4 ms·

> Nearly half of all Americans didn’t read a single book in 2025, with the habit falling roughly 40% over the past decade I don't think this is a great metric

> Nearly half of all Americans didn’t read a single book in 2025, with the habit falling roughly 40% over the past decade I don't think this is a great metric of literacy. For one not all books are exactly high quality, and now more than ever there's a plethora of non-book written content available to us. I used to read a lot of books when I was in school but these days I rarely do, however I probably consume more written word than ever. News, blogs, documentation, various and sundry articles. I read a lot, just not books anymore.

coldtea 8mo ago
>I don't think this is a great metric of literacy That's like saying drinking water is not a great metric of hydration. >For one not all books are exactly high quality, and now more than ever there's a plethora of non-book written content available to us. Yes, I'm pretty sure those 50%+ of people who "didn't read a single book" did it to avoid all the less than high quality books, or because they were busy consuming high quality non-book written content online.
- ticulatedspline 8mo ago
  > Yes, I'm pretty sure those 50%+ of people who "didn't read a single book" did it to avoid all the less than high quality books, You misinterpret, the implication of quality is that having read a book is not indicative of value, someone could have a high metric "I read 10 books a year" but they're all short, low quality romance novels. Whereas someone could clam "I read no books a year" but they're a grad student with no time for novels. by the "books read" metric the former would score much better and appear more literate.
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > someone could have a high metric "I read 10 books a year" but they're all short, low quality romance novels That person is still functionally literate. If they can get through a short novel, they can focus on e.g. a contract or draft law. If they’re only watching short-form content online, they may not even be able to follow long-form journalism.
  - nkrisc 8mo ago
    Reading low quality romance novels likely still puts you at reading somewhere around a 6th grade level.
  - coldtea 8mo ago
    >You misinterpret, the implication of quality is that having read a book is not indicative of value, someone could have a high metric "I read 10 books a year" but they're all short, low quality romance novels. Whereas someone could clam "I read no books a year" but they're a grad student with no time for novels. I'd argue thataA grad student "with no time for novels" would still be if not functionality illiterate, at least uncultured, in my book (pun intended). But that aside, such going "case by case", is not helpful. This is an aggregate statistics. If 50%+ of the population "didn't read a single book" this doesn't break down to lots of grad students with no time for reading or similar cases, but more like a major decline in functional literacy. Having them reading "10 mediocre books a year" would have been a major improvement.
- throw445563342 8mo ago
  > That's like saying drinking water is not a great metric of hydration. Nope, these are not comparable analogies. There’s a difference between wanting to read a book and not wanting to read a book and it has nothing to do with literacy. For a comparable analogy, it would be like half of Americans don’t buy bottled water, and the conclusion is they are not hydrated.
mrkpdl 8mo ago
There are more than enough ‘high quality’ books to fill a lifetime of reading…
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  Yeah, someone saying they don’t read books because there isn’t anything “high quality” out there is probably proudly illiterate.
- ticulatedspline 8mo ago
  sure, and you don't need to read any of them to score highly on the "books read" metric. Thus my argument that it's a crap metric.
akudha 8mo ago
One of the smartest people I’ve met in my life is a plumber, who failed 5th grade and never went back to school. He can’t even read/write basic sentences in his native language and he can only speak one language, his native. Yet, he is able to figure out how to use all settings on smartphones on his own, plan plumbing for large properties, has high level people skills, is the president of his union etc. other than computers/scrabble, I am probably not even half as smart as this person, and I have a masters degree (for what it is worth). All this to say, I don’t understand “number of books read” as a metric of smartness or literacy or intelligence. Maybe it is easier to survey this metric and collect data? Sounds lazy research to me.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > don’t understand “number of books read” as a metric of smartness or literacy or intelligence Because it’s not. Your plumber is smart and intelligent. They are not literate. This constrains their intelligence nevertheless.

coldtea 8mo ago

>I don't think this is a great metric of literacy That's like saying drinking water is not a great metric of hydration. >For one not all books are exactly high quality, and now more than ever there's a plethora of non-book written content available to us. Yes, I'm pretty sure those 50%+ of people who "didn't read a single book" did it to avoid all the less than high quality books, or because they were busy consuming high quality non-book written content online.

ticulatedspline 8mo ago
> Yes, I'm pretty sure those 50%+ of people who "didn't read a single book" did it to avoid all the less than high quality books, You misinterpret, the implication of quality is that having read a book is not indicative of value, someone could have a high metric "I read 10 books a year" but they're all short, low quality romance novels. Whereas someone could clam "I read no books a year" but they're a grad student with no time for novels. by the "books read" metric the former would score much better and appear more literate.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > someone could have a high metric "I read 10 books a year" but they're all short, low quality romance novels That person is still functionally literate. If they can get through a short novel, they can focus on e.g. a contract or draft law. If they’re only watching short-form content online, they may not even be able to follow long-form journalism.
- nkrisc 8mo ago
  Reading low quality romance novels likely still puts you at reading somewhere around a 6th grade level.
- coldtea 8mo ago
  >You misinterpret, the implication of quality is that having read a book is not indicative of value, someone could have a high metric "I read 10 books a year" but they're all short, low quality romance novels. Whereas someone could clam "I read no books a year" but they're a grad student with no time for novels. I'd argue thataA grad student "with no time for novels" would still be if not functionality illiterate, at least uncultured, in my book (pun intended). But that aside, such going "case by case", is not helpful. This is an aggregate statistics. If 50%+ of the population "didn't read a single book" this doesn't break down to lots of grad students with no time for reading or similar cases, but more like a major decline in functional literacy. Having them reading "10 mediocre books a year" would have been a major improvement.
throw445563342 8mo ago
> That's like saying drinking water is not a great metric of hydration. Nope, these are not comparable analogies. There’s a difference between wanting to read a book and not wanting to read a book and it has nothing to do with literacy. For a comparable analogy, it would be like half of Americans don’t buy bottled water, and the conclusion is they are not hydrated.

mrkpdl 8mo ago

There are more than enough ‘high quality’ books to fill a lifetime of reading…

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
Yeah, someone saying they don’t read books because there isn’t anything “high quality” out there is probably proudly illiterate.
ticulatedspline 8mo ago
sure, and you don't need to read any of them to score highly on the "books read" metric. Thus my argument that it's a crap metric.

akudha 8mo ago

One of the smartest people I’ve met in my life is a plumber, who failed 5th grade and never went back to school. He can’t even read/write basic sentences in his native language and he can only speak one language, his native. Yet, he is able to figure out how to use all settings on smartphones on his own, plan plumbing for large properties, has high level people skills, is the president of his union etc. other than computers/scrabble, I am probably not even half as smart as this person, and I have a masters degree (for what it is worth). All this to say, I don’t understand “number of books read” as a metric of smartness or literacy or intelligence. Maybe it is easier to survey this metric and collect data? Sounds lazy research to me.

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> don’t understand “number of books read” as a metric of smartness or literacy or intelligence Because it’s not. Your plumber is smart and intelligent. They are not literate. This constrains their intelligence nevertheless.