[aDyslecticCrow]

This is a very verbose essay that i don't feel quite says much. I want to put question the presented statistics a bit in particular.

The essay quotes studies showing the leisure-reading prevalence among teens and adults dropping. I do not see how this is relevant at all to "death of intellect and reason". Reading fiction can give a person new perspectives on life, but so could a movie or a manga or radio-show. It's a leisure activity. I'm far more worried about drop in reading and writing *proficiency* overall. Writing proficiently is dropping with LLMs in school, and reading proficiency is worse than the early 2000s. But i don't think this tells the whole story either.

I think the average person reads and writes as much as always thanks to the prevalence of technology. Keyboards, instant messaging, blogs, social media. Writing is easier than ever, and reading is more worthwhile than ever. But the *format* and media has shifted. This shift in format is not reflected when asking people "how often do you read" (people read constantly, but much fewer books).

And to question the very premise further; Reading isn't that brought the revolution in science and intelligence; better storage, spreading and access to knowledge is. That this came in the format of text should matter. If people engage with thought provoking reason through audio or visuals instead of text, what does that matter?

now, i AM worried about some of this. In particular the decline of news quality and consumption, rise in (seemingly) acquired ADHD, and a drop in writing proficiency (which i think is vital for deep thought and contemplation), but this article really does not discuss the issue fairly or well.

[sema4hacker]

>Keyboards, instant messaging, blogs, social media.

I've got a 29-year-old employee from whom I receive texts and emails every day. The grammar and auto-spell word substitutions are frequently so bad I have to respond "do you mean X or Y?", and sometimes so confusing I can't parse their message at all.

>I think the average person reads and writes as much as always

Perhaps, but the writing quality has definitely taken a dive.

[aDyslecticCrow]

Isn't that just the new standard set by phones and instant messaging? Iterative instant commutation rather than "letters" of formatted text. I too write a lot of messages in a single pass and press *send*, only to "edit" any errors afterawrds. (or a with good old "*afterwards" message afterwards)

Phones are the new default, but they are terrible for long form writing. Moving a cursor to the middle of a section or moving a section around is frankly more effort than its worth. Just send it and clarify later. I'm not saying its a good thing, but i would call it more of a shift than a decline. If you ask them to write a report the writing may spectacular, since they're actually by a proper keyboard and in a format with more strict writing standards.

[incone123]

Having to question "do you mean x or y" because the sender is not clear is not iterating.

[JohnBooty]

Rather than debating if it's iteration or not... isn't that potentially an improvement?

In Ye Olden Days, you don't think the same sorts of miscommunications happened? A look at history (or history viewed through the lens of classical literature) sure makes it seem like miscommunication levels were always pretty high

At least today you can get instant clarification on "do you mean x or y" instead of waiting weeks or months for dudes on horses to move pieces of paper back and forth between you and your penpal

[incone123]

I'm not debating. I made a statement.

[JohnBooty]

Right, right.

It was a very funny statement because it very much is iteration by any definition, and it's always a laugh when somebody embarrasses themselves by simultaneously doing the same thing they're criticizing. Yikes, right?

I think your meaning was clear, though. So that's what I responded to.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Isn't that just the new standard set by phones and instant messaging?

No, plenty of twentysomethings can competently communicate in writing. There are just a lost more today who are functionally illiterate.

[JohnBooty]

    Writing proficiently is dropping with LLMs in school, 
    and reading proficiency is worse than the early 2000s. 
    But i don't think this tells the whole story either.

I agree.

It's very easy, but also lazy and simplistic, to look at the decline of writing proficiency and equate it with some kind of 1:1 decline in overall interpersonal communication.

People certainly struggle with communication in 2025. It's hard.

But if we are to believe that communication has somehow declined over time, then we must also accept that communication was somehow in some kind of amazing or at least superior state 100 or 200 or 1000 years ago. I see no evidence that is the case. The most casual look at history or classical literature shows those times were chock full of miscommunication foibles, both trivial and world-changing.

[coliveira]

The author is not talking about reading in general, but reading books. Yes, reading and writing may be still practiced daily, but understanding of complex ideas, books, and even films is going down quickly.

[4ndrewl]

Having read it (it's neither dense nor verbose), I don't understand which of your points isn't addressed in the essay?

[coliveira]

Yes, this is an example of what the article is saying: calling this verbose and dense means that the person has a problem in understanding something that is just a little bit more complex than traditional spoken language.

[aDyslecticCrow]

Neither I nor the last commented called the text dense. I claim the article use a-lot of words to say very little, and arguments its points in a overly preachy way. That is *not* dense, that is verbose.

mm. Perhaps phrasing it like this would help; The article is written in away to appeal to those that already agree with the premise, and dissuade those that don't. 6000 words is on the long side for a blog-post, but not unreasonable for a good essay. This does not read as a good essay, it reads like a preach. Most people that don't agree with the article stopped half way and moved on, and who do we have left in this comment section?

I don't disagree with the conclusion nor the arguments. I disagree with how the authors has written and presented those arguments and conclusions. It could have been 3000 words and still said what it wanted, or it could have said much more at the same word-count.

[aDyslecticCrow]

It's not that the article did or didn't address something. It's the way the article addresses is makes be roll my eyes. I don't disagree with the premise itself, nor necessarily the conclusion. But some of the statistics brought up are irrelevant (as i mentioned), and the article reads more like a preach than a essay.

To me it read like a rant monologue about the youth, saying about 4 things but repeated over and over with different words. It's an essay written in bad faith to essay writing.