[kisielk]

> Humans, they warn, seem to be developing digital brains with new circuits for skimming through the torrent of information online. This alternative way of reading is competing with traditional deep reading circuitry developed over several millennia.

Where's the evidence that we've developed "traditional deep reading circuitry" over several millennia? That's presented in the article without any justification.

[mcguire]

Indeed. Given the availability of reading material and the skill of reading, any "circuitry" would have to be a relatively recent effect in the general population. Further, if "new circuits" are developing over a few tens of years, why would anyone expect the "traditional circuits" to have taken longer?

It seems to me unlikely that this is anything other than an individual behavioral difference.

[fluidcruft]

I agree with this criticism. I'm also skeptical that literacy rates have ever been high enough to plausibly drive selection pressure.