

I think the problem is wider. In Poland average Pole doesn't read even one book a year. I don't think we can keep having modern society if most of the people do not read.

piokoch 6y ago

You don't need to read books to be literate. You can read magazines, newspapers (paper or electronic), if you look on such statistics [1] then, well, numbers are different. Here Poland is on the 3rd place in Europe in terms of time spent on reading - I think this includes not only books, not sure, as this article is a typical XXI century click-bait journalism that does not provide any substantial details about the subject. Besides, the good question is, what is more valuable and mind opening: reading stupid book or watch a good documentary on TV or some scientific channel on YouTube. It is 2021, times has changed, we have more media of idea exchange. Reading books is no longer such a good measure of ones "intellectual development". [1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/05/chart-of-the-day-where-europeans-read-the-most-and-least/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/05/chart-of-the-day-wher...

coldtea 6y ago
>You don't need to read books to be literate. You can read magazines, newspapers (paper or electronic) Where, even in the best, you'll find 1/10th the substance you'll find in the best of books, packaged in vacuous snippets for quick consumption, and written to gather advertising... The person who wont read any of the classic books (be it science, non-fiction, literature, history, etc.) but will still read magazines and newspapers, I'll still call illiterate - even if the magazine was the Economist or the National Geographic, and not Men's Health and Cosmopolitan (which more often than not, is).
- donbrae 6y ago
  Surely being literate is simply being able to read and write coherently? Whether you read books, the Economist, academic papers, Hacker News, or whatever, I don't see how it matters.
  - zo1 6y ago
    Does it include "reading comprehension"? I understand being able to read and write, but understanding what you're reading should be part of it I think. And I don't mean "deep thought" level critique and understanding. More like following a paragraph and understanding what is being said.
    - wzel 6y ago
      > Does it include "reading comprehension"? "Literacy"? Not really. AFAIK, there's the "functional literacy" term for that.
      - coldtea 6y ago
        What good is literaracy (alone) without reading comprehension? Being able to read road signs and the like?
        wzel 6y ago
        I'd say that there can be degrees of reading comprehension, and I tend to view functional illiteracy as literacy attrition, kind of secondary illiteracy. I guess it's useful to distinguish it from strict illiteracy (somebody not having learned how to read in the first place), as it requires a different kind of treatment, even if the symptoms of both are similar.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >Surely being literate is simply being able to read and write coherently? In an idiocracy, it doesn't. Literacy meant more than simple being able to read and write on a technical level. (Not that most people not reading "even a book a year" can read and write coherently or "read the Economist" otherwise).
    - noobermin 6y ago
      While I believe I'm sympathetic to you, I think the hang up people have is in your use of the word "literacy." I think most people wouldn't call people who can read a news article illiterate. I do agree it would be better if people read more actual books but this seems like a degree of literacy issue while illiterate tends to mean "completely unable to read."
- Tade0 6y ago
  Where, even in the best, you'll find 1/10th the substance you'll find in the best of books That's assuming people read the best books. Let's not forget that Fifty Shades of Grey was the best selling book of the decade (in the US): https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/2019/fifty-shades-of-grey-was-the-best-selling-book-of-the-decade-in-the-us-the-npd-group-says/ https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/20...
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >That's assuming people read the best books. Not doing that would still make them illiterate in some degree. But even with mediocre books, at least they wouldn't be reading the attention-killing dopamine chasing snippets of BS on most online websites. Do it sound like these "don't read even a book per year" people read The Well or LessWrong or something of the sort online?
    - tapland 6y ago
      You don't have to read books at all, and many people who do score poorly on literacy tests. It's not your ability to read words that is relevant, but your ability to understand contexts and meanings.
    - alpaca128 6y ago
      > Do it sound like these "don't read even a book per year" people read The Well or LessWrong or something of the sort online? Your reading preferences are not the gold standard in what makes a good book or makes one "literate". The same applies to every other single individual. At the same time the internet obviously doesn't only contain "dopamine chasing snippets of BS". Online discussions and articles can improve critical thinking or make someone think deeper about their views and motivation just like literature can. Yet you deny that by bluntly saying all people reading no books are illiterate. As a side note, before you start gatekeeping literacy you may want to avoid grammar mistakes in your own writing. Though it will not make your point come across less elitist, unfortunately.
      - 6y ago
- tester34 6y ago
  blogs of strong people, forums tend to be good too
d3ckard 6y ago
I agree that you do not need to read books, but books are a good proxy for demanding content. If I count articles, the short texts from some gossip portal are valued as much as Harvard Business Review, science journal or whatever else, but their value is wildly different. Same goes for books by the way, but effort to finish a book is much higher. I also do not believe reading time stats, as people are not that good on self reporting, especially without hard criteria. The problem is that if you do not read demanding content, your ability to comprehend gets smaller. We made a society that you can live in without much intellectual struggle, but the question is whether we can keep having that society if we permanently cease to pursue intellectual interests.

ReptileMan 6y ago

But how much they read on the black mirror they hold in their hands every day. A good discussion on HN is probably a novella size.

nobodyandproud 6y ago

In the US, teachers sometimes count graphic novels (comic books) as reading material, especially for “read-this-many-books-this-week” homework assignments. There are so many entertaining distractions that just being able to get kids used to reading something is an achievement in of itself.