Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–59 of 59 posts

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#51

Post by seren »

JetSpiegel wrote: post #35
the_af wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true that story-telling is important for society, but I also find this view a bit... utilitarian. Story-telling and reading are important because they are enriching, pleasurable activities; among the best there are, in fact. That they also make you a better person is a welcome bonus.

It's really depressing that people are citing studies to justify reading novels. That's a story for the ages...

At the age of Fitbit, Soylent, 4-hour work week, etc, and particularly on HN, it seems you have to have some sort of reward or definite end-goal to partake in any activity.

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#52

Post by jes5199 »

ap22213 wrote: post #12

Recently, I stopped over a friends house. And, I was surprised to see a group of 7 or so 9-11 year olds all watching their computers or devices. At first I thought they were having a lan party, playing a game. So, I asked them what they were doing, and they said they were watching youtube videos. I observed them for a while and watched as they'd go back and forth between each other, sharing different links then sitti…

yeah, but when I was that age you'd have a good chance of seeing my friends and I just sitting around the television watching videotapes. Is it really different?

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#53

Post by saraid216 »

abledon wrote: post #45
msluyter wrote: post #4

It's not just kids. About 6 months ago, I started reading "Constellation Games," a really fun and clever sci-fi novel. Yet it now sits on my desk about 2/3 complete. I didn't lose interest or anything -- I simply find it increasingly difficult to set aside time for pleasure reading, for a variety of reasons. Even though I enjoy long form reading, it's now something I have to schedule and force myself to do. I'm not s…

tldr; Our ability for deep reading is being affected by the internet medium we are operating in. [Coming from a person who grew up without internet] In this internet age, there is SO much text that we are forced to skim over, deciding whether it is relevant or not. If we didn't , and devoted 100% attention to every article/tutorial we came upon, we'd never get our tasks done. We're retraining our brains from the slow…

> If we didn't , and devoted 100% attention to every article/tutorial we came upon, we'd never get our tasks done.

I don't seem to have this problem. I frequently dismiss articles as not interesting, but I also make a point of reading stuff and then reflecting on it for a minute or two. I do the same kind of thing when I go to the movie theater; I watch the film, and then I let the credits roll while I think about what I just saw.

I consider this basic mental hygiene. It's not clear to me why so many people excuse themselves from it in the name of convenience and efficiency.

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#54

Post by r00fus »

msluyter wrote: post #4

It's not just kids. About 6 months ago, I started reading "Constellation Games," a really fun and clever sci-fi novel. Yet it now sits on my desk about 2/3 complete. I didn't lose interest or anything -- I simply find it increasingly difficult to set aside time for pleasure reading, for a variety of reasons. Even though I enjoy long form reading, it's now something I have to schedule and force myself to do. I'm not s…

I only read using audiobooks now on my commute. It's kind of sad, but I'm also cognizant of the fact that kids and increased self-service training and my own coding projects tend to eat up all of my non-work time (and sometimes, my sleeptime).

The zenith of my book-reading seemed to happen in college/uni.

btw, thanks for the tip on your current book. I'm off to see if there's some audiobook version of it.

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#55

Post by r00fus »

ap22213 wrote: post #12

Recently, I stopped over a friends house. And, I was surprised to see a group of 7 or so 9-11 year olds all watching their computers or devices. At first I thought they were having a lan party, playing a game. So, I asked them what they were doing, and they said they were watching youtube videos. I observed them for a while and watched as they'd go back and forth between each other, sharing different links then sitti…

Interesting anecdote, but in my circles the kids all just play together when they're forced to group, up to and including the pre-teens (actual teens are simply not there - they're doing homework or socializing outside our friend/family group meetings).

I really wish Apple would mimic Amazon's playtime functionality - right now we use a digital timer (TimeTimer when she was younger) for our eldest, but if we're not watching she gets more time than she's allotted.

That or some way of blocking access at the wifi-router level that was easily configurable. Hell even an big "play time" physical switch situated high on a wall that you could turn on/off to control access to youtube/netflix would be nice :)

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#56

Post by VLM »

greggman wrote: post #43
Xdes wrote: post #5

I do not see the problem. I have never read books for pleasure. Most of the books I own are technical or reference material that have practical applications. Why would I want to read for pleasure? I did not find anything interesting about The Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Flies, or To Kill a Mockingbird which were standard readings when I went to school. Maybe I do not have the imaginative capacity like those peopl…

I was similar to you? When I was ~19 I had never read a novel except stuff required by school. I hated it. I only read non-fiction stuff about Space and computer manuals/books/reference. I asked my best friend that loved to read what book would get me to like reading. He recommended H.Beam Piper's "Little Fuzzies" and I couldn't stop reading until I finished. I think his next recommendation was Ender's Game which I a…

Classics, hmm, have to think about that claim vs the examples.

catcher in the rye (English 1951), lord of the rings err flies lol (English 1954), to kill a mockingbird (English 1960) but written in the 50s.

That is an extremely narrow definition of classics, all English language novels written in the 1950s by white dudes. If you have to hit 50-ish English novels at least try some Tolkien or Hemmingway or if +/- a couple decades is OK, some golden era Asimov and Clarke sci fi? Harlan Ellison and the invisible man?

If you have to stay white dude but are willing to stretch the dates, how bout some Hunter S Thompson from the 70s, or go the other way for the Great Gatsby (both titles are not for everyone, I think?)

Not trying to give you a hard time, but to point out that there's an extremely large world out there other than English novels from the 50s. Sure there's some good stuff, but theres orders of magnitude more "out there".

I think it would be hard for a teen boy not to be captivated by "anabasis aka the Persian expedition" which is a mere 2500 years old. Blood n guts and high adventure in a crazy old world on the other side of the planet 2500 years ago. If it weren't true some video game author would write it today. Gateway drug to Herodotus and then you end up lost to the "great books".

I read and greatly enjoyed Gibbon (its about one foot on a bookshelf, depending on edition) but even I haven't completed any Russians. So I can't answer if "The Idiot" is worth completing. However, not everything worth reading takes six months.

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#57

Post by VLM »

bluedino wrote: post #25

its cuz of txtng Not just texting, but it seems like any communication online is excused from having to follow any sort of rules. People try to justify it in a sense of 'This is just how kids speak these days', but would any other field allow a grotesque destruction of itself? What's the lol-speak equivalent in math, science, or art?

"What's the lol-speak equivalent in math, science, or art?"

We should be proud no one mentioned Religion yet. Whoops.

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#58

Post by johnchristopher »

ap22213 wrote: post #26
johnchristopher wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure if this is good or bad (who can really say?). Actually, there are many people who can say whether it's good or bad. > Didn't Marshall McLuhan predict this back in the 60s? The 'book' as we know it has only been around for a few hundred years. And, certainly it's been quite important to our progress and exchange of information. But, information has been communicated for thousands of years, in different…

What I mean is: who can predict the future? The 'book' had certainly impacted the structure of Human thinking, and McLuhan suggested that this resulted in things that weren't necessarily 'good' (maybe some good? some bad?). Likewise, new technologies will again change the structure of Human thinking. But, we can't presume to know how this will turn out.

Seriously, read the book or the essay it is based on. The 'we don't really know anything so who can say what ?' stance isn't that productive and gets old real fast.

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#59

Post by eli_gottlieb »

Xdes wrote: post #5

I do not see the problem. I have never read books for pleasure. Most of the books I own are technical or reference material that have practical applications. Why would I want to read for pleasure? I did not find anything interesting about The Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Flies, or To Kill a Mockingbird which were standard readings when I went to school. Maybe I do not have the imaginative capacity like those peopl…

I do see the problem. You think the books they assigned you in high school were meant to be a representative sample of high literature or (worse!) of reading for fun. They're not.

For the sake of your soul, go get yourself some pulpy science-fiction this very instant!

Post reply on HN