25% of Americans Can Barely Read (_The Economist_) \ stacker news ~BooksAndArticles

pull down to refresh

25% of Americans Can Barely Read (_The Economist_)www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/12/10/are-adults-forgetting-how-to-read

3074 sats \ 51 comments \ @denlillaapan 8h BooksAndArticles

I know it's a little bit of a meme-slash-joke-slash-social commentary in America (that schools are so bad the kids can't read). Turns out, it's akwschually true for the adults too.

"Blame TikTok," or demographics, or immigration, of reverse Flynn effect: The hail-mary of explanations offered in The Economist piece is quite extraordinary.

Perhaps modern (fiaters?) peoples just suck? #804582

Roughly one-fifth of people aged 16 to 65 perform no better in tests of maths and reading than would be expected of a pupil coming to the end of their time at primary school, according to a study released on December 10th by the OECD

Why bother doing anything hard? I mean, the fiat printer takes care of you and orange man has promised to make 'Murica great again.

Here's the non-paywalled article: https://archive.md/gsyRj#selection-1057.476-1057.669

view all related items

260 sats \ 8 replies \ @south_korea_ln 8h

Why bother doing anything hard? I mean, the fiat printer takes care of you and orange man has promised to make 'Murica great again.

I know you are likely being tongue in cheek here. So i won't take it at face value~~

But it reminds me of one of the arguments i have heard against bitcoin, i.e. why would one work or do anything positively contributing to society. One can just hold bitcoin and do nothing. The efforts of others should make the value of bitcoin go up to account for the tech they make, the stuff they produce, etc.

I know there is a fiat mindset to this argument, namely consumerism, but I'd be happy if one could convince me that bitcoin will not make people lazy or suffer from similar side effects seen in the money printing world. It's ok, too, to tell me: it's nuanced and Bitcoin won't solve everything. I dont have a clear view on this.

159 sats \ 1 reply \ @alt 8h

Here's a counter-question as a response to that criticism: where do the people get the Bitcoin from, and how do they get so much of it that they can afford to live off the appreciation alone?

For most people their day-to-day expenses will exceed whatever value appreciation they can get from their stack, and so they will be forced to work in order to not run out of Bitcoin.

Another way to look is that if nobody is working because they think their Bitcoin appreciation will keep them fed, then the prices of everything else will go up due to high demand and lack of supply. Further, because everybody thinks their stack is enough to live off, the demand for Bitcoin will drop and the supply on the market will increase (because everyone is spending it).

Both these effects will work to lower the purchasing power of Bitcoin and hence encourage people to work again.

173 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 7h

...also, piling on to this: the types of people who has a large enough stack to never worry about fiat expenses ever again (not that many, since there are always things to want -- houses, vacation etc -- and that opportunity cost of not stacking is huge) must have iron fucking balls to have held for this long, unwavering.

And then I'll chalk it up to them deserving it. Your ability to hold/stack/amass for long period is proportionate to your conviction, which is dependent on your knowledge and study. So, good on yahs.

141 sats \ 0 replies \ @BeeAye 3h

you cant print it so if ur lazy / dont create new value, youll be a forced seller eventually and wont be able to do anything to get more, so as btc becomes more used in the real economy, youll only be able to get it by creating real value.

the non-printing part is the key to eradicating lazy cronyism imo 🤙

41 sats \ 3 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 7h

Here's my best try:

during the transition period, when bitcoin is merely proto-money and thus appreciate at insane rates, I'm sure a lot of Bitcoiners are/will become lazy as you say. Their command over real goods and services increase passively faster than they could toil away at a dead-end job... so, they quit, get lazy etc.

But it passes, and their sats ultimately have to be redistributed to others who work (for them and others). And then, on a better monetary standard, the punishment for not-giving-a-damn and no longer providing value = destitution. So there's a pretty harsh stick coming

147 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 4h

Good answer.

In the long run, if we're on a Bitcoin standard, I would anticipate price stability. Thus holding Bitcoin without working would be like staying still... you can't survive on staying still, you still have to work.

I remember reading somewhere that prices were so stable during the middle ages that people thought of prices as inherent characteristics of goods... it's only in modern times that prices keep going up because of endless money printing

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln 2h

All interesting answers. Giving me food for thought. Thank you

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 1h

Nah, this is a misunderstanding between gold (really, commodity money) and bitcoin. They have different macro effects (#749912), so we won't have stable prices -- neither non-volatile nor long-run regression-to-the-mean price level

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @SpaceHodler 7h

Bitcoin has worked me work more, because at last I have something to work for.

42 sats \ 5 replies \ @Aardvark 7h

The problem, I think, is that it really starts in the home. My mother was an avid reader, and always read to us when we were children. Growing up, even when we were poor my mom always said "you can't always have a toy, but i will always get you a book if you want one"

From a very young age I always scored in the 99th percentile in reading comprehension and I don't attribute much of that to the schools.

11 sats \ 4 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 7h

don't disagree with you, but as a matter of scientific inquiry it remains muddled: your mother gave you genes and upbringing/social environment. Very unclear which one contributed the most to your future success

41 sats \ 2 replies \ @Aardvark 7h

This should probably be fact checked but as far as I've heard, between the two numbers, IQ vs Zip code, the zip code you were born in is a larger indicator of future success. So social environment definitely plays a large role as well.

As far as what contributes the most? I'd like to think I was just born being this awesome, but in reality I have no clue. (Also I'm not that awesome)

22 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 7h

Caplan summarizes this research in Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids. I'll defer to that https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Reasons-Have-More-Kids/dp/0465028616

...or Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, for that matter.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 2h

IQ is definitely more important than zip code but the two are correlated

You were born awesome presumes your awesomeness is innate not cultivated by environment

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 2h

Genes are more important than environment

126 sats \ 7 replies \ @ken 7h

Can somebody summarize this for me?

155 sats \ 5 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 7h

Pretty sure that is what my post is doing?

I gave some extract
I summarized the point in the headline
I provided the graph.

Is there anything else you'd like me to do for you?

44 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undergotten 7h

It wasn't until after I saw your reply that I realized he was just kidding, so don't feel bad. He got me, too. But, yeah, he gotcha.

5 sats \ 2 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 7h

ok fine, I got owned... but then I don't understand why it's funny...?

11 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undergotten 6h

It's a post about illiteracy and he's asking for you to make it easier to read for him, even though, as you correctly pointed out, it's already extremely easy to read.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 6h

OUWWWH, IT'S META FUNNY.

Dude's witty

5 sats \ 0 replies \ @ken 7h

;)

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @j7hB75 4h

Well played! Ha.

11 sats \ 12 replies \ @kepford 3h

The government schools are terrible. It is my firm belief that the only reason some kids are so much more successful is their parents and social circle. The public schools system if you measure it by the money spent would in any other situation be considered an absolute failure. But, since it is run by the government to indoctrinate the masses against revolt or even serious reform of the government it is actually a success.

86 sats \ 10 replies \ @Bell_curve 2h

Parents are the biggest factor. It was a chapter in Freakonomics.

So many teachers today, especially the younger ones, are vocal left wing activists. They think their job or mission is to proselytize their students.

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford 2h

Do you agree that the system was designed to create "good citizens"? Not smart free thinking individuals.

51 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 2h

Maybe but the indoctrination is worse today than 30 years ago

11 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 2h

Its different. It is more apparent and it has shifted dramatically for sure. But 30 years ago the left was pretty much where the Bush style right are today.

More to the point monopolies lead to may problems. One being inferior products. In the context of this post to me that is the key problem. Lack of competition.

I think conservatives fool themselves thinking you can reform a system that is designed to do what it is doing. It must be replaced.

44 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 1h

good point, reform is impossible

11 sats \ 0 replies \ @Shugard 32m

Yes! Just Yes!

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 1h

Agreed about teachers dumbifying kids -- hashtag @Shugard

As for source of ability, you're still conflating social and generic environment; parents gave them both, so we can't know from that alone. (Twin and adoption research help teasing that out)

18 sats \ 0 replies \ @Shugard 30m

Out of our 34 teachers at my school, 30 are dumb fucking leftists.

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 1h

Genes are 50%. Home environment is 5 percent. Peer environment is 45%.

But for intelligence or IQ, the genetic component is at least half.

Twin separated at birth studies confirm this simple fact. The blank slaters refuse to acknowlege hereditary

11 sats \ 1 reply \ @denlillaapan OP 1h

These are roughly the breakdowns I remember from Pinker's The Blank Slate... But that book was ~20 years ago. Still those exact numbers?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 38m

why would those numbers change?

why would genes be less important today vs 20 years ago?

my source was Pinker's How the Mind Works which was first published in 1996

edit: have you seen crime stats since 1960? no change in demographics

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 3h

For those that wonder where I'm getting all this. This is far from the only resource but if you wanna really understand it just read The Case against Education.

11 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 7h

immigration demographics

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 2h

Press 2 for Spanish

Oprima 2 para Espanol

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby 3h

What do you attribute this to?

I don't think Canadian schools are particularly great but score better in both literacy and numeracy. Do you think it is a poverty/income inequality issue?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 1h

No idea, really.

I can't look at those countries and spot any obviously revealing pattern.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 6h

It's probably because we imported so many big dumb Italian goons.

10 sats \ 6 replies \ @LowK3y19 8h

I was just saying how we are the richest but dumbest I guess here’s some proof

30 sats \ 5 replies \ @denlillaapan OP 7h

I keep wondering who's gonna have the last laugh here:

the elite, coastal Economist-reading commentariat, pearl-clutching at the stupidity of your average American, but whose fluffy/non-real livelihood in ESG or gender consulting are made irrelevant and/or quickly outcompeted by AI;
...or the flyovers, uneducated, illiterates who, seemingly being the "dumbest," can at least drive a forklift or carry heavy shit or know how to do things, and will thus flourish in a world where machines make the commentariat superfluous?

Who was the "dumb" one, eh?

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 4h

Coastal elites might be able to read and do math, but some of the dumbest people I've met are these elite educated people, read: in terms of lack of curiosity and inability to see issues outside their own framework.