4 ms·

>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 hig

by coldtea 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo ago
  Reading low quality romance novels likely still puts you at reading somewhere around a 6th grade level.
- coldtea 9mo 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 9mo 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.

by coldtea 9mo ago

ticulatedspline 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo ago
Reading low quality romance novels likely still puts you at reading somewhere around a 6th grade level.
coldtea 9mo 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 9mo 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.