Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post - non-mudders

Spazmatic · 03-25-2006, 05:02 PM

It is true that there are different ways to define literacy. I noted the traditional divide between literacy and complex literacy, for example.

HOWEVER, NONE OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH MY POINT. Which, apparently you quoted without bothering to read.

Emphasis: falling, climbing.

Yes, depending on how you define literacy, American literacy can be seen as very poor or very good. I noted the 97-98% range as the normally cited range for standard literacy measures. However, you don't have to use that - depending on how you define literacy, you can get any number you'd like, from 100% to 0%.

The key is, if you take the same definition and apply it X number of years ago and apply it today, you will find the American population has been either constant or improving.

Whether or not most Americans are sufficiently literate to mud is not the topic of this thread - I responded in so far as a decrease in literacy would be a suitable explanation for a decrease in mud populations (if either is true, whereas evidence indicates neither is). Since there has been no decrease in literacy, that is an invalid explanation for the perceived decrease in mud populations.

This may be true, but it does not follow from your two previously cited results. Cite the studies if you'd like me to explain why.

Again, false. Literacy means you can read a menu, or an eviction notice, or a flyer that says your trash day was moved. These are invaluable skills.

Enjoying a novel is not the primary purpose of literacy.

Nor is the primary purpose of literacy to facilitate critical thinking.

03-25-2006, 05:02 PM	#9
Spazmatic Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 103	It is true that there are different ways to define literacy. I noted the traditional divide between literacy and complex literacy, for example. HOWEVER, NONE OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH MY POINT. Which, apparently you quoted without bothering to read. Emphasis: falling, climbing. Yes, depending on how you define literacy, American literacy can be seen as very poor or very good. I noted the 97-98% range as the normally cited range for standard literacy measures. However, you don't have to use that - depending on how you define literacy, you can get any number you'd like, from 100% to 0%. The key is, if you take the same definition and apply it X number of years ago and apply it today, you will find the American population has been either constant or improving. Whether or not most Americans are sufficiently literate to mud is not the topic of this thread - I responded in so far as a decrease in literacy would be a suitable explanation for a decrease in mud populations (if either is true, whereas evidence indicates neither is). Since there has been no decrease in literacy, that is an invalid explanation for the perceived decrease in mud populations. This may be true, but it does not follow from your two previously cited results. Cite the studies if you'd like me to explain why. Again, false. Literacy means you can read a menu, or an eviction notice, or a flyer that says your trash day was moved. These are invaluable skills. Enjoying a novel is not the primary purpose of literacy. Nor is the primary purpose of literacy to facilitate critical thinking.