> Cursive is vastly superior. It’s not even close. It’s way more efficient. It’s easier to read. It helps you think in larger units reducing mental burdens (you

> Cursive is vastly superior. It’s not even close. It’s way more efficient. It’s easier to read. It helps you think in larger units reducing mental burdens (you think of writing in terms of words, as opposed to single characters, because if you’ve written them frequently enough, a word becomes a memorized unit in itself). I've never experienced this, it has always been harder to read for me and humans already skip over parts of words when reading in print, it's not a cursive phenomenon. That's why you can read through a paragraph of text that has letter jumbled in the middle of words and almost not notice. > The only reason I would not think this is important is if as a society we agree that with the rise of typing writing itself is not important. I think that ship sailed over 2 decades ago. In the late 90's I was 8 or 9 years old and it was clear that cursive was a waste of time as I was learning it (and then turning around and teaching my own teachers how to use the computers in the classroom).