Posts Tagged ‘reading’

Book Spurning

January 14, 2026

Socrates denounced writing as undermining people’s faculty for memory. Nevertheless, writing and reading spread greatly in the ensuing 2400 years. Now that’s gone into reverse.

Decades ago some feared TV rotting our brains. But today people are ensorcelled by blizzards of distractions oriented to the visual, and with instant gratification. Acculturated to a pace so quickened that if a stimulus does not pack an immediate punch, people swiftly move on.

That applies to prose. A word few nowadays might know. A recent piece in The Economist begins by noting a test wherein the opening of the Dickens novel Bleak House confuzzled many readers, unable to make sense of the words. And those were University English literature students! “Barely even literate,” snarks the article.

In the wider population it’s worse yet, with ever fewer reading books (or much else). The newspaper landscape too is contracting. Indeed, so is prose itself: The Economist did an analysis, finding declining word counts in published sentences generally.

I strive for concision in my own writing. However, we’re seeing shorter sentences not because writers are improving but because readers are less receptive to longer ones, which they’re less able to grasp.

Not so long ago, few could read at all. Then came a more educated era, where masses embraced reading as a route to self-improvement and advancement, boosting one’s ability to engage intelligently with the wider world. Hence the broad “middlebrow” Book-of-the-Month Club phenomenon. That light is flickering out. The Economist cites surveys showing younger people in particular call reading “a chore” or “boring.” So schools assign less of it. Making for a doom-loop.

Also another propellant for inequality. Today’s reading decline most strongly harms those already suffering socio-economic disadvantage, widening the gap between them and the affluent (who read more).

The Economist says reading is one of life’s great pleasures. I love seeing how other writers do what they do. But more importantly, it’s been central in my lifelong project of trying to understand people and the world. Something that others today — an era of “smart” phones, social media, and TikTok — could use more than ever.

Instead we see a great dumbing-down. We once thought the “information age” would make us more informed. Ha-ha. And it’s not just a matter of factual knowledge, understanding true reality. The Economist says declining ability to read complex prose leads to diminished general ability to handle complex ideas; decreased literary sophistication lessens political sophistication. People becoming, politically, unguided missiles.

And the public square is increasingly polluted with lies and fake news, metastasized by Artificial Intelligence. My own first line of defense against falsehood is my understanding of how reality works, honed by a life of reading. So when Trump says other countries empty jails and nut-houses to send those inmates to us, I don’t have to think twice whether it might be true. It just flies in the face of how I know the world works. But ever fewer people have such understanding.

One might counter that it isn’t people getting less information, it’s just different information, in a different format. Well, sorry: funny little TikTok videos people addictively scroll ain’t “information” (in the word’s common sense). Many say they get their news from TikTok. That’s not equivalent to The New York Times. And only 38% of Americans surveyed say they pay attention to news at all (and many of those are probably lying).

Walter Lippmann, in his 1922 book Public Opinion, noted that journalists chronicle facts and events — but that’s not the same as truth. Grasping truth requires more effort. Mere facts — not to mention “alternative facts” — can become highly misleading without proper context. And it’s context that reading broadly provides.

Here again Artificial Intelligence doesn’t help. Students increasingly use it in their education, to answer questions and do work for them. Studies already show that this blunts one’s critical thinking faculty. Artificial Intelligence diminishes the real kind.

Something else looming: online porn has long been a big distraction, but AI has only just started metastasizing this, making it far more enticing. Also reducing readership for the likes of Bleak House.

America is going off the rails, our civic culture collapsing. Becoming the Idiocracy of the 2006 comedy film. I don’t expect everyone to read Bleak House. But when people aren’t reading much of anything, maybe it’s not so surprising they’d elect a lunatic who tried to overthrow the government, and deploys masked goons seizing folks off the streets. I can’t imagine those past book club devotees voting like that.

And this is not just an American syndrome; the same factors are making voter behavior irresponsible in countries like Britain, Germany, France, etc.

Culture wars debate what people are allowed to read. A greater concern should be how little they read. Why ban or burn books when they’re not read anyway?

Attention Perversion

August 29, 2025

Chris Hayes’s 2025 book is titled The Sirens’ Call — How Attention Became the World’s Most Endangered Resource. The title nods to Odysseus’s striving to resist the Sirens’ song that could destroy him. The subtitle is a bit off: attention is not “endangered” but becoming a giant sinkhole. Hosting an MSNBC show, Hayes is much concerned with how people pay attention.

He explores the biological substrate. Our great “survival of the fittest” adaptation was social cooperation within the group. Thus the importance of people paying attention to each other; and the development of language. Hayes notes that apes, for example, maintain social connection mainly through grooming rituals. But language enables interacting with multiple people simultaneously — and while doing other things besides. A huge efficiency gain.

Fame is a form of attention, and as a TV personality Hayes gives a fascinating account of his own experience. Becoming very conscious of how others see him. A big psychological adjustment. Noting that a person has twin aspects: one’s inner experience, and operating out in the world. The two are very separate. Fame messes with that boundary.

Hayes started almost obsessively wondering if people look at him because they recognize him. That, and their saying nice things, was titillating for a time, but eventually became so routine it lost its sparkle. However, interestingly, nasty things said about him, even if only online, really got under his skin.

A key theme in the book is how, for many people, when it comes to that dichotomy between inner and outer realms, the outer is surpassingly important. Driven by those ancestral genes centralizing social connection. That’s why solitary confinement is such harsh punishment. People can literally go mad without social stimuli.

I myself am much engaged with the outside world; yet it’s my inner existence that is central. Almost as though the outside is some sort of phantasm.

And yet, contradictorily, I grew up imagining that my life would be meaningless unless I made some mark and gained renown. Then I published a book that got a lot of attention, at least locally, a wee taste of fame. And that cured me. The attention felt nice, but didn’t elevate me to some higher plane of being, as I’d envisioned. (I still was getting nowhere with girls.)

Teaching me that thoughts about me, in the minds of strangers who don’t matter to me, don’t matter to me. (I’ve also learned that nothing about me matters much to them.) A very buddhist attitude, says my wife, who’s studied about buddhism.

Hayes writes about social media’s advent as a giant game-changer for the whole human attention landscape. Thus my initial comment that far from scarcity, attention is becoming a voracious monster. A lot of people seem to regard how many “likes” they get as almost a live-or-die thing.

As if “likes” really matter. But (as in my publication lesson above) they’re not the same as attention paid you by people with real connections to you. Social media feedback of various sorts is very largely a simulacrum of genuine social attention. As an ersatz form of it, that can seem to assuage the craving without really providing anything meaningful.

This is one way in which the internet, far from broadening people’s perspectives as once hoped, instead severs them from reality. Indeed, more broadly, the book shows how the modern information landscape is not that at all, but a hall of mirrors whose “information” has little nexus with what people really need to know and understand about the world.

Hayes invokes the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates (over what to do about slavery) as a touchstone for model public discourse, treating seriously with an issue. Impossible today. He does note one instance where a reality managed to break through to many people, who saw what an atrocity was unfolding in Gaza, and faulted the Biden administration’s culpability. And yet . . . that resulted in more votes for Trump, whose public stance on the issue was a muddle, but who was an even bigger apologist for Israel. WTF??

Essential to democracy is holding public officials to account. America used to, if anything, go overboard, intolerant toward politicians’ foibles. Now we blow off even felony convictions. Maybe even see that positively, making a candidate more interesting and thus perversely attractive. Trump’s m.o. has always been to hog attention, no matter what it takes, good or bad. Badness predominates, yet it works for him. He’s the biggest celebrity since Napoleon.

It’s not just Cronkite-style news that’s falling away, it’s any kind of rational discourse. Blogging like mine was already passe when I started in 2008. Nevertheless, the more I posted, the more people would find my site by googling various terms, and traffic rose. But that peaked in 2017 and has been falling since, despite the ever-increasing content. Few want to read thousand word essays any more. Preferring to scroll through amusing little videos. I should do my shtick while dancing on Tiktok.

Our attention is hijacked by those other types of mesmerizing online content because those responsible have huge financial reasons for achieving that. They monetize our attention by selling it to advertisers. Their algorithms are engineered to keep you on your phone as long as possible, so more ads can be thrown at you. And cunning algorithms exploit information about you to furthermore make those ads trigger your attention to them. So the platforms can charge advertisers all the more.

And, Hayes says, when contending forces vie for people’s attention, “amusement will outcompete information, and spectacle will outcompete arguments. The more easily something attracts our attention, the lower its cognitive load . . . Why read a book when you can watch a movie? Why read a newspaper when you can play a video game?”

Hayes invokes the term “enshittification” for what’s happening in the online realm. And the kicker is that much evidence shows people’s fixation on phone shit is not making them happier, but more miserable, with sharp rises in depression, alienation, and suicide, especially among younger people (as per Jonathan Haidt’s book The Anxious Generation), who don’t even know what pre-iPhone life was like. Why not throw those damned things away?

(Note, if you enjoyed reading this, please click the “like” button.)