Borders - the end

[j3067]

I would say that I read for pleasure because my parents have always read for pleasure. I learned the mechanics of reading at school, but I learned to love reading at home. I don't think schools and the educational system should be made to shoulder all of the blame for any decline, real or perceived, in literary appreciation.

 

[Idran]

I won't say there's hard evidence of a more illiterate civilization, but there's anecdotal evidence all around.

But like I said earlier, for this kind of thing anecdotal evidence is completely useless. Humans are really, really bad at telling apart fake patterns from real ones, or even nonexistant patterns from existant ones. That's the whole reason there are double-blind studies and the like, to make up for our deficiencies.

No amount of anecdotal evidence could tell us anything about literacy rates for exactly that reason.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I would say that I read for pleasure because my parents have always read for pleasure. I learned the mechanics of reading at school, but I learned to love reading at home.

All of us who love reading can probably remember the unique inspiration that worked for us. Modeled behaviour is of huge importance, but for everyone who remembers someone at home setting that example, someone else will pinpoint a particular teacher, a public librarian or a neighbour who switched them on to recreational reading.

 

[BrotherBenny]

I won't say there's hard evidence of a more illiterate civilization, but there's anecdotal evidence all around.

But like I said earlier, for this kind of thing anecdotal evidence is completely useless. Humans are really, really bad at telling apart fake patterns from real ones, or even nonexistant patterns from existant ones. That's the whole reason there are double-blind studies and the like, to make up for our deficiencies.

No amount of anecdotal evidence could tell us anything about literacy rates for exactly that reason.

If I can tell you that two people out of my class at school in the UK (at age 16) could barely read, that's anecdotal evidence. I know seven others in my year (from five other classes) who also could barely read, that's 9 out of 180, or 5%.

Now extrapolate that to the 1300 or so secondary schools in Britain - - 9x1300=11,700 boys and girls who can barely read when they finish school and go on to have approximately 2.5 children = 29,250 children of the next generation who probably won't have any interest in reading. And so on.

 

[Idran]

I won't say there's hard evidence of a more illiterate civilization, but there's anecdotal evidence all around.

But like I said earlier, for this kind of thing anecdotal evidence is completely useless. Humans are really, really bad at telling apart fake patterns from real ones, or even nonexistant patterns from existant ones. That's the whole reason there are double-blind studies and the like, to make up for our deficiencies.

No amount of anecdotal evidence could tell us anything about literacy rates for exactly that reason.

If I can tell you that two people out of my class at school in the UK (at age 16) could barely read, that's anecdotal evidence. I know seven others in my year (from five other classes) who also could barely read, that's 9 out of 180, or 5%.

Now extrapolate that to the 1300 or so secondary schools in Britain - - 9x1300=11,700 boys and girls who can barely read when they finish school and go on to have approximately 2.5 children = 29,250 children of the next generation who probably won't have any interest in reading. And so on.

Except you don't have any statistical basis for knowing that it's reasonable to extrapolate from that, because you have no way of knowing that your school is representative. Any statements like that would have to be randomized over a representative cross-section of the UK population and controlled for possibly confounding variables. With your example, just off the top of my head, not only is it restricted in geography and quite possibly social class (considering that overall, upper and lower class students would tend to be found in differing schools), but it's in fact likely that students of low literacy in any nation would be concentrated in a few schools because poor education is one of the major causes for illiteracy.

That's why whenever possible you have to make random selection, because otherwise it's quite possible that other confounding factors could be biasing the results of the survey. All that can really tell you is an estimate of the literacy rate in the general area where you and your friends went to school. And even taking all that into account, your anecdotal evidence still suggests a literacy rate of 95% overall, which is not that bad. (As for statistical evidence, studies in the UK have also given a literacy rate of somewhere between 99 and 100%, same as most every other first world nation.)

There's some other problems with the rest of your analysis too. First, you're assuming that having parents of low literacy necessarily implies having children of low literacy, which I would want to see some evidence for beyond any sort of common sense-based reasoning before I agreed. I'd agree that they would tend to have children of low literacy, but I dunno if I'd say they would even probably lack interest in reading (at least, assuming that by probably you mean "a significant majority", and not something on the order of 50%+1). I mean, that would essentially be the same as saying encouraging reading amongst children of low literacy parents is completely useless.

Second, by just multiplying the number of low literacy students by the number of children per couple (not per person), that's equivalent to assuming that every single low literacy person would have children with someone of high literacy which is very unlikely; the other extreme (also unlikely, though very slightly less so) would be that only people of low literacy would intermarry, giving a result based on your 2.5 children per couple figure (itself incorrect, as figures from 2009 indicate the average fertility rate in the UK is around 1.66 children per couple; even 40 years ago it was only 2.0) of 15000, which means that your figure should be a range somewhere between 15000 and 29000, and most likely towards the low end considering the correlation of low literacy and low social class, and the overall tendency for marriages to occur within social class. Now, it is true that birthrate tends to be higher for people in lower classes, and so for the same reason low literacy couples would probably have an average fertility rate higher than the national average, but I'd be surprised if it was still as high as 2.5; pretty much every first world nation has an average fertility rate hovering around the 1.5-2.0 range, and class divisions aren't yet that extreme in the UK so far as I'm aware.

 

[Christopher]

There's some other problems with the rest of your analysis too. First, you're assuming that having parents of low literacy necessarily implies having children of low literacy, which I would want to see some evidence for beyond any sort of common sense-based reasoning before I agreed. I'd agree that they would tend to have children of low literacy, but I dunno if I'd say they would even probably lack interest in reading (at least, assuming that by probably you mean "a significant majority", and not something on the order of 50%+1). I mean, that would essentially be the same as saying encouraging reading amongst children of low literacy parents is completely useless.

This isn't a statistically rigorous point, but it seems to me that a lot of children are motivated by a desire not to be like their parents -- and a lot of parents encourage their children not to repeat their mistakes. So it's not a given that low literacy in the parents would carry down to their children, although certainly it would create a hurdle (since being read to by one's parents or caregivers is the best way to learn to read).

 

[Thrawn]

^ I've certainly taught students that've gone on to Dartmouth or Harvard that have parents that can't speak English, read English or Spanish, or use a computer at all. Again, anecdotes aren't statistically significant, but it happens.

 

[Steve Roby]

I would say that I read for pleasure because my parents have always read for pleasure. I learned the mechanics of reading at school, but I learned to love reading at home. I don't think schools and the educational system should be made to shoulder all of the blame for any decline, real or perceived, in literary appreciation.

I second that emotion. I was fascinated by books long before I could read, and I was hooked on reading well before school.

Typical pose, apparently...

 

[BrotherBenny]

It's been my experience that those of low literacy do not actually care about the children they have, allowing them to run amok - as evidenced by the riots currently occurring in my former city. How many of those youths destroying property in London have any interest in reading and being productive members of society?

 

[Christopher]

^I'm sorry, but that kind of blanket stereotyping is never valid. You're giving into emotion and fear and lashing out irrationally at the thing you feel frightened by. That's not a legitimate analysis of the facts. Strong emotions may make something feel true and meaningful, but they're really more likely to blind you to objective reality.

I mean, how do you actually know that the rioters are less literate than you? Some of them probably are, but others probably read a great deal and are motivated to anger because of things they've read, writings of philosophers or revolutionaries calling for social change, news reports about corruption in government, that sort of thing. You're only making guesses about their background and motives based on impulsive generalizations. You don't have any hard data to go on. And that's just stereotyping. I've heard some very ugly classist and probably racist rhetoric directed at the rioters from people who really should know better, and that's anger and fear talking. I think you need to go watch "Day of the Dove" and "Past Tense" to remind yourself of a few things.

 

[BrotherBenny]

^I'm sorry, but that kind of blanket stereotyping is never valid. You're giving into emotion and fear and lashing out irrationally at the thing you feel frightened by. That's not a legitimate analysis of the facts. Strong emotions may make something feel true and meaningful, but they're really more likely to blind you to objective reality.

I mean, how do you actually know that the rioters are less literate than you? Some of them probably are, but others probably read a great deal and are motivated to anger because of things they've read, writings of philosophers or revolutionaries calling for social change, news reports about corruption in government, that sort of thing. You're only making guesses about their background and motives based on impulsive generalizations. You don't have any hard data to go on. And that's just stereotyping. I've heard some very ugly classist and probably racist rhetoric directed at the rioters from people who really should know better, and that's anger and fear talking. I think you need to go watch "Day of the Dove" and "Past Tense" to remind yourself of a few things.

I am neither angry nor fearful of the rioters. I actually pity them because when all is said and done, they will have to live with their actions for the rest of their lives, as will their families. The ones I feel most sorry for are the homeowners and business owners who lost everything because of the stupidity of the mob mentality. I doubt any of the rioters read philosophy or even know what a revolutionary is, but basing their actions on the media is quite possible. The media are making the situation worse, as they often do, usually inadvertently.

 

[Thrawn]

It's been my experience that those of low literacy do not actually care about the children they have, allowing them to run amok - as evidenced by the riots currently occurring in my former city. How many of those youths destroying property in London have any interest in reading and being productive members of society?

This is such total, utter, stereotyping bullshit. Complete and total. I teach high school in inner city DC (formerly LA), and work with parents in poverty trying to do the best for their kids every day. The amount to which you are wrong is staggering and borderline offensive.

I'll stop there before I write something that'll get me a warning.

 

[BrotherBenny]

It's been my experience that those of low literacy do not actually care about the children they have, allowing them to run amok - as evidenced by the riots currently occurring in my former city. How many of those youths destroying property in London have any interest in reading and being productive members of society?

This is such total, utter, stereotyping bullshit. Complete and total. I teach high school in inner city DC (formerly LA), and work with parents in poverty trying to do the best for their kids every day. The amount to which you are wrong is staggering and borderline offensive.

I'll stop there before I write something that'll get me a warning.

Thrawn, I apologize for offending you, but I was referring to my experience of low literacy parents in the area of London, England where I grew up. They don't give a crap about what their kids are up to, often allowing them to be out and causing trouble into the early hours of the morning - this includes 13yo kids. And I'm not talking about people in poverty, who might well be well read, I'm talking about parents who do not read at all, this can include the middle-class as well.

http://rosamicula.livejournal.com/540476.html

 

[Thrawn]

^ And it's been my experience that there's no correlation between being a great or shitty parent and being able or not able to read. And I've worked with about 600 families now. What's your sample size?

 

[DimesDan]

It's been my experience that those of low literacy do not actually care about the children they have, allowing them to run amok - as evidenced by the riots currently occurring in my former city.

That is a massive pile of bollocks.

If you actually paid attention, you would know that it is the minority NOT majority of people living in London and other cities across England that have been involved in the utterly mindless violence and destruction, NOT rioting, making such a blanket generalisation is not helpful, it only serves to further push them into this corner. It is like saying that all Muslims are terrorists, you look at them that way, you treat them like that, either consciously or sub-consciously, it will only make them retreat into that stereotype and thus make things worse.

Yes things need to be changed, as the DHiC (Dickhead in Chief aka The Prime Minister) said early, there are pockets of English society that are sick, when something is sick, you try and fix it and after decades of society becoming sicker and sicker, hopefully a cure can be found, but with people like you making such generalisations, we don't have a chance in hell.

I say this having lived in one of the most deprived areas of Wiltshire and attending one of the most underperforming comprehensive schools in the South West.

 

[Thrawn]

http://rosamicula.livejournal.com/540476.html

Read the last three paragraphs of that again, please, then come talk to me.

 

[BrotherBenny]

Dimesdan, I'm well aware that it is a minority of people responsible for the rioting and looting. I'm also well aware that Cameron and his cronies are completely useless and powerless, so were Blair and Brown's cronies. Intelligent, well-educated people don't act like idiots on that kind of scale, mob mentality notwithstanding. I've seen that a primary school teaching assistant be involved, guaranteed he probably has nothing more than GCSEs and probably scraped through those. A guy in a BMW looted - just because he's rich enough to afford one, doesn't mean he's smart.

Unless someone shows me proof, I'm not going to believe that any of these people have degrees worth the paper they're written and hold steady jobs, even if they're low paying. Poverty is not an indicator of stupidity, illiteracy and innumeracy are. I would gladly help someone learn to read or write, or add, but they have to want to learn and some of the kids coming out of the education system don't want to because it's easier to leech off the state, not work, get pregnant and have everything handed to you and so on.

My father works in the DWP in the Job Centre and he has seen everything, even some of the kids I went to school with who need help filling in the forms because they don't understand English. I'm 29 now and so are they, if not 30 or older, and that is a damning indictment of the British education system and the Government that run it. Perhaps I'm generalizing or tarring them all with the same brush but in my view they deserve it.

 

[DimesDan]

Perhaps I'm generalizing or tarring them all with the same brush but in my view they deserve it.

In English, the English you were taught at school, generalisation is not spelt with a Z, it is in fact spelt with an S.

To make such a basic mistake and amusing error when harping on about others illiteracy and the failures of the National Curriculum as set out by the Department of Education is just really funny given you seem to actually believe in the bollocks you are ignorantly producing and as I have already said, you cast these individuals in this way, you degrade them, you make them feel like shite, they will just think they are and act like they are because they are worthless.

Yes the country is broken and sick (to paraphrase the DHiC) and now that the country has been so rudely informed of something which to be honest was an open secret, it is a real opportunity to address this and actually change how people see themselves etc.

But with people like you with your position on the matter, things may very well stay the same or even get worse. I just hope that you no longer have the right to vote here.

 

[Idran]

But with people like you with your position on the matter, things may very well stay the same or even get worse. I just hope that you no longer have the right to vote here.

Hey now, Dimesdan, that's a bit far. You might disagree with the ridiculous, stereotyping nonsense he's saying about the rioters, but disenfranchisement isn't the answer. Everyone should have the right to make their opinion heard in government, even the worst opinions. The alternative is a poor road to go down.

 

[BrotherBenny]

Dimesdan, get off your high horse. I'm living in America now and generalising is spelled with a z. It's not a spelling mistake.

I hope to God I am wrong about these people, but they have to show me I'm wrong. If they don't want to feel like shite, they shouldn't act like idiots. It is not my intent to demoralize them (another s into z word, tut tut, bad English ) but they deserve what they get for acting in such a manner, regardless of how well read they are.

I'll concede the point. Now, I'm done derailing this thread so let's get back on topic. The end of Borders is not a bad thing as it will get the publishers to seriously rethink things, or at least it should. The independents are fighting to stay alive and they're doing a good job of it for the most part. B&N is around now because they diversified and the eBook revolution will create a new publishing industry out of the ashes of the old. Music is still around in analog and digital forms, books will be too.