Four out of Ten American Youths Never Read Any Books

It wasn't reading books, I can tell you that.

Their loss. In this electronic age, there are even some great options to read books in the form of Kindle and ebooks, which are often cheaper than paperbacks/hardbacks.

TheoryofForms said:

Their loss. In this electronic age, there are even some great options to read books in the form of Kindle and ebooks, which are often cheaper than paperbacks/hardbacks.

Click to expand...

I wonder how many books worth of whatsapp messages they read each month.

That sucks. Books are so much more intimate than movies. With books, the communities of people who have experienced them are smaller and more informal. Books are also usually the idea of one person's brilliant writing rather than a group's, and only require one Person to make (but more to publish, of course). You also find content you can't find in movies--taboo things that still can't be done in film today happen in books. They can be darker and grittier than most movies ever will be. Not that movies are bad--they are quicker and capture your imagination just as well if not better--but books have their own charm to them.

Martin Tom said:

Among Americans aged 18 to 24, four out of ten never read any books — fiction or non-fiction — unless required for work or school. As for news, the majority of people under 30 are not paying attention at all.
...
Shockingly high percentage - 40% never read any books.
Although the above article was a few years old, I think it's still relevant today.
So what was USA's secret of economic success in the past ?

Click to expand...

The reason for the poor reading habits of the youth is the media. A study was done a few years ago with preschool children. One group of PK were allowed to watch Sponge Bob for half an hour with its very fast cuts and changes. The other group was left to play with blocks. The group that watched Sponge Bob had very short attention spans and were constantly fidgeting, whereas the group that played with blocks sat quietly waiting for their instructions. The real world moves slower than media, so when things don't change the Sponge Bob group lost their attention and looked for something else to entertain them.

Another study compared neural responses in the brain between one group that watched movies and TV and another group that read books. Brain activity became passive in the group that watched TV whereas brain activity in the readers lit up like a light bulb. The conclusion of the study is that it takes more involvement of the mind to read which needs the imagination of the reader unlike watching movies which uses no imagination at all.

America's success began declining with the advent of movies and television. My father, from the depression era generation, always referred to the TV as the boob-tube for people with no imagination.

Attention spans are pretty much nil, nowadays.

I am sort of a trivia whiz, but selectively. People bring up a subject or ask a question, and I often can provide some info or insight. They look at me: "How do you know that?"

"I read," is my answer. Printed books, online books, internet articles, magazines, newspapers, anything and everything.

I learned quite early on that one needs a broad knowledge base in order to understand what is happening in the world, and why. You get that from reading and observing.

I'm generally with you on what most of you are saying, but much of this presents no citation of where it came from, making it debatable accuracy-wise...and even if all accurate, I think some of this is misleading. e.g.:

Martin Tom said:

Among Americans aged 18 to 24, four out of ten never read any books — fiction or non-fiction — unless required for work or school.

Click to expand...

I have to wonder how that compares to years past. I mean cmon, 18-24? Basically college kids and those fresh out. I had plenty of required reading in college and wasn't much for doing extra either.

According to a study conducted by the journal Television Quarterly, only one in 12 adults under 30 reads a daily newspaper. Television newscasts are watched by one in six. Those figures are no surprise, but the study also explodes the myth that the young have simply shifted their news-gathering to the web. In fact, only one out of eight Americans under 30 regularly reads news on the internet. Approximately half of men from 18 to 34, by contrast, spend nearly three hours a day playing video games.

Click to expand...

If true, the no-news stats are disturbing (though not surprising). The video games? eh. Many do that instead of watching TV, and from what I've seen of TV, that's just trading one pile of mental junk food for anonther.

Shockingly high percentage - 40% never read any books.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing "books" only means actual paper book vs electronically, which is again misleading.

So what was USA's secret of economic success in the past ?

Click to expand...

? How's that relevant? The answer is extremely complex and IMO tied little at most to how much younger generations read.

That's sad. Personally, I read as often as I can. Most recently read The Stranger then reread The Plague by Camus, a compilation of short stories by Proust, articles in some of my older (but new to me) Wine Spectators, and did some light research on wood choice in a nice illustrated Big book of Wood I found cheap. That's within the last couple months, at most. And that doesn't include news stories and articles, political commentaries, etc. I found online or through friends. Or the myriad articles on ingredients I have been trying out - lot of Chinese and Korean cooking going on in my kitchen of late.

Not gonna bad mouth TV though, either. I do like to watch historical movies and documentaries quite a bit.

bill5 said:

I have to wonder how that compares to years past. I mean cmon, 18-24? Basically college kids and those fresh out. I had plenty of required reading in college and wasn't much for doing extra either.

Click to expand...

I wonder that too. I mean, in college, I read a LOT. Some for fun, but some semesters I barely had time to read the required materials, let alone extra fun reading. I had one class that required us to read 9 or 10 novels and a collection of poetry in one semester [on top of four other classes worth of textbooks, additional scientific papers and articles, lab manuals and texts, etc.].

I'm guessing "books" only means actual paper book vs electronically, which is again misleading.

Click to expand...

It is, so I would like to know if they included that. I read a lot of my news articles and commentaries, and novels even, on the internet or on my Nook, Kindle app, whatever.

The thing about people my age mianly playing video games irks me. I mean, I do that, too, and sometimes I spend too much time doing that, but I at least try to keep up with what's going on in the world. It always annoys me how people just don't seem to care and would rather entertain themselves then just spend a few minutes figuring out what is going on. But it's not really new. In Ancient Rome people complained that the people only seemed to care about "bread and circuses". All they wanted was to be entertained and they would hadn't have to think about "bad" stuff.

Yeah and look what happened to them. I think the comparison between them and us is scary accurate.

Martin Tom said:

Hello AlexDTX, that's very interesting !
Thank you for sharing it.

Could you please share the link to this research ?

Click to expand...

You are welcome. I also think ADD is a myth that appears to exist because of media conditioning. It gives government schools the excuse to drug up your children with Ritalin, especially the boys who are naturally active anyway.

As opposed to how many adults, I wonder?

This may just be me but I'm just happy that 60% apparently does, from time to time, pick up a book.

AlexDTX said:

You are welcome. I also think ADD is a myth

Click to expand...

ADD is no myth, but I think (like many things today) it is hideously over-diagnosed. Kid is pinging off the walls? Short attention span? Must be ADD! (or "ADHD")

AlexDTX said:

You are welcome. I also think ADD is a myth that appears to exist because of media conditioning. It gives government schools the excuse to drug up your children with Ritalin, especially the boys who are naturally active anyway.

Click to expand...

That claim is false if only because if you feed Ritalin to someone who does not have AD(H)D they'll get even more hyperactive and that is not what schools want.

People with AD(H)D have brains that are slow to process stimuli. Ritalin and other related drugs speed up the brain, helping it cope. If you give Ritalin to someone whose brain processes things at a normal rate they'll turn into hyperactive squirrels.

AlexDTX said:

The reason for the poor reading habits of the youth is the media. A study was done a few years ago with preschool children. One group of PK were allowed to watch Sponge Bob for half an hour with its very fast cuts and changes. The other group was left to play with blocks. The group that watched Sponge Bob had very short attention spans and were constantly fidgeting, whereas the group that played with blocks sat quietly waiting for their instructions. The real world moves slower than media, so when things don't change the Sponge Bob group lost their attention and looked for something else to entertain them.

Another study compared neural responses in the brain between one group that watched movies and TV and another group that read books. Brain activity became passive in the group that watched TV whereas brain activity in the readers lit up like a light bulb. The conclusion of the study is that it takes more involvement of the mind to read which needs the imagination of the reader unlike watching movies which uses no imagination at all.

America's success began declining with the advent of movies and television. My father, from the depression era generation, always referred to the TV as the boob-tube for people with no imagination.

Click to expand...

As a "millennial" who grew up watching Spongebob I can attest to its hyperactivity (although due to nostalgia the older seasons are still watchable for me). But I don't think it's just spongebob alone. Entertainment has been "speeding up" since radio, I believe. For centuries all we had were books, where you could read at your own pace, finishing something in an hour or years because you never went back to reading for a while. Starting with radio, the entertainment (either a song or a radio play) was occurring without you having to focus on it. The audience took on a more passive role. Then movies were popular (silent films tended to be short, and even modern movies are usually around 90 minutes). Television programs came next and tended to be thirty minutes or an hour, including commercial breaks. Episodes of cartoons tend to be 11 minutes! Then came Youtube videos, which, depending on content, can be even shorter. And then vines, which are only ten seconds!

So you can see how books have the disadvantage of being the "slowest" to consume because the audience (reader, in this case) has to actively focus on the work rather than just letting the entertainment come to them. It also doesn't help that many schools have required reading and the teachers do not have the resources or time to discuss whatever literature they are going over in-depth.

I'm in a class right now that is discussing the Iliad and the Odyssey. We're going over the whole thing and just mainly talking about it. The way the class is set up has made me really enjoy the Iliad (which I believe would make a great mini-series--it even has books to divide it up into episodes!) but the only reason I can enjoy it is because I am taking a class to help me along with it. I don't need that for every book I read, but the older a book is (and many required reading books are "old") the more cultural context is required to understand it, and the more a teacher has to know what they're talking about.

bill5 said:

ADD is no myth, but I think (like many things today) it is hideously over-diagnosed. Kid is pinging off the walls? Short attention span? Must be ADD! (or "ADHD")

Click to expand...

Definitely a controversial topic. I agree it is over diagnosed, but I still believe it is a "myth" in the sense of it being an organic and physical problem. I think environment and cultivated bad habits are more the source of behavior. My wife claims she is ADD but I don't believe it. I believe she had developed very bad attention habits throughout her life. I also work with preschool children and parents are quick to call them ADD when they are just kids. PK boys are especially singled out when all boys are energetic. But this is not a point I intend to argue, just an observation I am making.