3 ms·

Yeah. Take this very article for example. The title: > Is the decline of reading making politics dumber? And the only parts where the author justified the ti

Yeah. Take this very article for example. The title: > Is the decline of reading making politics dumber? And the only parts where the author justified the title are: > At its simplest, Athenians in the fifth century BC could begin to practise “ostracism”—voting to banish people by writing their name on ostraka, scraps of pots—because, as William Harris, an academic, points out, they had achieved “a certain amount of literacy”. And: > We also analysed almost 250 years of inaugural presidential addresses using the Flesch-Kincaid readability test. George Washington’s scored 28.7, denoting postgraduate level, while Donald Trump’s came in at 9.4, the reading level of a high-schooler. I don't know, man. I found this super unconvincing. Were Athenians reading more than modern citizens in developed countries? Is "ostracism" even a good way to run a country? Do we want presidential addresses to be harder to read? Especially when we're comparing to Washington, who came to power in an era when the general population didn't vote for president? It's almost like the author is appealing to confirmation bias. Surely we intuitively think the decline of reading makes politics dumber. So the author doesn't even bother to support their claim. Just throw in some random examples off the top of their head and call it a day. Our knee-jerk reaction is Tiktok = information junk food. But isn't this article, printed on The Economists, simply less-digestible junk food?

judahmeek 1y ago
The results of the Flesch-Kincaid readability test seem like direct evidence that politics is getting dumber. > Do we want presidential addresses to be harder to read? This is a very reductive question. How would you address the dumbing down of politics? > Especially when we're comparing to Washington, who came to power in an era when the general population didn't vote for president? Thanks for asking this as I was not aware of how low the national turnout was for early presidential elections. That said, a comparison of the Flesh-Kincaid readability score over time[0] compared to a chart of national turnout over time[1] shows that the trend only gets more consistent once national turnout of eligible voters surpasses 50%. 0: https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/feb/12/state-of-the-union-reading-level https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/feb/12/st... 1: https://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present https://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present
- raincole 1y ago
  I do think politics is getting dumber. I was criticizing that the author didn't provide meaningful arguments, so I got very little from this article except confirming my own existing belief [0]. Clearly George Washinton had much lesser motivation to appeal to the general population than Trump does. If the comparison was made between, say, Trump and Reagan, it'd be slightly more convincing to me. > How would you address the dumbing down of politics? I don't know. Of course I don't know. Which was why I read this article: I expected it to answer this question for me. But I found it did a very poor job at this, as 1) Comparing to Washinton makes little sense. 2) I don't think "easier to understand" means "dumber." I expect if you asked Flesch and Kincaid themselves whether they think a text of lower Flesch–Kincaid readability score means it's "dumber" they would say no. [0]: And except this article 'inspired' me to write the above comment and therefore made me use a bit of critical thinking, perhaps.
  - judahmeek 1y ago
    I believe that the article has meaningful arguments, such as: * By contrast, decreasing literary sophistication may lead to decreasing political sophistication. * Lose the ability to read complex prose and he fears you may also lose the ability to develop complex ideas that “allow you to see nuance and to hold two contradictory thoughts together”. The medium is the message, and the message is currently 280 characters long. However, I also agree with you that the article does not present evidence that directly supports its arguments. Studies linking reading comprehension & critical thinking (which I expect means the ability to navigate complex thought) certainly do exist & should have been mentioned. > I expect if you asked Flesch and Kincaid themselves whether they think a text of lower Flesch–Kincaid readability score means it's "dumber" they would say no. The "dumber" adjective isn't regarding the text, but the intended audience. The lower Flesch–Kincaid readability score of inaugural presidential addresses is a lagging indicator of the dumbing down of politics, not a cause. > Comparing to Washington makes little sense. Democratization of American politics is a confounding factor, but also directly related. The elites would have higher reading comprehension, so increased democratization would require a dumbing down of politics. Similarly, the decline in the lower Flesch–Kincaid readability score is noticeably stronger after inaugural presidential addresses stopped being delivered in written form. So I think that using Washington for comparison is perfectly fine considering that the trend has continued incrementally throughout American history.

judahmeek 1y ago

The results of the Flesch-Kincaid readability test seem like direct evidence that politics is getting dumber. > Do we want presidential addresses to be harder to read? This is a very reductive question. How would you address the dumbing down of politics? > Especially when we're comparing to Washington, who came to power in an era when the general population didn't vote for president? Thanks for asking this as I was not aware of how low the national turnout was for early presidential elections. That said, a comparison of the Flesh-Kincaid readability score over time[0] compared to a chart of national turnout over time[1] shows that the trend only gets more consistent once national turnout of eligible voters surpasses 50%. 0: https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/feb/12/state-of-the-union-reading-level https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/feb/12/st... 1: https://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present https://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present

raincole 1y ago
I do think politics is getting dumber. I was criticizing that the author didn't provide meaningful arguments, so I got very little from this article except confirming my own existing belief [0]. Clearly George Washinton had much lesser motivation to appeal to the general population than Trump does. If the comparison was made between, say, Trump and Reagan, it'd be slightly more convincing to me. > How would you address the dumbing down of politics? I don't know. Of course I don't know. Which was why I read this article: I expected it to answer this question for me. But I found it did a very poor job at this, as 1) Comparing to Washinton makes little sense. 2) I don't think "easier to understand" means "dumber." I expect if you asked Flesch and Kincaid themselves whether they think a text of lower Flesch–Kincaid readability score means it's "dumber" they would say no. [0]: And except this article 'inspired' me to write the above comment and therefore made me use a bit of critical thinking, perhaps.
- judahmeek 1y ago
  I believe that the article has meaningful arguments, such as: * By contrast, decreasing literary sophistication may lead to decreasing political sophistication. * Lose the ability to read complex prose and he fears you may also lose the ability to develop complex ideas that “allow you to see nuance and to hold two contradictory thoughts together”. The medium is the message, and the message is currently 280 characters long. However, I also agree with you that the article does not present evidence that directly supports its arguments. Studies linking reading comprehension & critical thinking (which I expect means the ability to navigate complex thought) certainly do exist & should have been mentioned. > I expect if you asked Flesch and Kincaid themselves whether they think a text of lower Flesch–Kincaid readability score means it's "dumber" they would say no. The "dumber" adjective isn't regarding the text, but the intended audience. The lower Flesch–Kincaid readability score of inaugural presidential addresses is a lagging indicator of the dumbing down of politics, not a cause. > Comparing to Washington makes little sense. Democratization of American politics is a confounding factor, but also directly related. The elites would have higher reading comprehension, so increased democratization would require a dumbing down of politics. Similarly, the decline in the lower Flesch–Kincaid readability score is noticeably stronger after inaugural presidential addresses stopped being delivered in written form. So I think that using Washington for comparison is perfectly fine considering that the trend has continued incrementally throughout American history.