Doctor* Shawinigan**
( Read more... )
No. At least, there've been plenty of dumb articles over past decades and centuries, and plenty of smart ones recently. But I have some complaints about one particular recent article in The Economist, "Is the decline of reading making politics dumber? As people read less they think less clearly, scholars fear", 9/4/2025.
I should start by saying that the quality of articles in The Economist is generally very high, in my opinion, and its articles about language are especially good. So why was I disappointed in this one?
Here are its first two paragraphs:
The experiment was simple; so too, you may have thought, was the task. Students of literature at two American universities were given the first paragraphs of “Bleak House” by Charles Dickens and asked to read and then explain them. In other words: some students reading English literature were asked to read some English literature from the mid-19th century. How hard could it be?
Very, it turns out. The students were flummoxed by legal language and baffled by metaphor. A Dickensian description of fog left them totally fogged. They could not grasp basic vocabulary: one student thought that when a man was said to have “whiskers” it meant he was “in a room with an animal I think…A cat?” The problem was less that these students of literature were not literary and more that they were barely even literate.
My first complaint: there's no link to the referenced experiment. We're not even given the title of the publication documenting it, or the names of its authors.
Here's why that matters. Internet search reveals what the publication was: Susan Carlson et al., "They Don’t Read Very Well: A Study of the Reading Comprehension Skills of English Majors at Two Midwestern Universities", CEA Critic 2024. And checking that publication reveals several relevant facts:
In other words, they discuss the worst students in a sample with low scores to start with.
Why did they do that? As they explain,
The 85 subjects in our test group came to college with an average ACT Reading score of 22.4, which means, according to Educational Testing Service, that they read on a “low-intermediate level,” able to answer only about 60 percent of the questions correctly and usually able only to “infer the main ideas or purpose of straightforward paragraphs in uncomplicated literary narratives,” “locate important details in uncomplicated passages” and “make simple inferences about how details are used in passages”. In other words, the majority of this group did not enter college with the proficient-prose reading level necessary to read Bleak House or similar texts in the literary canon. As faculty, we often assume that the students learn to read at this level on their own, after they take classes that teach literary analysis of assigned literary texts. Our study was designed to test this assumption.
So the study was designed to test the university and its faculty, not the students. The conclusion, basically, is that these students entered the university incapable of reading canonical literature; the university and its faculty failed to fix the problem; and the students didn't fix the problem on their own.
I'm not convinced that being able to read and understand the first seven paragraphs of Bleak House is an appropriate measure for the reading ability of modern American youth. That novel's many words and phrases from the 19th-century British court system make it hard for a modern American reader to grasp the context. I'd be more impressed if the students failed to understand the start of Great Expectations, Emma, Gulliver's Travels, Jane Eyre, Tom Sawyer, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland or etc.
But let's grant that Carlson et al. have proved their point, and just note that The Economist's writer badly mis-read (or maybe mis-represented?) their work, by presenting it as evidence that today's university-level literature students can't read Dickens.
My second complaint is that The Economist's writer goes on to use the Flesch-Kincaid readability measure:
We also analysed almost 250 years of inaugural presidential addresses using the Flesch-Kincaid readability test. George Washington’s scored 28.7, denoting postgraduate level, while Donald Trump’s came in at 9.4, the reading level of a high-schooler.
See my 2015 post "More Flesch-Kincaid grade-level nonsense", which points out that different choices of punctuation strongly modulate the Flesch-Kincaid index, as in this example from one of Donald Trump's speeches, which was used in a stupid newspaper article to prove that Trump operates at a 4th grade level:
It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America. And it’s coming probably — probably — from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast. [Grade level 4.4]
It’s coming from more than Mexico, it’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably — probably — from the Middle East. But we don’t know, because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast. [Grade level 8.5]
It’s coming from more than Mexico, it’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably — probably — from the Middle East; but we don’t know, because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast. [Grade level 12.5]
That post closes this way:
It's uncharitable and unfair of me to imply that the author of the Globe piece might be "stupid". But at some point, journalists should look behind the label to see what a metric like "the Flesch-Kincaid score" really is, and ask themselves whether invoking it is adding anything to their analysis except for a false facade of scientism.
That's enough complaining for now. But since The Economist's article also frets about secular changes in sentence length, let me refer interested readers to the slides for my talk at the 2022 SHEL ("Studies on the History of the English Language") conference.
Books Received, August 30 — September 5
Lies Weeping by Glen Cook (November 2025)
11 (45.8%)
Seasons of Glass and Iron: Stories by Amal El-Mohtar (March 2026)
14 (58.3%)
The River and the Star By Gabriela Romero Lacruz (October 2025)
4 (16.7%)
The Bookshop Below by Georgia Summers (November 2025)
9 (37.5%)
The Burning Queen by Aparna Verma (November 2025)
6 (25.0%)
Some other option (see comments)
0 (0.0%)
Cats!
18 (75.0%)
Sino-Platonic Papers is pleased to announce the publication of its three-hundred-and-sixty-fourth issue:
“Mythologies, Religions, and Peoples Outside Ancient China in the Classic of Mountains and Seas,” by Xiaofeng He.
https://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp364_Classic_of_Mountains_and_Seas.pdf
ABSTRACT
The Classic of Mountains and Seas (Shanhaijing, 山海經) is generally believed to be a fiction of mythologies, and many later literatures are based on it. But some believe it is an ancient text of geography. The Classic of Regions Beyond the Seas (Haiwaijing, 海外經) is one section of it, which does not give much topographical information but mostly concerns weird and mythical creatures. This paper, treating the text as offering a serious recording of observations and following the clues in the directions specified in the text, presents evidence that locates the areas of Haiwaijing in the modern world: huge areas of the Afro-Eurasian region, including south, west, and north Asia, Eastern Europe, and Africa. It is, in fact, all one living piece of evidence for a unified Afro-Eurasian history.
Keywords: Shanhaijing, Hindu mythology, African mythology, Xia dynasty
—–
All issues of Sino-Platonic Papers are available in full for no charge.
To view our catalog, visit http://www.sino-platonic.org/
Selected readings
Or rather, messages from Penn's Office of the Vice Provost for Research, mysteriously tokenized and re-formatted by gmail.
The start of the Fall 2025 OVPR email newsletter, as displayed by MS Outlook, has 14 bullet points referencing hyperlinked subtopics:
But gmail (where I first read the newsletter) shows me the same information as 14 columns of (individually) hyperlinked textual tokens, with a bullet on the first token of each column:
In each of the 14 columns, the hyperlinks go to the same subsections as the links in Outlook's corresponding row.
The subsequent subsections of the email have their own bullet lists, and gmail columnizes them in a similar way, e.g.
or
I wonder whether this is (my laptop's version of) gmail having an episode, or the result of something odd in the coding of the original message, or what. In any case, the fact that the re-coding of the rows seems to be based on language-model tokenization makes me suspect that Google's new Gemini email assistant might be involved…
Update — FWIW, the same row-to-column re-display of the bullet points in this newsletter happens in the versions of gmail in three different browsers on each of two laptops with different operating systems.
Update #2 — I sent a test message with a bullet list, generated in Outlook, and gmail doesn't transpose the rows to columns:
So apparently there's something special about the OVPR Newsletter's source? I don't have time this morning for any further investigation, but we'll see later…
archive - contact - sexy exciting merchandise - search - about |
← previous | September 5th, 2025 | next |
September 5th, 2025: I want it on record, specifically because he does not, that my friend PATRICK WISKING is the inventor of the chocochop! I am merely its #1 fan and salesperson!! – Ryan |
Last week, Beijing hosted the first ever "Robot Olympics", and humanoid robot development is proceeding apace on many fronts. One could fairly say that Chinese are obsessed with human-AI symbiosis.
China Advances Brain-Computer Interface Industry Development with New Policy Framework
China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, along with six other government departments, has jointly issued an implementation plan to accelerate the innovative development of the brain-computer interface (BCI) industry. The comprehensive policy outlines ambitious targets for the emerging technology sector through 2030.
By 2027, China aims to achieve breakthrough progress in key BCI technologies while establishing advanced technical, industrial, and standardization systems. The plan specifically targets international-level performance in electrodes, chips, and integrated products. Applications are expected to expand rapidly across industrial manufacturing, healthcare, and consumer sectors, with the creation of 2-3 specialized industrial clusters and the development of new scenarios, models, and business formats.
Brain-computer interfaces create information channels between the brain and machines, enabling collaborative interaction between biological and artificial intelligence. This cutting-edge technology represents the convergence of life sciences and information sciences. The sector continues generating innovative breakthroughs and experiencing accelerated industrial growth, positioning itself as a critical area where technological and industrial innovation deeply integrate.
The implementation plan outlines five major tasks: strengthening basic software and hardware research, developing high-performance products, promoting technology application, expanding innovation entities, and enhancing industrial support capabilities. These are supported by three key projects focusing on core software/hardware development, premium integrated systems, and application expansion, detailed through 17 specific measures.
By 2030, China envisions significantly enhanced BCI industry innovation capabilities, establishing a secure and reliable industrial ecosystem. The plan targets cultivating 2-3 globally influential leading enterprises alongside numerous specialized small and medium enterprises, ultimately building an internationally competitive industry landscape.
Source: People’s Daily, August 15, 2025
(Chinascope)
Selected readings
Mixed metaphor of the week – via email from J.H.:
House Speaker Mike Johnson, apparently trying to lay the groundwork to blame Democrats for a government shutdown, is quoted by Politico as saying “The ball will be in their corner.”
Presumably he meant to say “The ball will be in their court,” a tennis metaphor, but confused this with “in their corner,” which I assume comes from boxing. When someone is in your corner, that typically means they’re supporting you, and I don’t think the speaker meant to imply that Democrats have the support of any balls.
Someone at Politico must have thought this sounded odd, since they put ‘corner’ in quotation marks in the headline.
A quick search didn't turn up the audio — with luck a reader will fill the gap.
And what are the consequences of the growing population of AI agents?
In "Agentic culture", I observed that today's "AI agents" have the same features that made "Agent Based Models", 50 years ago, a way to model the emergence and evolution of culture. And I expressed surprise that (almost) none of the concerns about AI impact have taken account of this obvious fact.
There was a little push-back in the comments, for example the claim that "There may come a time when AI is autonomous, reflective and has motives, but that is a long, long way off." Which misses the point, given the entirely unintelligent nature of old-fashioned ABM systems.
Antonio Gulli from Google has recently posted Agentic Design Systems, which offers some useful (and detailed) descriptions of the state of the agentic art, along with example code.
The section on "What makes an AI system an Agent?" sets the stage:
In simple terms, an AI agent is a system designed to perceive its environment and take actions to achieve a specific goal. It's an evolution from a standard Large Language Model (LLM), enhanced with the abilities to plan, use tools, and interact with its surroundings. Think of an Agentic AI as a smart assistant that learns on the job. It follows a simple, five-step loop to get things done (see Fig.1):
At that point, Gulli notes that "Agents are becoming increasingly popular at a stunning pace".
And the chapter on "Inter-Agent Communication" explains:
Individual AI agents often face limitations when tackling complex, multifaceted problems, even with advanced capabilities. To overcome this, Inter-Agent Communication (A2A) enables diverse AI agents, potentially built with different frameworks, to collaborate effectively. This collaboration involves seamless coordination, task delegation, and information exchange.
Google's A2A protocol is an open standard designed to facilitate this universal communication. This chapter will explore A2A, its practical applications, and its implementation within the Google ADK.
We'll see how seamless and effective those agentic collaborations turn out to be.
One obvious question: whose interests will determine what counts as a "successful" outcome? The various human and institutional participants may have quite different ideas about this. And the AI agents will certainly develop their own (artificial analog of) interests, goals, and preferences, as Gulli's sketch tells us.
And again, these agentic interactions will foster emergent cultures, whose alignment with the goals of human individuals and groups is worth more thought than it's gotten so far. (Except in dystopian novels and movies…)