Reading Comprehension

[Arkady]

When readers have responded to my posts in a way that shows they didn't follow the argument, I've simply urged them to reread. This hasn't worked. People don't like to admit they have poor reading comprehension skills, and so it takes a lot of pride-swallowing to go back and reread a piece and then admit your hot take was based on a misunderstanding of the person's argument. But I'm not sure what the alternative is.

I try to write simply, and one of the reasons I'm so long-winded is that I will come at the same point from three or four directions, to try to make sure people get it. I'll also couch my points in layers of caveats to preempt the most obvious likely misreadings. My posts include a lot of superfluous "I'm not saying" sentences, that are only there because I know some careless or unskilled readers would otherwise assume that's exactly what I'm saying. The more I try to "idiot-proof" what I write, that way, the longer it gets, and the more I risk something being misread simply because people resort to skimming.

I bring this up here because I think poor reading comprehension isn't just a problem on this forum -- I think it's a problem with the American political system generally. Over 50% of students at four-year colleges lack the literacy skills needed to perform complex literacy tasks like understanding the arguments of a newspaper editorial:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10928755/...ollege-literacy-levels-sobering/#.VknaT3arTcu

Only about 13% of American adults can handle prose at a "proficient" level:

https://nces.ed.gov/naal/kf_demographics.asp

This helps to explain why people on forums like this react to postings in a way that shows they've identified what general side of the culture war someone is on, but not the details of his argument. And that is why they're left vaguely venting their emotions against the person, or blindly shooting off-topic talking points at him, rather than trying to rebut the substance. I think it also helps to explain the success of politicians who specialize in generically invoking an us-versus-them emotional response. And it explains why conservative and liberal movements just talk right past each other. I'm not sure how we fix the educational system without fixing our politics, but it may be impossible to fix our politics without first fixing our educational system. We'll just keep talking past each other, with over 50% of the participants in the national dialogue not even comprehending the arguments.

 

[Dino]

When readers have responded to my posts in a way that shows they didn't follow the argument, I've simply urged them to reread. This hasn't worked. People don't like to admit they have poor reading comprehension skills, and so it takes a lot of pride-swallowing to go back and reread a piece and then admit your hot take was based on a misunderstanding of the person's argument. But I'm not sure what the alternative is.

I try to write simply, and one of the reasons I'm so long-winded is that I will come at the same point from three or four directions, to try to make sure people get it. I'll also couch my points in layers of caveats to preempt the most obvious likely misreadings. My posts include a lot of superfluous "I'm not saying" sentences, that are only there because I know some careless or unskilled readers would otherwise assume that's exactly what I'm saying. The more I try to "idiot-proof" what I write, that way, the longer it gets, and the more I risk something being misread simply because people resort to skimming.

I bring this up here because I think poor reading comprehension isn't just a problem on this forum -- I think it's a problem with the American political system generally. Over 50% of students at four-year colleges lack the literacy skills needed to perform complex literacy tasks like understanding the arguments of a newspaper editorial:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10928755/...ollege-literacy-levels-sobering/#.VknaT3arTcu

Only about 13% of American adults can handle prose at a "proficient" level:

https://nces.ed.gov/naal/kf_demographics.asp

This helps to explain why people on forums like this react to postings in a way that shows they've identified what general side of the culture war someone is on, but not the details of his argument. And that is why they're left vaguely venting their emotions against the person, or blindly shooting off-topic talking points at him, rather than trying to rebut the substance. I think it also helps to explain the success of politicians who specialize in generically invoking an us-versus-them emotional response. And it explains why conservative and liberal movements just talk right past each other. I'm not sure how we fix the educational system without fixing our politics, but it may be impossible to fix our politics without first fixing our educational system. We'll just keep talking past each other, with over 50% of the participants in the national dialogue not even comprehending the arguments.

Your use of "I don't mean that..." equates to apophasis, a poor debate technique.

 

[Arkady]

Your use of "I don't mean that..." equates to apophasis, a poor debate technique.

Incorrect, but it's helpful that you made this claim, because it's illustrative of my point. Anyone with decent reading skills can go back through my posting history and find my use of that phrase and see that it is not used as aophasis, but rather is used to head off likely misreadings, just as I suggested. But for someone, like yourself, whose reading proficiency is very poor, that wont' be clear. I'm honestly not sure how to handle that. It takes years to learn to read well, and if you didn't put that effort in during grade school, middle school, and high school, it seems unlikely I can help you to make up for that past laziness now.

 

[Dino]

Incorrect, but it's helpful that you made this claim, because it's illustrative of my point. Anyone with decent reading skills can go back through my posting history and find my use of that phrase and see that it is not used as aophasis, but rather is used to head off likely misreadings, just as I suggested. But for someone, like yourself, whose reading proficiency is very poor, that wont' be clear. I'm honestly not sure how to handle that. It takes years to learn to read well, and if you didn't put that effort in during grade school, middle school, and high school, it seems unlikely I can help you to make up for that past laziness now.

You're insults, though amusing, are a defensive cover. You've been outed PLENTY of times as a partisan hack, no matter how well-spoken. Talking fancy doesn't make you an objective poster. You're not neutral nor politically central and squawking won't change it.
That's why you receive criticism, not some dull misreadings of your "brilliance".
Get over yourself.

 

[Arkady]

You're insults, though amusing, are a defensive cover. You've been outed PLENTY of times as a partisan hack, no matter how well-spoken. Talking fancy doesn't make you an objective poster. You're not neutral nor politically central and squawking won't change it.
That's why you receive criticism, not some dull misreadings of your "brilliance".
Get over yourself.

Don't be too discouraged. There are adult literacy courses available. Unless you're actually suffering from some sort of mental problem, it's probably just a matter of putting in the time and effort to get up-to-speed.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

When readers have responded to my posts in a way that shows they didn't follow the argument, I've simply urged them to reread. This hasn't worked. People don't like to admit they have poor reading comprehension skills, and so it takes a lot of pride-swallowing to go back and reread a piece and then admit your hot take was based on a misunderstanding of the person's argument. But I'm not sure what the alternative is.

I try to write simply, and one of the reasons I'm so long-winded is that I will come at the same point from three or four directions, to try to make sure people get it. I'll also couch my points in layers of caveats to preempt the most obvious likely misreadings. My posts include a lot of superfluous "I'm not saying" sentences, that are only there because I know some careless or unskilled readers would otherwise assume that's exactly what I'm saying. The more I try to "idiot-proof" what I write, that way, the longer it gets, and the more I risk something being misread simply because people resort to skimming.

I bring this up here because I think poor reading comprehension isn't just a problem on this forum -- I think it's a problem with the American political system generally. Over 50% of students at four-year colleges lack the literacy skills needed to perform complex literacy tasks like understanding the arguments of a newspaper editorial:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10928755/...ollege-literacy-levels-sobering/#.VknaT3arTcu

Only about 13% of American adults can handle prose at a "proficient" level:

https://nces.ed.gov/naal/kf_demographics.asp

This helps to explain why people on forums like this react to postings in a way that shows they've identified what general side of the culture war someone is on, but not the details of his argument. And that is why they're left vaguely venting their emotions against the person, or blindly shooting off-topic talking points at him, rather than trying to rebut the substance. I think it also helps to explain the success of politicians who specialize in generically invoking an us-versus-them emotional response. And it explains why conservative and liberal movements just talk right past each other. I'm not sure how we fix the educational system without fixing our politics, but it may be impossible to fix our politics without first fixing our educational system. We'll just keep talking past each other, with over 50% of the participants in the national dialogue not even comprehending the arguments.

Some of them have reading comprehension problems - no doubt - but that is secondary to their real problem.

They are cultists in the truest sense of the word. Cultists do not respond to facts, logic or reason. If they understand what you say but it doesn't advance the GOP cult and their ideology, they ignore it or distort it. They have literally been brainwashed by the right wing echo chamber. Brainwashed people have no interest in honestly evaluating anything.

 

[Boca]

You're insults, though amusing, are a defensive cover.

Note the insults in his response. And he talks about your mental problem....what a hoot?

 

[Dino]

Don't be too discouraged. There are adult literacy courses available. Unless you're actually suffering from some sort of mental problem, it's probably just a matter of putting in the time and effort to get up-to-speed.

Won't dignify that with a response.
Sore huh?

 

[Arkady]

Won't dignify that with a response.
Sore huh?

Just trying to be helpful. Until you get up to at least about a fifth-grade reading level, there's no hope of you being able to engage substantively with my contributions. Although I make an honest effort to keep my writing at a level where it's easy to read, I just don't think I can dip below that level without abandoning important concepts.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

When readers have responded to my posts in a way that shows they didn't follow the argument, I've simply urged them to reread. This hasn't worked. People don't like to admit they have poor reading comprehension skills, and so it takes a lot of pride-swallowing to go back and reread a piece and then admit your hot take was based on a misunderstanding of the person's argument. But I'm not sure what the alternative is.

I try to write simply, and one of the reasons I'm so long-winded is that I will come at the same point from three or four directions, to try to make sure people get it. I'll also couch my points in layers of caveats to preempt the most obvious likely misreadings. My posts include a lot of superfluous "I'm not saying" sentences, that are only there because I know some careless or unskilled readers would otherwise assume that's exactly what I'm saying. The more I try to "idiot-proof" what I write, that way, the longer it gets, and the more I risk something being misread simply because people resort to skimming.

I bring this up here because I think poor reading comprehension isn't just a problem on this forum -- I think it's a problem with the American political system generally. Over 50% of students at four-year colleges lack the literacy skills needed to perform complex literacy tasks like understanding the arguments of a newspaper editorial:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10928755/...ollege-literacy-levels-sobering/#.VknaT3arTcu

Only about 13% of American adults can handle prose at a "proficient" level:

https://nces.ed.gov/naal/kf_demographics.asp

This helps to explain why people on forums like this react to postings in a way that shows they've identified what general side of the culture war someone is on, but not the details of his argument. And that is why they're left vaguely venting their emotions against the person, or blindly shooting off-topic talking points at him, rather than trying to rebut the substance. I think it also helps to explain the success of politicians who specialize in generically invoking an us-versus-them emotional response. And it explains why conservative and liberal movements just talk right past each other. I'm not sure how we fix the educational system without fixing our politics, but it may be impossible to fix our politics without first fixing our educational system. We'll just keep talking past each other, with over 50% of the participants in the national dialogue not even comprehending the arguments.

You sound like a lousy comedian blaming the audience for not getting his jokes. And if you think Dino's reading skills are below fifth grade level, it's clear the issue is with your interpretation and your writing rather than your audience.

Frankly, your posts remind me of books like Atlas Shrugged. That lady could have written that book in one third the pages. I remember it took her 50 pages to get the story started.

You should try huffing and puffing less, that would help.

 

[PhilFish]

Solving the education gap is a big hurdle. Meanwhile, journalistic standards continue to diminish to keep up with the appalling decline in comprehension as a whole...

Christ, newspapers already write for what, a 6th grade comprehension level

 

[Caroljo]

Some of them have reading comprehension problems - no doubt - but that is secondary to their real problem.

They are cultists in the truest sense of the word. Cultists do not respond to facts, logic or reason. If they understand what you say but it doesn't advance the GOP cult and their ideology, they ignore it or distort it. They have literally been brainwashed by the right wing echo chamber. Brainwashed people have no interest in honestly evaluating anything.

You just perfectly described liberals....good job!

 

[Arkady]

You sound like a lousy comedian blaming the audience for not getting his jokes.

Put a good comedian in front of a classroom of fourth-graders, and he's going to have to resort to some really dumb jokes if he wants to get a laugh. Smart jokes only work with a smart audience. The same is true of smart writing generally.

 

[Arkady]

Solving the education gap is a big hurdle. Meanwhile, journalistic standards continue to diminish to keep up with the appalling decline in comprehension as a whole...

Christ, newspapers already write for what, a 6th grade comprehension level

Yeah. Depending on the newspaper, they're written for anything between about fourth and seventh grade. Yet, they're still written over the reading level of the average adult. It's sad.

I taught for the Princeton Review, for a while, doing SAT test-prep. The most surprising thing for me was the reading comprehension section. I'd assumed that the problem was mostly a vocabulary issue -- that once we taught the students the most common "SAT Words" (mid-level vocabulary like "virtuoso" or "ambivalence"), they'd be able to figure out the reading selections. But even when the students understood every single word in the text, somehow a lot of them couldn't understand the meaning of the text taken as a whole.

For example, there'd be a little paragraph where the argument was that the Impressionists moved away from realistic portrayals of nature because they knew they couldn't compete with the camera when it came to realism, and so they instead sought to capture the impression of light and color in a way the camera can't. And then there'd be five multiple-choice options to summarize the central point of the selection. Four of the options would be plainly ridiculous ("Impressionist paintings are really pretty." "Monet didn't like cameras," "Painting in nature is good for the health," "there's no reason to buy paintings now that there are photographs"). There'd be only one even remotely decent option ("Impressionism was a response to the development of the camera.") Yet, somehow, half the class would pick one of the ridiculous options, despite understanding every individual word in the sentence. To this day, I have trouble understanding that. And these weren't unmotivated kids. They were college-bound kids who cared enough about the test that they were spending their evenings in an expensive prep class looking for an edge. They really wanted to understand, but couldn't.

 

[PhilFish]

Yeah. Depending on the newspaper, they're written for anything between about fourth and seventh grade. Yet, they're still written over the reading level of the average adult. It's sad.

I taught for the Princeton Review, for a while, doing SAT test-prep. The most surprising thing for me was the reading comprehension section. I'd assumed that the problem was mostly a vocabulary issue -- that once we taught the students the most common "SAT Words" (mid-level vocabulary like "virtuoso" or "ambivalence"), they'd be able to figure out the reading selections. But even when the students understood every single word in the text, somehow a lot of them couldn't understand the meaning of the text taken as a whole.

For example, there'd be a little paragraph where the argument was that the Impressionists moved away from realistic portrayals of nature because they knew they couldn't compete with the camera when it came to realism, and so they instead sought to capture the impression of light and color in a way the camera can't. And then there'd be five multiple-choice options to summarize the central point of the selection. Four of the options would be plainly ridiculous ("Impressionist paintings are really pretty." "Monet didn't like cameras," "Painting in nature is good for the health," "there's no reason to buy paintings now that there are photographs"). There'd be only one even remotely decent option ("Impressionism was a response to the development of the camera.") Yet, somehow, half the class would pick one of the ridiculous options, despite understanding every individual word in the sentence. To this day, I have trouble understanding that. And these weren't unmotivated kids. They were college-bound kids who cared enough about the test that they were spending their evenings in an expensive prep class looking for an edge. They really wanted to understand, but couldn't.

And you describe the motivated kids. Imagine the gap for the less than motivated.. it's staggering.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

You just perfectly described liberals....good job!

When we get "I know you are but what am I," we can safely conclude that we have won the debate.

;-)

 

[Arkady]

And you describe the motivated kids. Imagine the gap for the less than motivated.. it's staggering.

Yeah. It was depressing to think that's the level I was seeing with motivated, college-bound kids. I can only imagine what the majority are like.

 

[PhilFish]

Yeah. It was depressing to think that's the level I was seeing with motivated, college-bound kids. I can only imagine what the majority are like.

Dumber than a post. A lot of them.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Dumber than a post. A lot of them.

My mother said I must always be intolerant of ignorance but understanding of illiteracy. That some people, unable to go to school, were more educated and more intelligent than college professors.

-Maya Angelou

 

[Max R.]

You're insults, though amusing, are a defensive cover. You've been outed PLENTY of times as a partisan hack, no matter how well-spoken. Talking fancy doesn't make you an objective poster. You're not neutral nor politically central and squawking won't change it.
That's why you receive criticism, not some dull misreadings of your "brilliance".
Get over yourself.

Agreed.....and the proof you are correct? Right here:

Don't be too discouraged. There are adult literacy courses available. Unless you're actually suffering from some sort of mental problem, it's probably just a matter of putting in the time and effort to get up-to-speed.