Just post something π
Lemmy's general purpose discussion community with no specific topic.
Sitewide lemmy.world rules apply here.
Additionally, this is a no AI content community. We are here for human interaction, not AI slop! Posts or comments flagged as AI generated will be removed.
More (not so) fun facts:
54% of American adults read below a 6th grade level.
21% read below a 5th grade level, which is considered functionally illiterate.
High immigration numbers don't fully explain it either, as first gen immigrants only make up about 1/3 of those with low literacy.
That's not really a good scenario for a modern democracy to find itself in for reasons that are unfortunately already very clear
I think one way we see this play out frequently is watching people debate issues unproductively with obviously zero theory of mind for their opposition due to one or both parties involved having poor communication skills.
Iβll take the win, I get to be elite at something
You were always elite in our hearts, Shortstack
I've studied this a little before (at graduate school) and I don't think we know exactly why, mostly because it's a ton of factors and none of the different camps in academia seem to agree on one.
Your standard Lemmy user may appreciate that late stage capitalism probably is the biggest factor, since poverty and illiteracy are hand in hand. The professor I RA'd for, for instance, just did projects that gave families money and they just did better. It was really that simple, since a ton of this is in the home, even before starting preschool.
But others have argued that there's also an anti-intellectualism in our culture (even before MAGA, kids go "ew nerds") and even more say it's pedagogy. That includes theory, like whole word vs phonics (my advisor spoke of the reading wars of the 90s like he had PTSD lol) as well as practice, like memorization vs reading for reading sake.
And, of course, the government under Bush Jr. really did the opposite of research by enacting the bipartisan No Child Left Behind which fucked both poor folk with contextless "accountability practices" while pushing soulless memorization.
Sorry for a long rant, just, y'know in 2025 onwards it's easy to forget that education has been routinely fucked, usually by conservatives. I can always explain more though, just don't want to make this comment too long, lol
They were supposed to bring critical thinking to the high schools and conservative parents in the US threw a shit fit because they truly believed their kids would no longer believe what they did. We never got critical thinking in high school and most people don't get an introduction to it until college.
Critical thinking should start in kindergarten and by third grade children should be able to create a simple opinion based on facts they understand. We are doing such a disservice to young people it isn't funny.
I'm not sure if it played out quite like that originally, though I guess there would be some people's parents thinking that way, especially in 2026. Keep in mind, NCLB was bipartisan.
In 2003, though, I read that the reality for a majority of schools is a bit more stupid, they don't understand testing and statistics at the federal level and designed a system of accountability that promoted teach-to-the-test methods, which is mostly memorization. That's because low performing schools (read: poor schools) got punished for not meeting an arbitrary test score, so it was a go to survival tactic.
Conservatives still get their desired result, though, which is an education system with minimal critical thinking practiced. Perhaps it was a poison pill, or something, given it's made Americans by and large even dumber since then (and we were already doing bad for other reasons and Reagan).
This was back in 2012ish when the Republican Party platform was the following.
"Knowledge-Based Education We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."
Yeah, can't have it in high school because that's lib-rule college shit.
This is why Trump resonates with so much of the country. They can understand him.
Honestly, the education backsliding is one of the tragedies that will be take us generations to fix an education is the best defense against propaganda
This statement is kind of glossing over things:
"If you can read a New York Times article..."
It's not that most people can't read the words, and possibly understand the basic surface level of what it says. But at the "6th grade level "they're sometimes failing to recognize sarcasm/tone, potential biases, implied meanings, and the greater context of things not directly stated in the article that would impact the full understanding.
Yes! It's actually an important distinction to make between being able to read the article and being able to comprehend it and then furthermore being able to contextualise it.
Interestingly, I believe this is somewhat similar, but also a bit of a digression so forgive me lol. I am autistic and many people I interact with don't notice unless I tell them. My report actually says, that, particularly with verbal social interactions, although it can appear that I understand everything I'm actually only getting that kind of "surface level" information - hence I can miss social cues and such. I can get along okay with that surface level information because I can still participate in the conversation with the bare bones.
I think this is somewhat similar to how some people can read - they can read the words, get the general gist but they miss a lot of the implications that aren't directly stated. This is why you get a lot of people who can regurgitate kind of "headline news" but don't actually understand the issue being discussed - they understand the formed sentences but not the full picture. I'm not sure if that makes sense but that's how I am starting to understand the difference that some people have between reading and comprehension. And how it explains that sometimes someone can sound like they might know what they are talking about - until the conversation gets to a certain point.
Another day, another time I have to copy-paste this comment clarifying the 54% stat:
For clarity: this is based on piaac test results. The literacy test results are sorted into 6 categories (1-5 and <1) for comparing the distribution internationally. 54% of Americans score less than 3, compared to top-scoring Japan and top-english-speaking Australia at approximately 35% and 45%. The task description for level 3:
Adults at Level 3 are able to construct meaning across larger chunks of text or perform multi-step operations in order to identify and formulate responses. They can identify, interpret or evaluate one or more pieces of information, often employing varying levels of inferencing. They can combine various processes (accessing, understanding and evaluating) if required by the task . Adults at this level can compare and evaluate multiple pieces of information from the text(s) based on their relevance or credibility. Texts at this level are often dense or lengthy, including continuous, noncontinuous, mixed. Information may be distributed across multiple pages, sometimes arising from multiple sources that provide discrepant information. Understanding rhetorical structures and text signals becomes more central to successfully completing tasks, especially when dealing with complex digital texts that require navigation. The texts may include specific, possibly unfamiliar vocabulary and argumentative structures. Competing information is often present and sometimes salient, though no more than the target information. Tasks require the respondent to identify, interpret, or evaluate one or more pieces of information, and often require varying levels of inferencing. Tasks at Level 3 also often demand that the respondent disregard irrelevant or inappropriate text content to answer accurately. The most complex tasks at this level include lengthy or complex questions requiring the identification of multiple criteria, without clear guidance regarding what has to be done
I could not find which source originally cited level 2 as β6th gradeβ equivalent, though the oecd recommends against drawing that parallel
Why hello there, hyper-literate fellows. Fancy exchanging some five-syllable words? Perhaps a few phrases? Or cock jokes? Cock jokes are nice too. I am hyper-literate, you see, so my cock jokes are veeeeeery long
Can't read the New York Times? Probably because it's behind a pay wall.
Have they tried to create a free account, or log in?
You can gain access to limited free articles, news alerts, select newsletters, podcasts and some daily games.
Might have something to do with society being overrun to hell with demands for attention from worthless trash text that wastes our time while begging for money. Like the New York Times, for example.
Give kids a reason to learn to read, stop making it a gateway to an onerous burden, then we'll talk.
see the thing is that I've already misjudged how dumb the average person is. I give too much credit to people.
same thing with people being assholes. I just kind of assumed that people generally want to not be assholes. nope, absolutely not, wildly incorrect. the average person doesn't give a fuck about anything but themself at that moment
I've always wondered why the old timers across the globe have always pushed education this hard with the youth. This is why. The consequences of proud ignorance are catastrophic.
The irony is if you're smart enough to read a nyt article you should be smart enough to realize what a rag it is. Unless you support genocide I guess.
So wait, do I struggle to make friends because I read two gewd or cause Im a asshole?
This is depressing, but it also explains a lot. If people canβt comfortably read the news, misinformation doesnβt have to work very hard.
You know what's even better?
The next generation isn't going to be able to read nor focus on anything for more than 60 seconds, and after it comes to pass there still won't be any meaningful regulation of social media either.
Why else do you think short form content took off and immediately became the dominant way many people get news?
The secret to using a semicolon is that there are no rules; people just make them up to tell you that you're wrong.
When they say "If you can read a New York Times article" do they literally mean just READ the words and understand them individually, or do they mean read and possess the ability to apply critical thinking skills to what you just read?
I think they must also mean comprehension.
I read a little about how they determine "levels" of reading ability, and while vocabulary is part of it, higher level reading also considers sentence complexity, the ability to identify concepts, make inferences, pick up on the theme or tone, consider the author's biases, etc.
Sometimes I will read a particularly insightful article from a scientific journal that a lot of sources have been referencing lately, and find that I can't quite follow all the high level technical jargon discussing the topic, and I'll feel just the smallest bit insecure about my level of intelligence.
But then I see posts like this and it all goes away lol
Field-specific jargon is so niche that it should hardly count. Even if you're in the same field, you might not be familiar with the tests and metrics they're using if it's not your area of research anyway.
Is this why you can't say almost anything (besides regurgitating clichΓ© pre-approved tropes) without being misconstrued, taken out of context, turned into a strawman, and attacked as a position completely different from the one you were taking?
I swear, I knew this was coming the moment I noticed that people were calling basic literacy and writing ability "elitism."
I was in a college English Composition class, of all places, and people were shaming me for insisting on using proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation. It was an Honors course too, if I remember correctly. Like, why the fuck are you here if you really feel that way?
And why are colleges even admitting people who can't formulate basic sentences; at least without serious remedial courses before the 101 level. These people are graduating with degrees without learning anything, because professors are too afraid to fail them.
And I got all but chased out of campus for getting A's. It's not "favoritism" or "privilege," I just knew how to write.
It's not elitist to have basic standards.
Discussing economics with my sibling in law showed me that it's unlikely anyone will ever be able to meaningfully educate them outside of going so far as to directly alter their circumstances to illustrate a point, and even then I doubt the understanding would be persistent or extensible
I got pretty sad that day
Those boomers were much more upset about school integration than I really understood.
Its both because people don't want to be intellectual because its depressing and alienating to be smart around a bunch of dumb people, but also the rich and powerful do not want us to be smart either.
I myself wish I was fucking stupid. I'd be happier.
I know there's the old addage about "if you're average, then 50% of people are dumber than you" - but Jesus Christ that's a horrific statistic!!
No wonder people are being so easily swayed by false extremist narratives in media these days - they literally can't access the truth because they can't read it.
"journalism output"
Who writes like that? The entire statement is poorly written, which is ironic.
https://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/sample_items.asp
If you want to see some of the sample questions (from 2003 or earlier), you can see exactly the kind of questions that so many people struggle with. After reading some of the sample questions and confirming the answers, it's kind of depressing how many people are able to get them wrong.
I was wondering "wait, if they can't read that, then what do they read?" But of course they just don't. Unless Reddit or Facebook counts as reading.
If 54% are below a 6th grade level.
And 21% are below a 5th grade level and functionally illiterate.
Then 33% are at a 5th grade level and technically literate.
What do you learn in 5th grade? What is the cutoff? Is there a magic word or concept?
I don't know the scale, but it seems like 21% are so close.
1/3 of it being caused by immigration is an angle I'd never thought about that actually makes me feel a tiny bit better
