The Country That Stopped Reading(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
The Country That Stopped Reading
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/opinion/the-country-that-stopped-reading.html
15 comments
>Are you fucking kidding me? Does this guy understand that a narco fueled civil war is currently being waged throughout Mexico with nearly 60K deaths in the last 5 years
The author, David Toscana, is a Mexican novelist living in Monterrey. So yeah, I think he probably has some inkling of that. It's hardly surprising that a novelist would be concerned about the lack of interest in literature in his home country and that he might attribute rather more importance to that than is strictly speaking justifiable.
Also, this is an op-ed, it's not an article and it doesn't represent either the opinion of the newspaper or the facts as reported by their journalists.
The author, David Toscana, is a Mexican novelist living in Monterrey. So yeah, I think he probably has some inkling of that. It's hardly surprising that a novelist would be concerned about the lack of interest in literature in his home country and that he might attribute rather more importance to that than is strictly speaking justifiable.
Also, this is an op-ed, it's not an article and it doesn't represent either the opinion of the newspaper or the facts as reported by their journalists.
I had completely the opposite reaction to you. I thought this was a lovely, heartfelt, clearly-written article. I especially enjoyed the final paragraph - "We know that books give people ambitions, expectations, a sense of dignity" - he nailed the power of books for me.
As far as the lack of concrete statistics - well, I don't know about you, but until I hear a more-convincing alternate take, I'm going to take his word for it. He clearly knows more about Mexico than me. And his examples are pretty powerful - walking through a giant camp filled with striking teachers, examples of the behaviour of individual teachers, the attitude of the State Minister for Education.
And why can't a raging narco war be linked in a small manner to a population lacking imagination, sensitivity and the ability to forge new economic pathways, linked back to a lack of interest in reading? Is that an offensive notion to entertain or something? It's not like you have to ignore other factors like the adjacent drug market, is it? Alternately, why can't these two problems - trafficking and bad education - both be afflicting Mexico simultaneously, feeding off of and reinforcing each other?
I mean, seriously, why don't you just chill the fuck out and enjoy the article on its own merits, rather than imposing completely ridiculous standards on it? Do you have more experience of and personal involvement in Mexico than this author?
As far as the lack of concrete statistics - well, I don't know about you, but until I hear a more-convincing alternate take, I'm going to take his word for it. He clearly knows more about Mexico than me. And his examples are pretty powerful - walking through a giant camp filled with striking teachers, examples of the behaviour of individual teachers, the attitude of the State Minister for Education.
And why can't a raging narco war be linked in a small manner to a population lacking imagination, sensitivity and the ability to forge new economic pathways, linked back to a lack of interest in reading? Is that an offensive notion to entertain or something? It's not like you have to ignore other factors like the adjacent drug market, is it? Alternately, why can't these two problems - trafficking and bad education - both be afflicting Mexico simultaneously, feeding off of and reinforcing each other?
I mean, seriously, why don't you just chill the fuck out and enjoy the article on its own merits, rather than imposing completely ridiculous standards on it? Do you have more experience of and personal involvement in Mexico than this author?
These are not good forms of reasoning. You have here committed several fallacies that are very common and very worrying, as they tend to lead to the public adoption of poorly reasoned explanations and baseless facts. This is not an attack on you personally.
> As far as the lack of concrete statistics - well, I don't know about you, but until I hear a more-convincing alternate take, I'm going to take his word for it.
It is still a mystery how life originated on Earth. I know you will enjoy my theory about how the unicorns did it.
No. No you won't. I am sure you know that this is a ridiculous argument to make. The fact that you have not heard a better explanation is a terrible reason to accept another explanation. Cogency does not imply correctness.
> I mean, seriously, why don't you just chill the fuck out and enjoy the article on its own merits, rather than imposing completely ridiculous standards on it?
There is no such thing as "its own merits". That is doublespeak for "do not judge it at all". Either it meets the standards of good reasoning, data presentation, and research, or it doesn't You cannot say that it has it own standards for these things that we the reader are forced to accept.
> Do you have more experience of and personal involvement in Mexico than this author?
Again, this is not a sensible argument. It does not matter to me that my doctor has had cancer before he treats me for cancer. Engineers at NASA did not personally need to visit the moon before they were able to engineer the moon lander. You do not need personal experience with phenomena to understand them. In fact, personal experience with a thing can lead to horrible mistakes in understanding and judgment backed up by the fallacy that because they come from personal experience, they are especially valid.
> As far as the lack of concrete statistics - well, I don't know about you, but until I hear a more-convincing alternate take, I'm going to take his word for it.
It is still a mystery how life originated on Earth. I know you will enjoy my theory about how the unicorns did it.
No. No you won't. I am sure you know that this is a ridiculous argument to make. The fact that you have not heard a better explanation is a terrible reason to accept another explanation. Cogency does not imply correctness.
> I mean, seriously, why don't you just chill the fuck out and enjoy the article on its own merits, rather than imposing completely ridiculous standards on it?
There is no such thing as "its own merits". That is doublespeak for "do not judge it at all". Either it meets the standards of good reasoning, data presentation, and research, or it doesn't You cannot say that it has it own standards for these things that we the reader are forced to accept.
> Do you have more experience of and personal involvement in Mexico than this author?
Again, this is not a sensible argument. It does not matter to me that my doctor has had cancer before he treats me for cancer. Engineers at NASA did not personally need to visit the moon before they were able to engineer the moon lander. You do not need personal experience with phenomena to understand them. In fact, personal experience with a thing can lead to horrible mistakes in understanding and judgment backed up by the fallacy that because they come from personal experience, they are especially valid.
P1/1
>The fact that you have not heard a better explanation is a terrible reason to accept another explanation.
I think you're throwing my argument way out of proportion. I wasn't arguing that we should automatically accept everything the link author said was true. Nor that we should run out and build a comprehensive reform package in Mexico based on his say-so. I was arguing that there was enough substance in his opinion piece, and enough reason to believe that he might have a clue about what's up with Mexico, that it was an over-reaction for the parent poster to run out and shit all over the piece like it had no merit. In fact, the more that I think about it, and thanks in no small part to having to refine my arguments to meet your retort, the more I see the parent poster's comment as completely unjustified. Read on to see how I come to this conclusion if you wish.
>There is no such thing as "its own merits". That is doublespeak for "do not judge it at all". Either it meets the standards of good reasoning, data presentation, and research, or it doesn't You cannot say that it has it own standards for these things that we the reader are forced to accept.
Yes, there is such a thing as "its own merits." No, it is not doublespeak for "do not judge it all." I'm all for judging, believe me. I love judging. But the link is an opinion piece. Do I even need to explain this? It's not a scientific article. It's not an extended journalistic essay. It's not a policy recommendation for government. It's not a sociology research project. It's a short, partisan, personal piece of opinion - intended to provoke thought and stir debate - based on a mixture of personal experience, observations and, yes, opinions.
As far as standards are concerned, I would argue that a quality opinion piece should meet these criteria:
1) It should be honest - the author should be clear about their intentions, reason for writing about the subject, any vested interests, etc, and should not be guilty of trying to deceive or manipulate the reader for dubious self-serving purposes.
2) It should be heartfelt - the author should feel strongly about the issue.
3) It should be clear and persuasive.
4) It should have substance - the author should explain clearly the grounds for their views.
5) It should get to the point - an opinion piece should not be (necessarily) an in-depth survey of a subject.
And I would argue that the link meets these criteria without issue. I've read a lot of opinion pieces over the years and this is not out of place by any means. So I don't see what the big goddamn deal is - other than that it's being posted on HN and today someone feels like making a big fuss over what would normally provoke no reaction.
Anyway, maybe it'd be best to attend to the parent post's critique of the link, and assess the claims, arguments and evidence of the link. So, what exactly does the author claim? Well, let's see. He claims:
1) "Nowadays more children attend school than ever before, but they learn much less. They learn almost nothing."
2) "The proportion of the Mexican population that is literate is going up, but in absolute numbers, there are more illiterate people in Mexico now than there were 12 years ago."
3) "Even if baseline literacy, the ability to read a street sign or news bulletin, is rising, the practice of reading an actual book is not."
4) "Once a reasonably well-educated country, Mexico took the penultimate spot, out of 108 countries, in a Unesco assessment of reading habits a few years ago."
5) "Despite recent gains in industrial development and increasing numbers of engineering graduates, Mexico is floundering socially, politically and economically because so many of its citizens do not read"
6) "Sadly, many teachers, who often buy or inherit their jobs, are lacking in education themselves."
7) "In our schools, children are being taught what is easy to teach rather than what they need to learn."
8) "We have turned schools into factories that churn out employees."
9) "With no intellectual challenges, students can advance from one level to the next as long as they attend class and surrender to their teachers."
10) "The educational machine does not need fine-tuning; it needs a complete change of direction. It needs to make students read, read and read."
Right. So all together: though school attendance in Mexico has climbed, students learn almost nothing of real value. Illiteracy* has risen. People may be able to read signs but no one reads books. Mexico used to be well-educated but now performs badly in UNESCO assessments. Mexico is failing to progress as a nation because its people don't read books, have no love of learning, and lack imagination. Teachers are uneducated/lack a spirit of education themselves. Schools require no real effort, just plain attendance, and produce dull people suited for menial employment, not free thinkers. Finally, the educational system needs a total change of character, and needs to focus on making students read books.
>The fact that you have not heard a better explanation is a terrible reason to accept another explanation.
I think you're throwing my argument way out of proportion. I wasn't arguing that we should automatically accept everything the link author said was true. Nor that we should run out and build a comprehensive reform package in Mexico based on his say-so. I was arguing that there was enough substance in his opinion piece, and enough reason to believe that he might have a clue about what's up with Mexico, that it was an over-reaction for the parent poster to run out and shit all over the piece like it had no merit. In fact, the more that I think about it, and thanks in no small part to having to refine my arguments to meet your retort, the more I see the parent poster's comment as completely unjustified. Read on to see how I come to this conclusion if you wish.
>There is no such thing as "its own merits". That is doublespeak for "do not judge it at all". Either it meets the standards of good reasoning, data presentation, and research, or it doesn't You cannot say that it has it own standards for these things that we the reader are forced to accept.
Yes, there is such a thing as "its own merits." No, it is not doublespeak for "do not judge it all." I'm all for judging, believe me. I love judging. But the link is an opinion piece. Do I even need to explain this? It's not a scientific article. It's not an extended journalistic essay. It's not a policy recommendation for government. It's not a sociology research project. It's a short, partisan, personal piece of opinion - intended to provoke thought and stir debate - based on a mixture of personal experience, observations and, yes, opinions.
As far as standards are concerned, I would argue that a quality opinion piece should meet these criteria:
1) It should be honest - the author should be clear about their intentions, reason for writing about the subject, any vested interests, etc, and should not be guilty of trying to deceive or manipulate the reader for dubious self-serving purposes.
2) It should be heartfelt - the author should feel strongly about the issue.
3) It should be clear and persuasive.
4) It should have substance - the author should explain clearly the grounds for their views.
5) It should get to the point - an opinion piece should not be (necessarily) an in-depth survey of a subject.
And I would argue that the link meets these criteria without issue. I've read a lot of opinion pieces over the years and this is not out of place by any means. So I don't see what the big goddamn deal is - other than that it's being posted on HN and today someone feels like making a big fuss over what would normally provoke no reaction.
Anyway, maybe it'd be best to attend to the parent post's critique of the link, and assess the claims, arguments and evidence of the link. So, what exactly does the author claim? Well, let's see. He claims:
1) "Nowadays more children attend school than ever before, but they learn much less. They learn almost nothing."
2) "The proportion of the Mexican population that is literate is going up, but in absolute numbers, there are more illiterate people in Mexico now than there were 12 years ago."
3) "Even if baseline literacy, the ability to read a street sign or news bulletin, is rising, the practice of reading an actual book is not."
4) "Once a reasonably well-educated country, Mexico took the penultimate spot, out of 108 countries, in a Unesco assessment of reading habits a few years ago."
5) "Despite recent gains in industrial development and increasing numbers of engineering graduates, Mexico is floundering socially, politically and economically because so many of its citizens do not read"
6) "Sadly, many teachers, who often buy or inherit their jobs, are lacking in education themselves."
7) "In our schools, children are being taught what is easy to teach rather than what they need to learn."
8) "We have turned schools into factories that churn out employees."
9) "With no intellectual challenges, students can advance from one level to the next as long as they attend class and surrender to their teachers."
10) "The educational machine does not need fine-tuning; it needs a complete change of direction. It needs to make students read, read and read."
Right. So all together: though school attendance in Mexico has climbed, students learn almost nothing of real value. Illiteracy* has risen. People may be able to read signs but no one reads books. Mexico used to be well-educated but now performs badly in UNESCO assessments. Mexico is failing to progress as a nation because its people don't read books, have no love of learning, and lack imagination. Teachers are uneducated/lack a spirit of education themselves. Schools require no real effort, just plain attendance, and produce dull people suited for menial employment, not free thinkers. Finally, the educational system needs a total change of character, and needs to focus on making students read books.
P2/2
Okay. 4 is readily verifiable. 2* and 3 are the kind of claims that generally are best met by counter-argument from experience - i.e., a Mexican reader, or just a reader with relevant knowledge, reads this, and either sighs and nods their head, or they say "hang on a minute, I know lots of Mexicans who love to read!" I.e. if you are in a position to have an experience-based response to this sentiment, it will either strike you as true or not. Don't forget: this article was originally written in Spanish, for a Mexican newspaper. So the author was safe to assume his readers would be able to independently assess and respond to this claim - and hence, in submitting what confluence is arguing is inadequate substantiation, is not breaking the honesty criteria - because you and the other critics here were never the intended audience.
1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 form the bulk of the author's critique, which is cultural: i.e., that people in Mexico do not read for pleasure, are ignorant of the value of reading for pleasure, that the education system is run by and staffed with people who are ignorant of this value too, and produces graduates who are the same. Extended: people who are thus ignorant lack dignity, ambition, expectations, and imagination, and this malaise of ignorance is undermining any and all efforts to achieve true societal progress in Mexico.
Now, cultural critiques such as this are tricky things to justify. Most people have these sorts of feelings - intuitions, senses about the way society is, etc. These feelings are formed from disparate are substantiated through his depictions of schools, students and teachers in Mexico. Toscana, in this instance, offers these illustrations:
1) Perennial attempts to reform education (indicating that education is an acknowledged problem area for the country, but one which thus far has not been satisfactorily addressed.)
2) He witnessed thousands of striking teachers and found them bored and amusing themselves without exception with insipid distractions. 3) He talked to an audience of ~350 young people and only one would admit to liking reading.
4) A teacher whose attitude he found simple-minded expressed a focus on sticking to the script (which he also patently found unimaginative) and told a story which he found overly simplistic to that same audience.
5) A grand plan to encourage reading failed due to a lack of teacher training, and millions of books produced went unused.
6) The education secretary in his home state failed, in a manner he found simple-minded, to understand the distinction between basic literacy and engagement with books, and to understand the value of reading for pleasure.
7) His daughter's literacy teacher dismissed, again in a manner he found simple-minded, the value of fiction books.
So, to sum up, here are the observations he draws upon: his knowledge of the history of government attempts to reform education, his experience of the behaviour of striking teachers, his experience of an audience of schoolchildren, his experience of the behaviour of a teacher at the school where he addressed this audience, his experience interacting with a senior government education official, his observation of his daughter's school experience.
Are these experiences valid grounds for this sort of cultural critique? I would argue that they are - I myself am satisfied. I think, at the very least, the attitude of the Education Secretary is extremely worrying. I would be very concerned if an equivalent official in my government expressed such an attitude, and for my country I would surprised if there were not a spontaneous effort to have such an official removed from office. Anyway, even if you think this evidence is a little weak, they form a perfectly adequate basis for an initial argument. As I noted above, opinion pieces like this are intended to serve as a springboard for further discussion. So they do not need to be completely fleshed out, because they will naturally meet objections and generate further refinements and clarification of the social issue, hopefully generating some action and change, which is the real aim of this article.
A second issue here is this: can we accept the author's experiences as representative, or symbolic, of wider processes at play in Mexico? I am not sure what my response is to this issue - it's something I've thought about quite often in one guise or another, and I'm still clarifying my position on it. But my gut feeling is that we should listen to people's gut feelings. My gut feeling is that yes, the attitude of one audience of schoolchildren in Mexico can speak to a general attitude prevalent across the entire population. Yes, it does matter if an education secretary completely misses the point of literature. And I do think that culture is in some ways remarkably uniform within national boundaries. But all this is perhaps another issue. The worst possiibility I could see here is that Toscana is a bit of an idealist and a dreamer, and the education secretary was really being pragmatic, not foolish. That is possible.
Anyway, just to wrap this up: the real issue here is not whether the author provided enough evidence to justify his claims - I think the real issue is that confluence is acting in an incredibly presumptuous, arrogant manner in dictating that Toscana's opinions are not valid. I think this is a case of cultural imperialism.
Here's why. Confluence is, I assume, not Mexican. I would guess he is American. What he has essentially done is refuse to entertain the notion that the issue Toscana has identified as critical to Mexico is valid. Instead, confluence, an outsider, has imposed on Toscana the issue he knows the most about, and which he thinks is the most important - the narco-war. Toscana sees Mexico as a country in and of itself, and an issue like the imagination, courage, dignity and ambitions of the people of Mexico as of critical importance. Confluence wants to rubbish the notion that any of that could really be important - and instead force the focus back onto Mexico as a tributary of the United States. Perhaps confluence is upset, subconsciously, that Toscana neglects to even mention the United States?
Whatever. I find it insulting that confluence would try and take away a man's right to argue passionately for something he believes so dearly in. And I feel confluence and you both are displaying a lack of sensitivity on this issue. Perhaps you too would benefit from spending some more time reading for pleasure. You might benefit from developing a better understanding of the passions that drive people, and a little more flexibility and softness in reacting to your fellow human being.
*here assuming, I would argue reasonably, that the author is using the word illiteracy to refer not to technical illiteracy but to not caring to read, having no taste for reading, and no understanding of the value of, novels and books.
Okay. 4 is readily verifiable. 2* and 3 are the kind of claims that generally are best met by counter-argument from experience - i.e., a Mexican reader, or just a reader with relevant knowledge, reads this, and either sighs and nods their head, or they say "hang on a minute, I know lots of Mexicans who love to read!" I.e. if you are in a position to have an experience-based response to this sentiment, it will either strike you as true or not. Don't forget: this article was originally written in Spanish, for a Mexican newspaper. So the author was safe to assume his readers would be able to independently assess and respond to this claim - and hence, in submitting what confluence is arguing is inadequate substantiation, is not breaking the honesty criteria - because you and the other critics here were never the intended audience.
1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 form the bulk of the author's critique, which is cultural: i.e., that people in Mexico do not read for pleasure, are ignorant of the value of reading for pleasure, that the education system is run by and staffed with people who are ignorant of this value too, and produces graduates who are the same. Extended: people who are thus ignorant lack dignity, ambition, expectations, and imagination, and this malaise of ignorance is undermining any and all efforts to achieve true societal progress in Mexico.
Now, cultural critiques such as this are tricky things to justify. Most people have these sorts of feelings - intuitions, senses about the way society is, etc. These feelings are formed from disparate are substantiated through his depictions of schools, students and teachers in Mexico. Toscana, in this instance, offers these illustrations:
1) Perennial attempts to reform education (indicating that education is an acknowledged problem area for the country, but one which thus far has not been satisfactorily addressed.)
2) He witnessed thousands of striking teachers and found them bored and amusing themselves without exception with insipid distractions. 3) He talked to an audience of ~350 young people and only one would admit to liking reading.
4) A teacher whose attitude he found simple-minded expressed a focus on sticking to the script (which he also patently found unimaginative) and told a story which he found overly simplistic to that same audience.
5) A grand plan to encourage reading failed due to a lack of teacher training, and millions of books produced went unused.
6) The education secretary in his home state failed, in a manner he found simple-minded, to understand the distinction between basic literacy and engagement with books, and to understand the value of reading for pleasure.
7) His daughter's literacy teacher dismissed, again in a manner he found simple-minded, the value of fiction books.
So, to sum up, here are the observations he draws upon: his knowledge of the history of government attempts to reform education, his experience of the behaviour of striking teachers, his experience of an audience of schoolchildren, his experience of the behaviour of a teacher at the school where he addressed this audience, his experience interacting with a senior government education official, his observation of his daughter's school experience.
Are these experiences valid grounds for this sort of cultural critique? I would argue that they are - I myself am satisfied. I think, at the very least, the attitude of the Education Secretary is extremely worrying. I would be very concerned if an equivalent official in my government expressed such an attitude, and for my country I would surprised if there were not a spontaneous effort to have such an official removed from office. Anyway, even if you think this evidence is a little weak, they form a perfectly adequate basis for an initial argument. As I noted above, opinion pieces like this are intended to serve as a springboard for further discussion. So they do not need to be completely fleshed out, because they will naturally meet objections and generate further refinements and clarification of the social issue, hopefully generating some action and change, which is the real aim of this article.
A second issue here is this: can we accept the author's experiences as representative, or symbolic, of wider processes at play in Mexico? I am not sure what my response is to this issue - it's something I've thought about quite often in one guise or another, and I'm still clarifying my position on it. But my gut feeling is that we should listen to people's gut feelings. My gut feeling is that yes, the attitude of one audience of schoolchildren in Mexico can speak to a general attitude prevalent across the entire population. Yes, it does matter if an education secretary completely misses the point of literature. And I do think that culture is in some ways remarkably uniform within national boundaries. But all this is perhaps another issue. The worst possiibility I could see here is that Toscana is a bit of an idealist and a dreamer, and the education secretary was really being pragmatic, not foolish. That is possible.
Anyway, just to wrap this up: the real issue here is not whether the author provided enough evidence to justify his claims - I think the real issue is that confluence is acting in an incredibly presumptuous, arrogant manner in dictating that Toscana's opinions are not valid. I think this is a case of cultural imperialism.
Here's why. Confluence is, I assume, not Mexican. I would guess he is American. What he has essentially done is refuse to entertain the notion that the issue Toscana has identified as critical to Mexico is valid. Instead, confluence, an outsider, has imposed on Toscana the issue he knows the most about, and which he thinks is the most important - the narco-war. Toscana sees Mexico as a country in and of itself, and an issue like the imagination, courage, dignity and ambitions of the people of Mexico as of critical importance. Confluence wants to rubbish the notion that any of that could really be important - and instead force the focus back onto Mexico as a tributary of the United States. Perhaps confluence is upset, subconsciously, that Toscana neglects to even mention the United States?
Whatever. I find it insulting that confluence would try and take away a man's right to argue passionately for something he believes so dearly in. And I feel confluence and you both are displaying a lack of sensitivity on this issue. Perhaps you too would benefit from spending some more time reading for pleasure. You might benefit from developing a better understanding of the passions that drive people, and a little more flexibility and softness in reacting to your fellow human being.
*here assuming, I would argue reasonably, that the author is using the word illiteracy to refer not to technical illiteracy but to not caring to read, having no taste for reading, and no understanding of the value of, novels and books.
I do not think it is a good use of time for either of us to continue this, but to give you some recompense for the time you put into your response, I will write a few things.
1) I have no opinion on Mexico and I have no basis for concurring with what confluence wrote. Nothing I wrote in response to you suggested otherwise.
2) Where you have responded to what I wrote, you have written self-contradictory statements that are not strong rebuttals to the points I made. I was pointing out your use of fallacious reasoning. In your rebuttal you recommitted several of these same fallacies and added some new ones in form the self-contradiction, non sequiturs, and erecting straw men.
3) You spend a great deal of time building up this straw man of Imperialism. I have no response to this as it has nothing to do with what I wrote.
4) You end this with an ad-hominem suggesting that I and confluence read more. I point out that this is both ridiculous on its face as you know nothing about my reading habits and furthermore it is not a useful form of argument.
1) I have no opinion on Mexico and I have no basis for concurring with what confluence wrote. Nothing I wrote in response to you suggested otherwise.
2) Where you have responded to what I wrote, you have written self-contradictory statements that are not strong rebuttals to the points I made. I was pointing out your use of fallacious reasoning. In your rebuttal you recommitted several of these same fallacies and added some new ones in form the self-contradiction, non sequiturs, and erecting straw men.
3) You spend a great deal of time building up this straw man of Imperialism. I have no response to this as it has nothing to do with what I wrote.
4) You end this with an ad-hominem suggesting that I and confluence read more. I point out that this is both ridiculous on its face as you know nothing about my reading habits and furthermore it is not a useful form of argument.
>I have no opinion on Mexico and I have no basis for concurring with what confluence wrote.
>you have written self-contradictory statements that are not strong rebuttals to the points I made.
Maybe if you did indeed have some opinion on and knowledge of the subject matter at hand you would see the sense in what I am trying to say, and be willing to cut me a little slack. Work with me not against me as they say. Oh well.
>you know nothing about my reading habits
But I do know a bit about your analytical and argumentative style, which seems, based on what I have observed, to be rigid. Reading is one of the best ways I know to soften such a trait, hence the suggestion.
Anyway, you're right that it's time to wrap this up. Sorry, really didn't set out to attack you here, but I think both you and confluence are being a bit... well, for lack of a better word, silly. However it is interesting, as I've suggested already, in the normal world an article like this wouldn't raise an eyebrow, so it's fun to try and defend something perfectly normal from an extraordinary critique. I enjoyed the exercise, even if you think my logic is rubbish :)
>you have written self-contradictory statements that are not strong rebuttals to the points I made.
Maybe if you did indeed have some opinion on and knowledge of the subject matter at hand you would see the sense in what I am trying to say, and be willing to cut me a little slack. Work with me not against me as they say. Oh well.
>you know nothing about my reading habits
But I do know a bit about your analytical and argumentative style, which seems, based on what I have observed, to be rigid. Reading is one of the best ways I know to soften such a trait, hence the suggestion.
Anyway, you're right that it's time to wrap this up. Sorry, really didn't set out to attack you here, but I think both you and confluence are being a bit... well, for lack of a better word, silly. However it is interesting, as I've suggested already, in the normal world an article like this wouldn't raise an eyebrow, so it's fun to try and defend something perfectly normal from an extraordinary critique. I enjoyed the exercise, even if you think my logic is rubbish :)
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt because this is the internet and it is very difficult to judge one's own written tone, but I hope you'll reread what you have written to see why it makes you come off as a deeply arrogant person. You seem not to have read at all what I have written; you appear to think that I was engaged in criticizing the article. You also continue this nonsense about reading that can only have the effect of being insulting.
[deleted]
This is an op ed piece, which ordinarily is not expected to be rigorously argued. I can't imagine that a Mexican writer would not know about the violence.
The whole point of an opinion piece is to rigorously argue a position. How else can you convince people of something. And note how the author of this piece failed in that task. This is what the NY Times says in their writing guide for high school students.
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/specials/weblines/48...
-- It is a common mistake to believe that columns and editorials, unlike news articles, do not need to be thoughtful and measured. In truth, writing a column or editorial takes more reporting, not less. While the reporting for a news article needs to continue until all reasonable sides can be adequately represented, the reporting for an opinion piece needs to continue until the writer can judge reasonably which side has the strongest case. That takes more work, not less.
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/specials/weblines/48...
-- It is a common mistake to believe that columns and editorials, unlike news articles, do not need to be thoughtful and measured. In truth, writing a column or editorial takes more reporting, not less. While the reporting for a news article needs to continue until all reasonable sides can be adequately represented, the reporting for an opinion piece needs to continue until the writer can judge reasonably which side has the strongest case. That takes more work, not less.
I base my statement on what the NY Times publishes on its op ed pages, not on what it provides in its guidelines. I would certainly prefer that the pieces be better reported.
"It actually sickens me that this is what the NYTimes has become."
I find this response puzzling. Do you understand the concept of opinion pieces and op-eds?
I find this response puzzling. Do you understand the concept of opinion pieces and op-eds?
[deleted]
After several months of intensely self-studying Spanish, I decided to try to find some native language books or magazines to use for reading practice. I thought that in Los Angeles, a city with latino population measured in the several millions, I'd be able to find some kind of book shop catering to Spanish speakers. But I never did. The most promising place -- Libreria Mexico de Echo Park -- appeared to be out of business when I went by one afternoon. I asked a few native speakers near the shuttered bookshop where else I might be able to find books and nobody had any suggestions. But maybe they just didn't want to talk to a crazy gringo.
If anybody knows a good place to browse and buy spanish language books in the LA area, I'd love to know about it.
If anybody knows a good place to browse and buy spanish language books in the LA area, I'd love to know about it.
Same experience for me here in San Francisco. Easy to find good bookstores for Chinese, for Japanese, and for Korean, but almost nada for Spanish, and asking local Spanish speakers about it elicited shrugs. Ask about telenovelas, and you've got plenty of opinions, but plain old novelas, nope, so the crazy gringo part doesn't seem to matter.
I had my best luck at Barnes & Noble, believe it or not. They had a pretty good Spanish language fiction selection--bigger than any other I found on the SF Peninsula. It's not what I was looking for (I was more interested in nonfiction), but it's all I found.
I had my best luck at Barnes & Noble, believe it or not. They had a pretty good Spanish language fiction selection--bigger than any other I found on the SF Peninsula. It's not what I was looking for (I was more interested in nonfiction), but it's all I found.
Have you tried Barnes & Noble? In my small town in Washington, not exactly a hot bed of Spanish speaking, B&N has a pretty big Spanish section, so I'd expect similar elsewhere.
I've looked in big book chains before, and while they always have some stuff the selection is pretty small: often best sellers and religious books only. I'd like to find a shop specializing in spanish language because I think they'd have a broader selection of topics, hopefully including some interesting nonfiction.
I know these books exist because I see them in online shops based out of Europe, but I'd like to avoid paying the high exchange rate + shipping to get books all the way from overseas.
I know these books exist because I see them in online shops based out of Europe, but I'd like to avoid paying the high exchange rate + shipping to get books all the way from overseas.
"I've looked in big book chains before, and while they always have some stuff the selection is pretty small: often best sellers and religious books only. "
Why does this doesn't surprise me...
Well, here it goes: look for a "Instituto Cervantes" maybe they have an attached bookshop (and Library)
Why does this doesn't surprise me...
Well, here it goes: look for a "Instituto Cervantes" maybe they have an attached bookshop (and Library)
There's a yearly book fair, LéaLA (http://www.lea-la.com/). If you're willing to cross the border, Gandhi (http://gandhi.com.mx/index.cfm/id/f:corporativo-sucursales; click where it says Tijuana) is the best bookstore chain in Mexico; although it is apparently prospering, I couldn't say with a straight face that it is actually good.
Don't believe anything you read on either of those pages without double checking.
Don't believe anything you read on either of those pages without double checking.
Amazon. Not trying to be sarcastic; I order Russian books from Amazon all the time.
I'm Mexican and live in Mexico City. Although there are people in Mexico who like to read books, I'd say they represent less than 5% of the population.
When I'm invited to somebody's home, one of the first things I tend to look at is the books they have. Often there doesn't seem to be any books there, and when I ask them about it they do confirm that nobody in that house owns any books. It turns out that the only books they have ever had were their school textbooks and they usually quite puzzled about why I think anybody might be interested in owning any books.
When I'm invited to somebody's home, one of the first things I tend to look at is the books they have. Often there doesn't seem to be any books there, and when I ask them about it they do confirm that nobody in that house owns any books. It turns out that the only books they have ever had were their school textbooks and they usually quite puzzled about why I think anybody might be interested in owning any books.
Here is an exercise you can try next time you are in a US city on a weekend. Take the Sunday real estate ads, and visit as many houses as you can conveniently fit into the afternoon--1 to 4 pm is the usual open time. See what you see in the way of books. I don't think that you will find that things are radically different here. I've seen houses with very interesting bookshelves; I've seen plenty with pretty scan holdings.
I am more worried that, in the most famous newspaper in the most powerful country in the world, opinion pieces are overwhelmingly dominated by emotionally charged anecdotes while actual data plays only a cursory role.
That fits the definition of the word perfectly. Also, the author cites a study from Unesco that confirms his emotionally charged anecdotes. Data alone will rarely spur people to action.
1. Citing two data point among paragraphs of anecdote is cursory.
2. Opinion pieces (should) mean they have a declared persuasive goal, not that all forms of rhetoric are acceptable. The word "opinion" is not a license to argue from astrology.
2. Opinion pieces (should) mean they have a declared persuasive goal, not that all forms of rhetoric are acceptable. The word "opinion" is not a license to argue from astrology.
You say that like it's a new thing.
The best is when they mix them - opinion pieces with emotion for interest, mixed in with data (even if only in sidebars).
Maybe newspapers should do more collaborations where one author writes the emotion, and the other does research and gets the data. Then an editor blends the two into a uniform article. (It would be nice for one person to do it all, but they are different enough that different people would be good at them.)
Maybe newspapers should do more collaborations where one author writes the emotion, and the other does research and gets the data. Then an editor blends the two into a uniform article. (It would be nice for one person to do it all, but they are different enough that different people would be good at them.)
You are exactly describing Freakonomics, with its two authors.
Yeah well, that's just like, your opinion piece, man.
Even if baseline literacy, the ability to read a street sign or news bulletin, is rising, the practice of reading an actual book is not.
This means literacy is on the rise. The author is one of many people who are concerned because our society is moving away from the novel as a form of expression.
I would argue that videogames are filling that niche -- instead of sitting and reading a book for 40-60 hours, we sit and guide a character and live their story for 40-60 hours.
The question here becomes: Are Mexican children playing enough videogames?
This means literacy is on the rise. The author is one of many people who are concerned because our society is moving away from the novel as a form of expression.
I would argue that videogames are filling that niche -- instead of sitting and reading a book for 40-60 hours, we sit and guide a character and live their story for 40-60 hours.
The question here becomes: Are Mexican children playing enough videogames?
The brain has very high plasticity. It is able to rewire itself for tasks that are done frequently so that it is able to perform those tasks better. The ability to read, understand, consider, and analyze long-form text is a skill that will be slowly lost in such a scenario. And I'd argue that the ability to read and understand documentation about complex ideas goes hand-in-hand with various important things, including complex scientific research, the details of an M&A deal, economic agreements between nations, or application source code. Maybe the average person doesn't need to do these things, but if more and more drop reading, the gross numbers of people able to grow into those roles would probably also decline.
I think the general consensus in the scientific community is that reading enables more long-term brainpower than does television or video games. Staving off Alzheimer's is one area that is frequently cited as a benefit for example.
edit: wording
I think the general consensus in the scientific community is that reading enables more long-term brainpower than does television or video games. Staving off Alzheimer's is one area that is frequently cited as a benefit for example.
edit: wording
>complex scientific research, the details of an M&A deal, economic agreements between nations, or application source code.
Most of those activities you listed are what a ’93 DOE survey called “level 5” tasks[1]. Only 3-4% of American adults are at level 5.[2] There was a followup survey was in 2003, but they combined level 4 and 5 [3]. There weren’t any significant changes to the other 3 levels, so I doubt level 5 increased either.
[1] - http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf, page 10 [2] - http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf, page 17 [3] - http://nces.ed.gov/naal/kf_demographics.asp
Most of those activities you listed are what a ’93 DOE survey called “level 5” tasks[1]. Only 3-4% of American adults are at level 5.[2] There was a followup survey was in 2003, but they combined level 4 and 5 [3]. There weren’t any significant changes to the other 3 levels, so I doubt level 5 increased either.
[1] - http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf, page 10 [2] - http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf, page 17 [3] - http://nces.ed.gov/naal/kf_demographics.asp
Yes! I have enjoyed many novels. But people (including me) are learning English from communicating on the web. And children are learning English from playing videogames i.e. as a byproduct of something they actually enjoy (I witness it happening!)
John Holt: “I suspect that many children would learn arithmetic, and learn it better, if it were illegal.”
John Holt: “I suspect that many children would learn arithmetic, and learn it better, if it were illegal.”
[deleted]
I read The Shallows by Nicholas Carr a while ago. I thought it was perhaps a bit alarmist.
Comments like yours make me think that, if people are really capable of so blithely discounting the value of focussed, solitary long-form reading, maybe it wasn't.
Comments like yours make me think that, if people are really capable of so blithely discounting the value of focussed, solitary long-form reading, maybe it wasn't.
I am really shocked by many of the answers I am reading here. Do you really think that reading books is an optional thing? I would even go as far as saying: if you are not a regular reader of books, you cannot be a world class programmer. Because you just lack the necessary imagination for it.
Seriously? As an avid reader, I have more than enough imagination to imagine people who are different than me being able to do the things that I do.
> Do you really think that reading books is an optional thing?
Yes, reading books is optional. Note that many people who do not read books do read other formats: essay, magazine, news, short form stories, poetry, and so on.
Yes, reading books is optional. Note that many people who do not read books do read other formats: essay, magazine, news, short form stories, poetry, and so on.
Or in the case of many here, technical journal articles and blogs and the like.
> Nowadays more children attend school than ever before, but they learn much less. They learn almost nothing. The proportion of the Mexican population that is literate is going up, but in absolute numbers, there are more illiterate people in Mexico now than there were 12 years ago.
So...literacy rates are going up? That doesn't sound so bad.
So...literacy rates are going up? That doesn't sound so bad.
I'm an atheist, but if there is a hell, people like the leader of the teachers’ union, Elba Esther Gordillo, need to be in it.
The amount of lives that have been ruined by her union and the teachers they control must be in the millions.
The amount of lives that have been ruined by her union and the teachers they control must be in the millions.
It is very strange to me that people can be illiterate (as in, unable to read anything) in Mexico considering how easy the written Spanish language is (compared to e. g. English) and how prevalent is it around the globe.
They should be seeing written phrases everywhere and these should be trivial to read once they know the alphabet.
They should be seeing written phrases everywhere and these should be trivial to read once they know the alphabet.
Well that's not what the author means by illiterate. He uses it as a way of saying that they virtually never read books.
I wouldn't be surprised if the word/s the author used in Spanish for illiteracy indicated this distinction, which has then been lost in translation. Maybe.
Agreed. I learned the Russian alphabet in a day - you learn the sounds for each symbol and you're done. It took a long time to speed up, of course, and i had the background of already reading in English, but Spanish isn't Chinese or Japanese (or English for that matter).
[deleted]
[deleted]
A couple dozen letters, but lots and lots of words.
They already know all the words (they speak them) and they don't need to spell (especially when reading).
This article reinforces my belief that there is just something very, very important and special about books. I'm going to have to think about exactly what this is, but it seems like books are the difference ultimately between people with dignity and values, things they are willing to make a stand and fight for, and people without. Why is that I wonder?
I suggest you try substantiating that idea before trying to decipher why it is ...
Sorry for the above, it sounded way less snarky to me when I wrote it. I'd delete it if I could.
Nice of you to say. I'm glad I didn't respond with equal snark - I was tempted...
As both a parent and the husband of a teacher, this kind of comment annoys me
“How is it possible that I hand over a child for six hours every day, five days a week, and you give me back someone who is basically illiterate?
I know it's a hypothetical parent asking this question, but it is quite a common attitude.
Yes, schools clearly have a responsibility to teach childen to read, write, do maths etc.
But parents should take some responsibility for bringing up their children as well. And things like a an actual love of reading (as opposed to the basic mechanisms of understanding words) are far more likely to come from home life than from school.
“How is it possible that I hand over a child for six hours every day, five days a week, and you give me back someone who is basically illiterate?
I know it's a hypothetical parent asking this question, but it is quite a common attitude.
Yes, schools clearly have a responsibility to teach childen to read, write, do maths etc.
But parents should take some responsibility for bringing up their children as well. And things like a an actual love of reading (as opposed to the basic mechanisms of understanding words) are far more likely to come from home life than from school.
Is history not one of the humanities?
This can be and it is said for many countries: "back when were in school...now teachers....all day on facebook...we were afraid of our parents...kids these days"
Maybe it's a generational thing.
Maybe it's a generational thing.
Maybe it's true.
Could be, but Plato said the same thing more or less.
Maybe it was true then too.
"The Country That Stopped Reading" vs "The proportion of the Mexican population that is literate is going up, but in absolute numbers, there are more illiterate people in Mexico now than there were 12 years ago."
In other words literacy is increasing.
And that's where I stopped reading Toscano's vapid screed.
In other words literacy is increasing.
And that's where I stopped reading Toscano's vapid screed.
There's a good chance the author if the opinion piece didn't compose (or even approve of) the headline. Generally it's good idea not to get too hung up on headlines for this kind of article.
It actually sickens me that this is what the NYTimes has become.
> Mexico is floundering socially, politically and economically because so many of its citizens do not read
Are you fucking kidding me? Does this guy understand that a narco fueled civil war is currently being waged throughout Mexico with nearly 60K deaths in the last 5 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War).
I'd respond to the rest of his article - but it's just so, so bad that I really can't be bothered.