New Study: 54% of American Adults Read Below 6th Grade-Levels
New Study: 54% of American Adults Read Below 6th Grade-Levels
cross-posted from: https://lemmit.online/post/1006130
This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/aboringdystopia by /u/Last_Salad_5080 on 2023-10-03 14:21:04.
You're viewing a single thread.
what's the concrete advantage of the average person reading at a high level is, past some sort of weird elitism?
they clearly haven't needed the skill in their lives, or their reading level wouldn't have "atrophied" over time, so what's the point?
i also don't particularly care how well the average adult has their multiplication tables memorised
I'm not sure I'd trust someone who reads like a 11/12 yo with signing potentially life changing (not in a good way) contracts.
I don't care how good your reading level is: unless you've studied law, you shouldn't trust anybody but a lawyer to correctly parse a life-changing contract.
Do you think lawyers are supergeniuses who've memorized every law and case file? Maybe ones who charge $750 to take a dump, but not the lawyer you're talking to.
Usually the basic contract lawyer you talk with has seen your issue a few times before and just looks it up online for more details. Or they just wing it. They're a second opinion who may or may not be valuable, depending on how much research you've done.
Because it's an area with technical terms that are easy to misconstrue, with a lot of misinformation online for somebody trying to DIY contract law.
Do I think it's impossible for somebody to correctly parse a contract? No, obviously not. But if you're dealing with a "life changing" contract, why would you fuck around?
How would you find out which lawyer to hire?
Would someone with good reading skills be more or less susceptible to online misinformation?
Would someone with good reading skills be more or less able to read a simple (non-life changing) contract?
How would you find out which lawyer to hire?
I have no idea what answer you're expecting that would involve "my Grade-level reading ability"
Would someone with good reading skills be more or less susceptible to online misinformation?
Ability to detect misinformation online has nothing to do with the metric described in the headline.
Would someone with good reading skills be more or less able to read a simple (non-life changing) contract?
Most people just choose not to read contracts that don't matter, whether they can or not. When was the last time you read a EULA?
They also tend to be fairly tightly constrained legally, since obviously society couldn't function properly if the majority of people weren't able to enter into the majority of contracts.
I have no idea what answer you're expecting that would involve "my Grade-level reading ability"
Do you have no idea why being able to read at a basic level would be relevant when communicating with a lawyer?
Ability to detect misinformation online has nothing to do with the metric described in the headline.
How would you go about disproving misinformation? How would you research if the claims in a video are true or not true?
And lawyers tend to talk to other lawyers so they have insider knowledge and a familiarity with contracts that typically helps them spot incongruities quicker.
High reading level shouldn't be elitist, we should strive to have a well educated population
It's really weird to call a 7th grade reading level or better elitism in the first place, and calling it "weird elitism" is even worse.
should be pretty easy to provide a tangible benefit, then
Sure: being able to tell the author of the text is lying to you.
This point should be front and center when countering the STEM circlejerk of "humanities are useless".
The humanities are objectively useful. Grade school reading level as a metric is not.
Grade school reading level as a metric is not.
What would you suggest instead?
No idea, but me not offering up an alternative doesn't make it a less useless metric for supporting the conclusions everybody seems to be drawing
You started this thread by saying
what’s the concrete advantage of the average person reading at a high level is, past some sort of weird elitism?
and now you're trying to point out that grade level isn't a good metric. So is it that reading level doesn't matter at all, or that the metrics we use are flawed? Reductio ad absurdum, is it ok for an entire populace, or at least the vast majority of it, to be illiterate?
a useful skill, and one that's not tested in grade school reading level
The fact that the irony of your answer is lost on you is fucking tragic.
Sorry to say but society works by hierarchies, some people deserve more than others.
No they don't.
some people deserve more than others
this is also elitism
That’s… why I agree with it.
And why is that?
Because most people are little more than animals, by choice and aren't worth the effort of trying to help.
I'm all for providing for their basic needs, often against their own voting habits and thus their own desires, but expecting some poor redneck to suddenly be valuable as a person is just insane.
You don't want a well-educated population for the sake of having a well-educated population. You want it so that you can have a productive population. And clearly, a high reading level isn't required to be a productive member of society since otherwise reading level wouldn't drop over time like this figure is implying.
Poorly educated people are more susceptible to manipulation, misinformation, and propaganda. And a low reading level is both an indication of a poor educational level, and an impediment to a person educating themselves further.
Reading is a fundamental skill in the modern world.
Clearly reading above a 6th-grade level isn't a fundamental skill in the modern world, or 54% of American adults wouldn't be able to function in it.
Being able to parse a long sentence filled with long words has absolutely no bearing on your susceptibility to propaganda.
Clearly reading above a 6th-grade level isn't a fundamental skill in the modern world, or 54% of American adults wouldn't be able to function in it.
No. I don't consider those adults to be "functioning" at an appropriate level.
cool we're back to elitism
Maybe you should try reading what people are writing instead of falling back on strawmen.
I do not believe people who cannot read at an adult level are able to access and understand the information and knowledge they need to navigate the world effectively. And that makes them vulnerable.
That's not elitism.
No, that's ableism.
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/functioning-labels-ableist-nonsense
https://web.archive.org/web/20230605065733/https://ollibean.com/intelligence-is-an-ableist-concept/
https://disabledfeminists.com/2009/10/23/ableist-word-profile-intelligence/
https://www.bristolautismsupport.org/ableism
E: If you're looking to protect vulnerable people, who will always exist, how about addressing those who take advantage of them, and our ableist (and classist, and racist) societies that enable and even encourages it?
I'm not talking about intelligence or IQ. I didn't even say "intelligence".
I'm talking about access to information.
Not every single individual needs to be a skilled reader. But people, in general, do need to be able to access information. If significant parts of the population are struggling to read, that's not a condemnation on them as individuals, but can mean that they are vulnerable to being cut off from information they need to live their best lives, or to impact the world in the way they might desire to.
I do not believe people who cannot read at an adult level are able to access and understand the information and knowledge they need to navigate the world effectively.
That is ableism, plain and simple (you don't have to say a word for it to be heavily implied, and if you'd read further you would have realised it's about much more than IQ, but even if we ignore that word, that statement is still ableist). People are able to process information and the world around them in a variety of ways, you not seeing it as effective, or it not being for you, doesn't mean it isn't.
And those who still struggle should be supported where they are, not expected to fit in to the abled (and capitalist) "box" (edit to clarify: people struggle because society is designed to exclude them, not because these arbitrary skills are necessary for survival, except for in a capitalist system which only values "productivity").Alright I'm going to admit I chose my words a bit poorly in that quote. Sorry. Because it was not my intention to judge the "effectiveness" of individuals, but rather comment on how populations of people navigate the world.
Which is what the post was originally about. That huge swaths of US folks are reading at a below-par level. This isn't about differences in ability or intelligence. If at the population level, literacy is low, that's about education, or some other influence.
And if large numbers of people are less able to access information, that's a problem. That limits those populations.
People are able to process information and the world around them in a variety of ways, you not seeing it as effective, or it not being for you, doesn't mean it isn't.
While one of my statements was badly worded, now you're starting to put words in my mouth.
And those who still struggle should be supported where they are, not expected to fit in to the abled (and capitalist) "box"
I did not say otherwise, and I would not say otherwise, because I agree.
people struggle because society is designed to exclude them, not because these arbitrary skills are necessary for survival, except for in a capitalist system which only values "productivity"
Yes. Two frameworks of disability. The ableist framework locates the "issue" in the disabled person's body. But that's arbitrary, and we can easily think of the issue being located in the societal constructs that don't take into account different people's abilities, and are thus not fit for purpose.
You're saying that, in your personal judgement, the average US citizen isn't navigating life as effectively as you deem they should be able to.
That really sounds like elitism to me.
Looking at the current state of the US... That's not the point that you might think it is.
Yes, I think if the average US citizen had better access to information, they might be able to make more positive change to the world around them.
I think people are capable of more than just existing and being "productive" as defined by today's capitalist world. So consider that what you call "functioning", I think people have the potential for more than that, if given the tools. That's the opposite of elitism.
That really sounds like elitism to me.
If you are not even going to try and entertain a conflicting perspective, and just sit there and throw accusations, then you are wasting my time.
Now it's just elitism repackaged as condescension.
The average person can read the average article just fine, given that the average article is quite literally written specifically so that the average person can read it. A publishing house that only puts out materials in Shakespearean prose is not going to last long.
I don't know what "access to information" you're thinking that the average US adult doesn't have.
Now it's just elitism repackaged as condescension.
Bite me, you utter waste of time.
This is simply untrue. There is no world in which someone with 6th grade reading comprehension is going to be able to read, absorb and parse a 3000 word article on a complex political or scientific or economic issue, no matter how simple the language used. It's just not going to happen. Full stop.
If you want to be a well-informed citizen, you have to be able to read at least at a 12th grade level.
The last two decades have underscored this.
It's not a direct cause and effect between better reading and propaganda resilience, it's an enabler hence gets reflected as "probability of", not as a certainty.
The more effective you are at taking in information and gaining understanding through reading, if you actually use it often, the more you know (both in terms of contextual knowlege around various subjects and other things you read on that subject hence have references to compare new information about it) so the more resilient you are to propaganda (for example: some things are only obviously illogical if you know enough about the context to see that they can't happen as a piece of propaganda is trying to convince you they did).
Being good at reading doesn't make people resilient to propaganda directly, it makes it more likely that they are resilient to propaganda because it's easier for them to acquire broader and deeper knowledge so many do, whilst many who would otherwise tend to seek broader knowledge give up because their level of reading makes it a much harder task (for the latter reading is a barrier more than an enabler).
This is also why reading level isn't an elitist thing: bright curious people no matter their origin will go much farther if they have better tools to acquire knowledge and understand it, and the fastest most effective way to provide a lot of those tools to them is schooling, so if they don't have them it's probably not their fault.
PS: also and as a side note, to get to advanced levels in lots of occupations you need the capability to acquire lots of information, hence you need to know how to read at a good level (for example, for dealing with certain cars, a car mechanic will have to read technical manuals - they can acquire the knowledge for run-of-the-mil repairs from others, but for advanced, better paying work they have to be able to figure it out themselves and in the present day that will be by reading technical manuals). Sure, people can "function" with low reading skills (that's such a low standard that both my grandmother and my grandfather could "function" as totally illiterate people), but low reading level makes it harder to prosper in the modern world because so much of the advanced stuff is "locked" behind complex texts which require fast reading with good reading comprehension to be "unlocked" in a reasonable time frame.
what's the concrete advantage of the average person reading at a high level is
Sixth grade reading is being able to extract information from written word. Below that grade level, you're basically reading words but none of them need to have logical impact on some greater theme or topic. Sixth grade reading level is the ability to read things that matter. Eighth grade reading is reading at a level where you can apply introspection to the underlying theme or topic that's being extracted from the written word.
So, and this is simply my opinion, I believe it is important to be able to read things and understand how they apply to one's self in a logical manner. The ability to extract the impact that the particular piece has is critical to subsequently applying that introspective quality to the piece. So, yes, I believe being able to read at sixth grade level is incredibly important. It is difficult to understand how something applies to you if you cannot correctly extract what the point that is being discussed, actually is, in the first place.
they clearly haven't needed the skill in their lives
Well a lot of everyday life is not present in those terms. Your employer does not sit there and go "this machine is big enough to stick a arm into it and applies enough pressure to remove that arm from your body" without also following it up with "so do not stick your arm into this machine." In fact, legal requirements likely dictate a "DO NOT STICK ARM INTO MACHINE" or something similar sign right beside the machine.
There is a massive difference between the utility as a function of labor and employment and utility as a function of operating within a society. So do try to apply this at say a social level. Employers can change the condition of the environment one works in to accommodate a lot of leeway. So do try to think of it less in "what does this higher reading level provide in objective utility in a work environment?"
i also don't particularly care how well the average adult has their multiplication tables memorised
Well that is interesting that you bring that up because rote memorization of multiplication is third grade level stuff. Things like "all things multiplied by two are even" is higher grade thinking. There is actually a point where you stop thinking of multiplication as some table to be memorized and start seeing it as a pattern that has deeper meaning.
If I add a zero to the end of a number, "3 to 30 or 45 to 450" I have multiplied that by 10, and that has a deeper meaning all over in various engineering domain. In computer terms we call that bit shifting and there's optimizations in rendering pipelines and memory access that comes from this deeper understanding of multiplication. Or things like (x,y) coordinates, it is easy to just think of it as plotting point on a grid, but at some point you obtain a deeper meaning and start seeing (x,y) as (r,θ) and you begin to have an understanding of vectors and that understanding is critical to literally everything that might have to traverse your GPU. Want to change the heading of an airplane? You can do vector addition to know exactly what will happen when you change that heading.
And even then you stop seeing exactness of math and start seeing the general patterns of it. You begin to understand this kind of change in this variable has this kind of effect. And you can pick that kind of feeling up with on the job training no doubt. But with a deeper understanding of math you begin to understand more than what on the job training can give you, because you can break those actions down into more mathematical terms that can be manipulated easily within your mind, rather than the good old trail and error method (which obviously wouldn't be a good method for an airplane that you are currently flying).
There is also more to it than the surface level implications of education. Yes, we can just look at the surface level stuff and conclude that the "real" world reigns supreme. But having that deeper understanding, be it in written word or mathematical eloquence, gives us a richer understanding of the world we live in. Gives us more access to the potential of this world. We do not per se "need it", much like we don't pre se need things like medicine, refrigerators, guns, bulldozers, and what not. Our ancestors did without them for countless years. But having that deeper meaning gives us access to things that we would otherwise not have. This nice world we have of comfort is not a product of it being forced upon us, it is a side result of various people who went further than the surface level understanding of this world that was routinely offered.
So if you are curious of the advantage, look around you. That is the advantage.
This wouldn't be a problem except all of those people who don't read good are allowed to vote.
So elitism, then?
What correlation is there between voting and reading at a high level?
I would very much like my fellow voters to be able to read and understand things before making a decision.
In Athens they gave political offices away in a lottery. (Slaves and women excepted, of course.) This meant that because the stupidest person in the city could randomly get the highest office, they had a reason to make sure everybody was at least a little competent.
What exactly would you like them to read and understand that requires a reading level above 6th grade level?
Proposed and actual legislation. Complex articles about the implications of policy decisions. Scientific and medical articles. Anything that can produce an informed electorate is what they should be able to read, and most of that is well above a sixth grade level.
I'm really enjoying you trying to change the mind of someone who is clearly three fifth graders in a trench coat.
My hope is that somebody else reading the exchange will see the depths of the ignorance of OP. Because they're pretty fucking dumb.
Why on earth do you think high reading level is a skill that correlates with the ability to parse legislation? I've literally had somebody trained in law try to explain specific laws to me and be completely wrong. Knowing long words isn't going to help you. A similar argument applies for your other examples.
If you're reading a technical document aimed at professionals in the field, I literally don't care what your reading level is: you're probably not going to correctly parse the text unless you have the background knowledge the text assumes you have.
If you're reading an article aimed at a general audience, then congratulations: it's already written in a way that you can understand it, because it's aimed at a general audience. If nobody could read it, nobody would buy it.
Why on earth do you think high reading level is a skill that correlates with the ability to parse legislation? I've literally had somebody trained in law try to explain specific laws to me and be completely wrong. Knowing long words isn't going to help you. A similar argument applies for your other examples.
If you think that reading level is just "long words" then your literature teachers completely failed you, and I'm sorry.
If you're reading a technical document aimed at professionals in the field, I literally don't care what your reading level is: you're not going to correctly parse the text unless you have the background knowledge the text assumes you have.
If you have a high enough reading level you can do further research to learn what the experts know. You can read multiple sources and make your own connections. You don't have to trust someone just because they say they have expert knowledge - you can check them.
If you're reading an article aimed at a general audience, then congratulations: it's already written in a way that you can understand it, because it's aimed at a general audience. If nobody could read it, nobody would buy it.
So if most people can only read at a 2nd grade level it's okay for journalists to write articles like See Dog Run? How are we supposed to communicate complicated ideas without complex language?
If you think that reading level is just "long words" then your literature teachers completely failed you, and I'm sorry.
Given that, I don't think there's much point in me responding to the rest.
Coming up with a way to quantify the complexity of a text to determine reading level is very different from the process of people reading.
But if you're okay with an educated elite ruling over the ignorant masses, I don't think I can convince you that people aren't things.
Coming up with a way to quantify the complexity of a text to determine reading level is very different from the process of people reading.
We're literally discussing a study that attempted to quantify the complexity of texts people are comfortable reading. What did you think we were talking about?
Lol. That's why, as explained in the Wiki article you linked to, it's a requirement in many states that auto insurance policies be written at no more than a 9th grade reading level.
But sure, having 6th grade reading skills is perfectly fine.
What a joke.
I've literally had somebody trained in law try to explain specific laws to me and be completely wrong.
Do you have a sixth grade reading level? Otherwise I don't think this helps your argument. Meaning, your sixth grade + reading level helped you best the lawyer.
No, I went and fact checked with different lawyers, since I understand that parsing legislation isn't something that's performed particularly well by laymen.
How did you fact check with different lawyers?
By talking to them. I don't know what point you're getting at.
The Constitution is a good start?
Good thing there are a wealth of articles explaining in detail exactly what every single line of the constitution means.
Permanently Deleted
you can't just claim the goalposts have moved because you didn't actually critically consider the original question
at this point I assume you are one of the children they never taught to read and I'm just gonna block you.
They're being contrarian. They seem to think it's the same as being critical.
It's increasingly common. See also: anti-vaxxers, flat earthers and the like.
sorry i don't know what that said i couldn't read it
Are you saying that you would be comfortable having US citizens solely rely on others to interpret and explain the Constitution to them? You don't want them to have the ability to read and understand it themselves? Who would those people explaining the Constitution to everyone else be?
In all of your comments on this thread you seem to be arguing that having a seventh grade + reading level serves no purpose. Do you see any value in having a higher than sixth grade reading level as an American citizen?
I don't want everybody working off their own interpretation of what the constitution says, no. This is the same argument as people who are anti-vax because people should "do their own research" rather than trusting experts.
There's obviously value in certain circumstances and walks of life where a higher-than-average reading level is beneficial. However, I can't really see how any current problems in society could be linked back to the average US citizen's ability to parse a text that uses long words and long sentences.
So, you'd like only a select group of experts - an elite, if you will - to interpret and explain things to the masses.
This is the same argument as people who are anti-vax because people should "do their own research" rather than trusting experts.
People who know what they're doing in a specific technical area should parse highly technical primary sources and disseminate information to those less technically inclined.
I don't care what your grade-level is: it has no bearing on your ability to correctly parse technical documents.
Honestly, we do need some elites to guide us retarded Americans to a higher plane so I’m fine with that.
At least where I live in the US, voters are asked to vote on city or state ballot proposals. These proposals appear on the ballot in a wall of text. They are also usually available online before election day for interested voters to read. These can be very complicated to parse - not only the language and technical terms in the text, but the policy itself and how it might affect different groups of stakeholders in the community and different existing policies and competing proposals. A voter might need to read a lot of news articles and opinion pieces to get the lay of the land on a particular issue. I think having a higher than sixth grade reading level would be more than helpful in understanding an issue and related ballot proposals.
For me personally, it seems like reading comprehension is a pretty necessary skill. Between social media, texting, email, etc we are reading more than ever. I can’t count the number of times I’ve had to jump on a call because some colleague has misinterpreted or misrepresented something from an email.
Media literacy and reading comprehension are important skills, but unless I'm (ironically) mistaken, it doesn't look like they form part of a text's "reading level".
Interesting, I never got into the details on “reading level”. Yeah, sounds like this should be used to score readability of text, not someone’s intelligence or education level, as was originally intended. I’ve read many military manuals, and can vouch for their ease of reading, so thanks to DoD for making that a requirement.
“Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss comes close, averaging 5.7 words per sentence and 1.02 syllables per word, with a grade level of −1.3.”
I just find that funny.
the average person reading at a high level is, past some sort of weird elitism?
An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for the survival of a free people.
People who can't read well, can't easily learn further skills, fact check, do proper research, and invariably lack the ability to do proper critical thinking.
The end result is gullible stupid people, making stupid decisions. People who think research involves watching youtube/tiktok videos.
also don't particularly care how well the average adult has their multiplication tables memorised
I don't think memorising multiplication tables is a thing anymore, but if you can't do basic calculations, you're an easy mark for many businesses.
Teaching people to read, write, and do basic maths is about making them self-reliant.
This kind of serves as a pretty good example, because despite the first part of this response reading like you were trying to hit a minimum word count, it conveys information no more effectively than the same text written more normally would.
invariably lack the ability to do proper critical thinking
this is elitism
you could be illiterate and still have strong critical thinking skills
Are you a critical thinker?
Or are you a contrarian?
You could "still have strong critical thinking skills," but you probably don't, especially not in the information-dense and highly complex environment that is contemporary life.
That's why it's smart to hedge our bets and try to make sure that everyone can read at least at a 12th grade level.
You can vote for non-wolves and prevent destroying the planet.
I agree it's not necessary for immediate survival, but long term.
Reading at an xx level isn't about using fancy words, it's about reading comprehension. English is a super ambiguous language...
Case in point, the first half of my post is probably about a 6th grade reading level. A fourth grade reader would probably know all the words but struggle to understand my point, a sixth grade reader would understand I'm saying that reading level is important to correctly understand the meaning, and a college level reader would understand that plus understand the implication that English is a poorly designed language that was shaped to promote intellectual elitism
And now I'm just going to spell out the fact that humans communicate at a steady rate through spoken word regardless of sounds per minute - "dumber" people don't necessarily express less using slang or simple word choices, they just miss out on the full meaning
I could explain all this so anyone who can tie their shoes could understand all of this, but a high enough reading comprehension means I could have stopped at the first paragraph and all of the meaning would have gotten across... Being a charitable reader is a big part of the equation, as is a certain level of general knowledge
Yeah I don't really care if someones an advanced biologist but I'd prefer if they didn't believe humans grew from seeds
Wow...
People who don't read well, or often, literally think less effectively than people who do.
Reading isn't just a hobby for nerds, it's critical to advancing your own ability to think above an animal level.
There's a reason all of the smartest people you know read and the dumbest people you know do not.