[extropy-chat] Intelligence of Leaders

[pjmanney]

MB wrote:

>I suspect that literacy was rather more sharply divided into those who >*did* read
>and those who did not - could not. Nowadays "everybody" *can* read a bit. Many 
>can't
>read much. Witness the newspaper articles of 1900 or earlier vs. today.  Heck, 
>just
>look at magazine articles from the 40s or 50s vs. today. :(


MB is correct.  But many people still can't read at all.  I hate sending people to my blog over and over, but I wrote a blog called "Sisyphus in Mississippi" about an amazing article in the LA Times on Ronnie Wise, the retiring chief librarian of Bolivar County, Mississippi and the staggering illiteracy rates he has battled for decades.  It will blow your mind, especially if you assume at least a base level of education is accomplished in the US.  It's a wonderful piece (the article, that is!).  I also ask a number of questions about the roll of literacy and future technology in this blog.


>Books were greatly valued, unlike today when most ordinary second hand books 
>are
>sold by the box-lot at auction for mnimum bid... $5 or less.  In the past, 
>books
>were sometimes even listed for probate, because they were desirable, valuable, and treasured.


My father, who was a famous rare book collector, would absolutely agree with you in regards to the treatment of books in the past.  They were treasured objects, because they were the keys to the imagination and knowledge.  And they were expensive!


>Finishing highschool has little to do with being able to read, IMHO. >There have been
>many fine writers and successful businessmen who never finished school. People can
>be quite well educated without official or government schooling.


In fact, a huge percentage of the US pop. in the 19th c. had little to no formal schooling.  Schooling and education, depending on the society involved, can have no relationship to one another.  US history is filled with autodidacts.  My own father is one.

PJ