Posted in Communication

No Comprehension, Just Digital Skimmers and Clickbait

A-Digit:gettyimages

In our rapidly evolving digital age, we face a critical challenge: a widespread decline in reading comprehension. This isn’t merely about reading less; it’s about how we process and understand information in ways that threaten the foundations of an informed society. Like crossing a pond, hopping from rock to rock, one headline to another, never pondering the depth of the pond.

The modern media landscape has transformed how we consume information. We are now digital skimmers racing through headlines and social media posts without pausing for deeper understanding. Our attention spans have dramatically shortened, trained by endless streams of bite-sized content and algorithmic feeds designed to keep us scrolling. While technology has democratized access to information, it has simultaneously fragmented our ability to process it meaningfully.

When we lose the capacity for deep reading, we sacrifice more than comprehension. We lose the essential tools for critical thinking and reasoned decision-making. Without these, we become vulnerable to misinformation and make snap judgments based on emotional triggers rather than careful analysis. We share articles without reading beyond headlines, allowing confirmation bias to override intellectual curiosity.

The problem extends beyond individual habits. Modern digital platforms, while offering unprecedented access to diverse perspectives, prioritize engagement over substance. Their interfaces exploit psychological vulnerabilities, training our brains to crave constant stimulation. Pressured by collapsing revenue models, traditional media outlets often choose clickbait over quality journalism and editing. The 24-hour news cycle demands speed over accuracy and gore over substance, making it increasingly difficult for nuanced, well-researched stories to find their audience.

Educational systems compound these challenges. Schools focused on standardized testing often prioritize rote memorization over critical thinking skills. Socioeconomic factors are crucial, as reading proficiency strongly correlates with economic status. Cultural stereotypes dismissing reading as uncool or elitist create additional barriers, particularly among young people—the very people we need to have open, inquisitive minds.

The consequences of this decline ripple through every aspect of society. In politics, discourse devolves into sloganeering and tribalism, while voters make decisions based on emotional appeals rather than policy analysis. Business leaders make snap judgments instead of studying data and long-term implications. In healthcare, the inability to comprehend medical literature leaves people vulnerable to pseudoscience, misguided health choices, and misinformation on diagnosis and treatment.

This crisis demands a multifaceted response. While individual efforts to read more deeply and verify information are important, they alone cannot address systemic issues. We need educational reforms that emphasize critical thinking and analysis. Media platforms should reconsider algorithms that prioritize engagement over understanding. News organizations need sustainable models that reward quality journalism. Authors must be succinct and reach their point without much fluff and dithering. Readers need to be able to read above a fifth-grade level.

Reading comprehension isn’t just about processing words. It’s about developing the cognitive tools to understand an increasingly complex world. Losing these capabilities will lessen our ability to engage in reasoned debate, empathize across differences, and make informed decisions about our collective future.

The decline in reading comprehension represents more than an educational challenge; it’s an existential threat to informed democracy and societal progress. While artificial intelligence and other technological advances pose their challenges, the erosion of human capacity for deep understanding and critical analysis may be our most pressing crisis.     simplebender.com

Posted in Philosophy

Assessing Leadership: The Search for Quality

How do you assess a leader, or maybe just maybe even yourself? What are the qualities which make any person a good leader or a good person? For each of us the criteria for determination will vary but have similar threads. These are critical times for each of us to evaluate and assess our leaders, want-to-be leaders, and frankly ourselves. A recent Marquette Law School survey showed fifty-seven percent of us have little to no confidence in Congress*. These are our elected representatives and leaders. We should assess them differently.

Think about a few characteristics which can be used to understand if they are making progress in pursuit of being better leaders. Characteristics which we can use to figure out if there is improvement rather than feeling good or feeling satisfied. Decisions on who should be a leader should not be about good feelings, but on tangible qualities.

Ask a few simple questions, these ten might be a good start:

  • Are they criticizing anybody?
  • Are they blaming anybody?
  • Are they accusing anybody?
  • Do they react to criticism and complements the same?
  • When they face obstacles do they find solutions or find fault?
  • When wrong, are they contrite or vengeful?
  • Do they demand loyalty over honesty?
  • Do they say the ‘right things’ or do the right things?
  • Do they look toward the future or dwell on the past?
  • Do they lead through hope or fear?

These are questions we should be asking about those who want to lead. We should be asking ourselves if they are more interested in promoting themselves or our county, state, and country. Are they leaders who bring out the best in all of us, or the worst?

Interestingly, the Greek stoic philosopher Epictetus during his life (50-185 AD) routinely asked many of these questions. He asked them to assess whether he and his students were making progress simply in becoming better people. We can still use them to assess the quality of ourselves and our future leaders.

Every election is an opportunity for each of us to look at the candidates, and ourselves, and ask some hard, yet basic, questions. Elections have consequences. There will not ever be a candidate who will satisfy all of us, on every subject. But there can be candidates who have standards of decency which most of us can appreciate and support. There are those who do lead with vision and recognize to be a world leader you must be an active player in world events and not an isolationist. There are those who do not parse and spin the words and facts for their personal gain or quest to retain power. There are those. We need to find them, support them, and dispose of those who do not genuinely satisfy, at least most of, our expectations of a leader. Never fear the dream of a better political and social system. Face the issues and constructively correct deficiencies, one at a time.

*MLSPSC18ToplinesRV.knit (marquette.edu)

This was first published in the Bend Bulletin 3/7/24