4 ms·

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

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."
  - tapland 6y ago
    It's usually called 'functional illiteracy'. If you can read the words in an article, but don't understand what it says, should you really be considered literate? Understanding what it says is not understanding the meanings of separate words, but the meaning of the text in question.
    - noobermin 6y ago
      Sure but even that's a bit of a distance from what they're arguing. I can imagine that someone can totally not read a book every year but still understand context of say a news article they've read. That is nowhere near functional illiteracy.

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."
- tapland 6y ago
  It's usually called 'functional illiteracy'. If you can read the words in an article, but don't understand what it says, should you really be considered literate? Understanding what it says is not understanding the meanings of separate words, but the meaning of the text in question.
  - noobermin 6y ago
    Sure but even that's a bit of a distance from what they're arguing. I can imagine that someone can totally not read a book every year but still understand context of say a news article they've read. That is nowhere near functional illiteracy.