(Gallup pole from 2023) Americans say they read an average of 12.6 books during the past year, a smaller number than Gallup has measured in any prior survey dating back to 1990. U.S. adults are reading roughly two or three fewer books per year than they did between 2001 and 2016.

My completely unreasonable hunch is that this poll was answered by book readers rather than the general populace. 1 book a month is a lot for almost everyone I know - including non-dense fiction readers!

I fear there's long term effects on our societies with this. What do people think about this? — ssu

My second completely unreasonable hunch is that the decline of book reading is a symptom rather than cause of declining levels of education.

We went down too, although we always had a very low mark on PISA. What scared me the most is that the level of comprehensive reading is actually very low amongst Spanish students aged 12 - 18. I think this is related to the point of your OP.

We also have recent laws which forbid people to buy or share textbooks and overall all kinds of papers, with the aim of facing climate change.

The long term effects of replacing physical books with 'devices' or audiobooks are devastating. I believe that by doing this, we private thinking and dreaming for ourselves. It is not the same to read a text (each phrase after phrase, carefully attending to each paragraph), than to 'listen' to how this text is read by another person. We limit the art of speaking and dialoguing in our consciousness with ourselves.
By the way, those apps and devices don't help at all, because it decreases the level of attention to whatever. If we are starting to get used to someone reading for us, we will start to be lazy or unconcerned in other areas as well.

College graduates read an average of about six fewer books in 2021 than they did between 2002 and 2016, 14.6 versus 21.1.

And this is another symptom of my generation, so nothing to be surprised about. Most young people tend to prefer to watch TV rather than reading a book. But this is no longer surprising for a generation who was already born with a PC and other devices at home.

What happens to our society when we don't read as many books as we used to? — ssu

People will be easily manipulated, but beyond this, I guess people will become 'conformist' because of the lack of brain training.

There are other consequences besides level of knowledge. There are cognitive changes: short memory retention, because new information is coming in too fast to process; shortening attention span, diminution of awareness of one's surroundings.
I think the most damaging aspect is loss of quiet contemplative solitude. Their world is far too busy, too noisy for long term health.

My second completely unreasonable hunch is that the decline of book reading is a symptom rather than cause of declining levels of education. — fdrake

Declining levels of education is something very alarming. Irrelevant of what is the symptom or the cause. But here the point is that really, reading everything from a phone, tablet or computer is at least for me very uncomfortable. I think the issue is worth a thread. And you simply learn to disregard books.

We also have recent laws which forbid people to buy or share textbooks and overall all kinds of papers, with the aim of facing climate change. — javi2541997

Spain too? This is simply crazy.

To make matters worse, naturally a student studying his course book from the computer at least here is as costly for the schools as one textbook would be. But the problem is that you then cannot reuse the computer service and you have to pay a new one for a new student. Reshuffling old textbooks isn't allowed!

The long term effects of replacing physical books with 'devices' or audiobooks are devastating. I believe that by doing this, we private thinking and dreaming for ourselves. It is not the same to read a text (each phrase after phrase, carefully attending to each paragraph), than to 'listen' to how this text is read by another person. We limit the art of speaking and dialoguing in our consciousness with ourselves. — javi2541997

I agree. The worst thing is the loss of imagination. If you read a book, you have to imagine the story, the people and the events yourself. Listening is different, you have to concentrate on the listening. And watching a movie and you don't have to use your imagination at all.

Spain too? This is simply crazy. — ssu

Yeah, and what actually bothers me is that the public administration is promoting this crap rewarding tax cuts or compensation... Pathetic.

To make matters worse, naturally a student studying his course book from the computer at least here is as costly for the schools as one textbook would be. But the problem is that you then cannot reuse the computer service and you have to pay a new one for a new student. Reshuffling old textbooks isn't allowed! — ssu

Exactly! Another big issue here. Politicians take for granted that most Spanish students have access to computers, but this is a terrible lie. There are families with low incomes (or unemployed) who cannot afford technological devices for their children. Even the continuing cost of maintaining a device which was born to be replaced by another modern one in the future. But, with the aim of keeping promoting the study by using PCs only, textbooks have become expensive goods too.

Can't believe, nowadays, textbooks are less affordable than in my parents' era! And I am referring to the end of the 1960s and beginning of the 1970s...

It would be nice if books could be printed on flax or hemp or some other fibre. We're losing trees fast enough to fire every summer; we shouldn't be pulping them for books. Especially college textbooks. We used to sell those things - they were so heavy, carrying three would just about cripple a non-athletic student, and that size was completely unnecessary: in 1920, they could cram the same amount of Algebra or Chemistry into a book that fit in a pocket. The print was small, the paper was thin and matte, and the book featured no 3" margins, sidebars or big glossy pictures.

So, if the early 21st century version is the only textbook format legislators know and publishers can imagine, I understand why they would not want students to have to shell out $100-250 for one that will be displaced by a new edition within three years. Nor will I miss hard cover copies of trendy business success books or faddish self-help and inspirational books. Pulp fiction can safely be relegated to entertainment media, as far as I'm concerned.

But for reference, poetry and literature, I like having real books. I also see an important place for children's picture and story books - something they can own, return to and cherish.

There are other consequences besides level of knowledge. There are cognitive changes: short memory retention, because new information is coming in too fast to process; shortening attention span, diminution of awareness of one's surroundings.
I think the most damaging aspect is loss of quiet contemplative solitude. Their world is far too busy, too noisy for long term health. — Vera Mont

Luckily there are long format podcasts etc, but then you have to have the time and the interest. But what is marketed to us is to watch shorts, and short replies. Length of a comment on the social network. Everything else than what you need to read a book.

It would be nice if books could be printed on flax or hemp or some other fibre. We're losing trees fast enough to fire every summer; we shouldn't be pulping them for books. — Vera Mont

Printing books on paper isn't actually a problem. Deforestation happens because forests are turned to farmland. Some of the biggest global paper companies come from Finland and the country isn't deforested. Actually the first laws on preventing deforestation were given in the 17th Century. There's ample amount of forest in the Tundra, you don't use rain forest trees to make pulp.

But for reference, poetry and literature, I like having real books. I also see an important place for children's picture and story books - something they can own, return to and cherish. — Vera Mont

I think the real problem is if people simply don't learn to read a lot of books. They surely can read, but to read long books is the challenge. You can read far quicker that you can listen to someone reading. Once when a person can read quickly, he can go through a book in a few days. If the reading is slow, the effort itself distracts from people reading books. They might have to read in school some books, but basically it's an ordeal. Then when you don't have any necessity to read books, you simply won't read them. You will just read articles, newspapers, magazines.

You can read far quicker that you can listen to someone reading. — ssu

Maybe, but while someone is talking or reading to you, especially if it's recorded, you can do something else at the same time. A book requires you complete attention.

I'm not minimizing the importance of listening. For example, sewing or pasta-making circles where women's hands were busy, but their minds were idle. Taking turns reading aloud brought a little knowledge and pleasure into their lives. Reading to preschool children is even more important; as they crave independence, they're motivated to read for themselves. It was a good idea, too, to have students read aloud - it promoted reading facility and comprehension.

And my question here is the following: what are the longer term impact of people when we literally take the physical books out of the hands of students? — ssu

I think the scenario actually resembles oral culture the most.

In the computer learning scenario you describe above, people read things mostly just once and have to work with that, however much or however little they remember or misremember. Which is the same thing that happens in oral culture -- one has one chance to hear something and has to make the most of it.

Of course, the amount of study matter that can effectively be studied that way is not much, for most people. So the computer learning scenario enforces competition between people: those who can handle a lot of new information at once vs. those who can't. This competition has always existed, but the physically written word form has allowed many slower people to catch up and keep up. In an oral culture or a culture functionally the same as oral culture, these slower people will fall behind.

What happens to our society when we don't read as many books as we used to? — ssu

Society becomes less romantic.

Then when you don't have any necessity to read books, you simply won't read them. You will just read articles, newspapers, magazines. — ssu

Which isn't necessarily bad. This trend is a trend that counteracts the plebeification of education and culture.

The idea that has permeated the public school system for the last hundred years or so (depending on the country) was that all children should get the same basic education. Which meant that all children, regardless of their socioeconomic background, should read Homer and Shakespeare etc., study history in detail, mathematics to considerable intricacy etc., ie. the classical educational canon. This has led to the plebeification of education and culture 1. in that the classical canon has to be dumbed down in order to make it teachable even to students who have no basis for such learning in their socioeconomic background, and no prospect for using such learning ever in their lives either; and 2. in that the socioeconomic class of people who traditionally had no access to this canon (and who never contributed to it) now got it for free.

Computerization is reversing this. The upper classes who want their children to receive a classical education will make sure they do so. For the rest, it should remain the luxury it has always been.

Have they banned electronic books too? Is it a matter of just changing from paper to computer, or are you saying no one reads anymore?

I also don't see how this data establishes causation between book reading and educational levels. You just are showing two data sets that might have nothing to do with each other. Have they shown that current paper book readers do better than current electronic book readers?

I think I probably read and write more with the arrival of the internet because there's just more information out there to digest.

But here the point is that really, reading everything from a phone, tablet or computer is at least for me very uncomfortable. — ssu

I agree with your thesis in general, but I have found that e-ink devices do the trick (Kindle, Nook, etc.). I still buy books and prefer them in certain ways, but as notes, there is a difference between the eclipse of paper books and the eclipse of reading.

I think the real problem is if people simply don't learn to read a lot of books. They surely can read, but to read long books is the challenge. — ssu

I think books are the highest intellectual medium, and that as they begin to go by the wayside there will be a more homogenous intellectual landscape. But if you look at the stuff that the average person reads, this has already been happening for a very long time. Magazines, radio, television, and the internet have all cut into the real estate of books.

To give one example, in the 19th century John Henry Newman initially published his Apologia Pro Vita Sua in installments as a series of pamphlets (opposite Charles Kingslry, who opposed him). The general public ate it up. Granted, it was juicy and appealing in its own way, but it was also extremely high English prose, which most modern-day English speakers would simply be unable to read. Don't even get me started on "literacy." Ironically, I don't think we any longer know what the word even means.

I think I probably read and write more with the arrival of the internet because there's just more information out there to digest. — Hanover

I think I do too.

Have they banned electronic books too? Is it a matter of just changing from paper to computer, or are you saying no one reads anymore? — Hanover

Oh no, basically they are all electronic books. But then again, a lot of the courses are simply a mish-mash of books and a web course. It's actually hard to find the actual "book" of the course, because there isn't one. There's just chapters you do, some exercises. Some when I've looked at them are quite difficult to read as there aren't in a form of a book and opening chapters you have to stroll from start to end to find a specific issue. But I think that's my generation X stupidity with these issues, I guess.

Have they shown that current paper book readers do better than current electronic book readers? — Hanover

What has been clearly shown is the fact that in Finland the overall reading ability and reading has declined. And the differences have become larger, especially with children. At first grade you have children that are just trying to learn to read and then some that are avidly reading Harry Potter books. In youth those who have reading problems has basically doubled. Here class differences are quite obvious to see.

Also what hasn't happened is that books have been replaced by e-books, because overall buying of books has gone down and increased e-book sales don't replace the aggregate fall.

Especially with children and the basic reason is the smartphone has truly taken over reading books, and basically surfing in the social net is very different from reading a book. They simply read less than in the 1980's or 1990's.

Of course, this is (still) the country where people are one of Europe's most avid bookworms with Poland and Estonia and Norway with other countries coming well after the three. 16,8% of Finns say that reading books is one of their main activities. So when you have one of the most book reading countries in the World reading less, that may be an indicator of something.

Don't even get me started on "literacy." Ironically, I don't think we any longer know what the word even means. — Leontiskos

This might surely be the problem. I would also take with the grain of salt the above graphs that I represented of what the actually tell us.

That shows me that Finns read books on average 12 or so minutes a day, but it doesn't tell me what it used to be, so how can I look at this and know it's been declining over time?

Also, it specifically says "books," which means that as books decline in supply, so does reading them, but not in reading overall. I read far more than 12 minutes a day. I think the logs at TPF would reveal that.

I'm not disputing that today we're stupider than yesterday because that does seem generally true, but I'm just questioning whether it reveals itself in the amount of reading we do.

One thought I have had is that the information age has increased the educational and intelligence gap between people. Now that all this information is generally available to anyone who wants it, instead of everyone taking advantage of it equally, some have a far greater thirst for it and they find themselves way ahead of their peers. There's a race for success going on in the world whether people realize it and they're getting left behind and not even knowing it.

That shows me that Finns read books on average 12 or so minutes a day, but it doesn't tell me what it used to be, so how can I look at this and know it's been declining over time? — Hanover

There's ample stats from the Finnish Statistical bureau (Statistic Finland). By their stats ALL kind of reading (not only books) has decreased from over 50 minutes in the late 1980's to 37 minutes (in the 2020's). Book reading hasn't been so dramatic, but still it too has gone down. In all age groups, among both men and women.

I think this is an issue were many different stats and surveys show this.

One way this change can be seen is in the libraries. Earlier libraries were indeed places where you had a lot of books and then small cabinets for reading newpapers and other to read books. Now the library system has seen the change and changed to more of a meeting place institution with large libraries having events, art performances and to be places to meet, work, study. The actual books seem like a blast from the past in many places. And smaller libraries are basically places you can go in with your library card, and there's no personnel there, so you can use the automatic machines to borrow books. This even when Finns appreciate a lot the library system.

Just for example from my cities own website about the city libraries:

Libraries are meeting places and cultural centres, open to everyone. They offer newspapers, magazines, books, music, films and other materials that you can enjoy at the library or borrow and take home with you. Libraries have spaces where you can study, take part in recreational activities or just spend some time. Libraries also provide information and guidance services and arrange events and exhibitions.

I think this change has something to do with the change in reading books.

In the computer learning scenario you describe above, people read things mostly just once and have to work with that, — baker

Why? Once you've downloaded something, it's available all the time. You can go back to it, or parts of it, as often as you need to.

Which is the same thing that happens in oral culture -- one has one chance to hear something and has to make the most of it. — baker

Not so. A lay or ballad would be sung over and over; a legend would be told around the campfire on many nights; people tell their children the same story many times. Don't you have any young children? They demand the favourite stories, familiar stories, again and again. There may be minor changes from from one telling to the next, but stories from several thousand years ago are still being told.

The idea that has permeated the public school system for the last hundred years or so (depending on the country) was that all children should get the same basic education. Which meant that all children, regardless of their socioeconomic background, should read Homer and Shakespeare etc., study history in detail, mathematics to considerable intricacy etc., ie. the classical educational canon. — baker

I haven't seen much of that. Usually, the complexity and sophistication of the material is graded: basic levels of every subject in the early grades; heavier subject matter and more choice in the later ones. It's actually okay for the plebes to read Shakespeare - that's the audience he was writing for.

This has led to the plebeification of education and culture — baker

I can live with that. Actually, I can manage without patricians altogether.

Quite a lot of the reading people used to do was for entertainment, rather than learning. Reading a book is a private, solitary pursuit. It's possible we have less quiet, solitary time than we used. (I only read books in bed anymore, before falling asleep. Nearly all of my research is done on the internet. Since the advent of Covid, I haven't been inside a library.)
The pervasiveness of televised entertainments simply make it easier to be enjoy passively, in a way that leaves one's hands free to eat, or do tasks that don't require much mental effort. It's also a medium that people can share, comment on and discuss, having seen the same show at the same time. Even since television, there have times when one has free time, but "there's nothing on". Streaming gives us flexibility to watch a prime time show of our choice whenever in the day we have a free hour or half hour. Books are not always convenient; electronic devices are.

Books are not always convenient; electronic devices are. — Vera Mont

That's the peril, Vera, our devices are too convenient. With the computerized feed back of the customers to those who make the apps and the algorithms, this ease and conveniency will just get better.

With "classic" books you have requirements for their easy use things like a) knowing the language well, b) being able to read quickly and effortlessly and c) being able to use one's imagination.

Traits not so convenient to the 21st Century human?

That's the peril, Vera, our devices are too convenient. — ssu

Oh, I know that. And there is a far deeper down-side to convenience: they [somebody, some agency, some commercial interest - you don't know who] can keep track of you all the time. Know what you like, what your weaknesses are, what you'll probably buy - and they keep offering you the same kind of thing, so you may never - inconveniently - discover anything different, hear any dissenting voices, be confronted by uncomfortable ideas.

Books offer no positive reinforcement; they don't balk at making the reader cringe or cry or search his soul.

It happens that I do have a Kindle, though I can't take it to places where I have to wait because it doesn't hold a charge. On it, I have a couple of novels I haven't read yet and a reference book I dip into from time to time. They were a lot cheaper than hard copies+postage. For the same reason, we put all the books we write and publish in e-format before we get any hard copies. It's convenient and it's inexpensive. Money is a huge factor.