Poll: 1 in 4 U.S. adults didn't read a book in 2007

[jamesdmanley]

wow 1 in 4? i would have thought it would be much worse than that

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

I put a couple of links to interesting articles on the subject under current events on the MobileRead wiki. Check the left column for the link.

Dale

Thanks, Dale. The demographics and habits of readers and nonreaders were expectable, I think, but the figures and trends are pretty disappointing aren't they? Oh, well, what's on TV tonight?

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

Thanks, Dale. The demographics and habits of readers and nonreaders were expectable, I think, but the figures and trends are pretty disappointing aren't they? Oh, well, what's on TV tonight?

Not much outside of some great Tennis games. In the US the writers are all on strike so the networks don't have any good shows. Might as well read a book or better yet an eBook.

Dale

[RWood]

There was a sign in the window of my favorite bookstore (now sadly replaces by a Starbucks and a cell phone store) that read (as I remember), "If you can read this sign you can read a whole book."

I knew them for years and they would recommend books (even when I did not ask for recommendations) that were specific to my interests rather than the latest best selling poof piece. Many years before my Father and I would go there -- he for his Mike Hammer and I for my Doc Savage. I miss the place. Books-A-Million, Boarders, Crown Books, &c may have lower prices; but, they can never match the service. No wonder more people don't buy books.

Based on the presentation of classic books in my college lit courses I am surprised that as many people read books today as the poll stated. If I had not discovered them earlier in life I too might have been turned into a person who only reads the TV listings.

[vivaldirules]

I know the kind of book shops you mean. Interestingly, the kind of people who used to own those stores now seem to be behind the counter at the "big box" bookstores. I go to a B&N often and there's one guy who seems to have read half the books they sell and tells me often about the very best of them. An old friend of mine from college who is an English teacher now works part-time at a Borders because, well, he needs the money and he loves books and reads constantly. It's just disturbing to see people like that being paid as sales clerks when they used to be bookshop owners. Something like finding a cabinetmaker working at Home Depot. A bit sad.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

Thanks, Dale. The demographics and habits of readers and nonreaders were expectable, I think, but the figures and trends are pretty disappointing aren't they? Oh, well, what's on TV tonight?

Hey, I thought that was why they put commercials on TV - to give us a chance to read a few pages!

[recycledelectron]

Originally Posted by snookums

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/...ts-AP-Poll.php

Some quick stats:

1 in 4 U.S. adults didn't read a book last year
The average person read 4 books
Of the 3 out of 4 who did read the average was 7 books
Men tend to prefer non-fiction

Based on empirical evidence here, only 1 in 16 MobileRead.com readers can perform basic arithmetic.

If the average person read 4 books, then we would expect that 4 people read a total of 16 books.

But, if the 3 of 4 who did read a book read an average of 7 books, then we would expect they read a total of 21 books.

This does not add up.

I'm shocked, outraged, and saddened that the illiterate readers of MobileRead.com didn't pick this up before now.

Andy

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by recycledelectron

Based on empirical evidence here, only 1 in 16 MobileRead.com readers can perform basic arithmetic.

If the average person read 4 books, then we would expect that 4 people read a total of 16 books.

But, if the 3 of 4 who did read a book read an average of 7 books, then we would expect they read a total of 21 books.

This does not add up.

I'm shocked, outraged, and saddened that the illiterate readers of MobileRead.com didn't pick this up before now.

Andy

Statistics can be hard to understand. What they are saying is that if you include all people in the average then the average is 4 books. The people who don't read at all are dragging down the average which in this case may be an arithmetic average but it is not stated. If you include those people that read at least one book and leave out all the people who did not read any books at all and then compute peculiar average which is not the middle but the 25 percentile then you can an average of 7 books. It is impossible from the values given to recreate the data thus you cannot make your own computation and get the numbers.

There are 3 different kinds of averages and they don't say which one they are using. There is a pure mathematical average where the numbers are added up and then you divide by the number of people but there is also a average where you list all the people in the order of books read and then find the center person and see what he/she read. Another average is to group everybody by books read and the take the largest group although based on the context I do not believe this type of average was used.

I know its mud but is it a little clearer?

Dale

[Gudy]

Nope, recycledelectron is right. The numbers just don't add up. There are several kinds of means (not averages), and "average" is the arithmetic mean unless you're out to deceive someone, and since they didn't qualify what they meant, the numbers should be considered bogus.

BTW, the "center person" is the median (or 50th percentile), that last thing, unless I misunderstood you, is called a majority. :-P

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by Gudy

Nope, recycledelectron is right. The numbers just don't add up. There are several kinds of means (not averages), and "average" is the arithmetic mean unless you're out to deceive someone, and since they didn't qualify what they meant, the numbers should be considered bogus.

BTW, the "center person" is the median (or 50th percentile), that last thing, unless I misunderstood you, is called a majority. :-P

I should have used those terms but I didn't want to get too technical. It was the original author who used the term average and that is often the interprertation which is why I explained that interpretation.

Here is what the real article said.

One in four U.S. adults say they read no books at all in the past year, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Tuesday. Of those who did read, women and seniors were most avid, and religious works and popular fiction were the top choices.

The survey reveals a nation whose book readers, on the whole, can hardly be called ravenous. The typical person claimed to have read four books in the last year — half read more and half read fewer. Excluding those who had not read any, the usual number read was seven.

The words used were typical and usual not average.

By the way the math was a bit confusing. Let's work though it.

If 16 were in the poll there would be 12 readers and 4 non readers. If the average is 4 then we expect 64 (4x16) books to be read by the 12 readers or an average of 5 so if the math is done we do see that there is no way to get to 7. But that is not what the original article said. 4 is said to be median not arithmetic average. So 8 people read 7 books and 4 read 2. Works for me.

Dale

[Gudy]

OK, yeah, that works. (I should have checked the original article instead of relying on reported hear-say.) I can well believe the median to be 4 books, and the median(? a bit unclear from the text, but the most likely interpretation) for those who read to be 7 books.

This would mean that 25% of the population don't read books, 25% read between 1 and 4 books per year, 13% read between 4 and 7 books per year, and 37% read 7 books per year or more. That's not so bad, all in all.

[recycledelectron]

<deleted>

[snookums]

So true about statistics and the 'typical' person. I wish every article like this had a graph of the distribution curve.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Maggie May

I think a love of books starts in childhood. Perhaps people who read seldom now or not at all, were never introduced to books when they were children. I remember always getting books for birthday's and Christmas every year when I was a child. I have loved books and been an avid reader all my life. I couldn't imagine a world without books. I love to curl up in my armchair and be transported into another world entirely for a couple of hours if I'm lucky. Can't wait to get my CYGen3 and curl up with that and experience reading an eBook for the very first time. I'm expecting great things. Hope I'm not disappointed.

I have simple advice to parents who want their children to be readers. Read to them, when they are still too young to do it themselves.

I had dinner a few years back with a group of folks at an SF convention, and the topic of declining literacy came up. I asked "How many folks at this table had parents who read to them as a child?" Every hand was raised.

I contrasted that with my SO's brother, who had two young sons. Mom was not a reader. Dad was, but would come home from work and plunk himself down in front of the TV while waiting for dinner. Guess which habit the sons picked up? (The older would go into a trance when the TV came on...)

My mother read to me when I was a kid, so I know where I got the habit.

The issue is conveying the idea that reading is fun, to be done for pleasure. Too many folks never learn to view reading as other than a chore that they have to do, and not fun in itself.

The quoted stats sound about right to me, but I, too, wonder if they are really a change from previous times? I don't think folks who read a lot have even been a high percentage of the population.
______
Dennis

[TallMomof2]

My DH was read to as a child and he's not a reader in the sense of reading for pleasure and not for learning. Even then he reads little in his spare time.