Author: Mathew Ingram

If you read The Atlantic, or you follow a lot of writers on Substack — or virtually any other writing-focused website or form of social media — you will already know what this post is about: The Atlantic published a piece recently entitled The End of Reading, the subtitle of which stated that “the age of reading might be a short anomaly in human history.” The piece begins with a lyrical description of the famous Library of Alexandria, which King Ptolemy the First intended to be the repository of all human knowledge at the time. The king reportedly paid scholars to live and work in the library, we are told, and the collection was available to anyone “eager to study, an encouragement for the entire city to gain wisdom,” according to a visiting Greek writer. Eratosthenes allegedly calculated the circumference of the Earth there, and Zenodotus edited the earliest manuscripts of Homer’s epic poems. The library eventually disappeared, The Atlantic tells us — in part because Julius Caesar set it on fire, and then the temple housing some of the manuscripts was sacked in the 4th century, but also for other reasons:

Contemporary historians tend to dismiss the importance of these dramatic incidents in favor of a more mundane cause of death: negligence. Maintaining the collection was an enormous expense. Humidity, mice, and insects slowly ate away at the papyrus scrolls. Scribes had to continually copy old texts before they deteriorated and became illegible. Eventually, the challenges of maintaining the library became greater than the will to preserve it. “It is not that the disappearance of a library led to a dark age, nor that its survival would have improved those ages,” the classics scholar Roger Bagnall has written. The fact that the library was allowed to die showed that the dark age had already arrived. Some 2,000 years later, under very different circumstances, the darkness is gathering again.

“The darkness is gathering again.” In other words, welcome to the new Dark Ages! If this seems a little over-the-top to you, you aren’t the only one. And what kind of evidence does The Atlantic produce to justify this apocalyptic pronouncement? Americans (who are “once members of a proudly literate society,” according to the magazine, although that could definitely be debated) read much less than they used to, we are told. In a study by the National Endowment for the Arts, fewer than half of all adults reported having read a book of any kind in 2022, and a study analyzing 236,000 responses to the American Time Use Survey found the  proportion of Americans who read for pleasure on any given day fell from 28 percent in 2004 to 16 percent in 2023. The decline “cuts across age groups, gender, and education levels,” The Atlantic says, and even the demographics that traditionally read the most — retirees, women, and college graduates — have seen “a collapse” in their reading habits over the same period.

Note: This is a version of my Torment Nexus newsletter, which I send out via Ghost, the open-source publishing platform. You can see other issues and sign up here.

I’ve written a number of times about what has become conventional wisdom – spread primarily by academics like Jonathan Haidt – that phones and/or social media are evil, and that they cause teenagers in particular to develop anxiety, depression, etc. and therefore should be regulated. Haidt’s book The Anxious Generation has either directly or indirectly led to laws against teen use of social media in Australia, the UK and Canada, and many other countries are reportedly considering similar legislation. As I’ve tried to point out in previous newsletters, all of this has come about despite the fact that there is virtually no concrete evidence in the psychological literature of any causal link between phones or social media and teen rates of depression, anxiety, or suicide – in fact, in some cases the exact opposite. Candace Odgers, a leading researcher in this area, has said in a review of Haidt’s book that his views are “not supported by the science,” and a meta-analysis of the research found the correlation between teen use of social media and rates of depression to be “indistinguishable from zero.”

Odgers is one of the most prominent researchers to take issue with Haidt’s interpretation of the science in this area, but she is far from the only one. A recent piece in The Atlantic looked at the views of another prominent psychologist – someone who at one point was a close colleague of Jonathan Haidt’s, but has since diverged from him to the point where he said he now believes Haidt’s views are diametrically opposed to the truth. The psychologist in question is Peter Gray, who is perhaps best known for exposing the Stanford prison experiment as a fake. He also wrote a book entitled Free To Learn that was published in 2013, and argued that one of the biggest contributors to anxiety, depression, and other mental challenges among young people is their more regimented upbringing compared to previous generations, and in particular, a lack of free-form play time. Here’s how his thesis is described in the Atlantic piece:

Gray’s academic work defines play as a self-directed activity done only for its own sake. This, he came to believe, enables kids to figure out how to solve their own problems, nurture their own relationships, make their own rules, and manage their own disappointments. But he says that our society has spent the past 70 years or so interfering with that process. We’ve made it harder and harder for kids to do anything: They’re kept indoors for greater portions of the day and given less unstructured time; they play organized sports supervised by adults; they don’t go anywhere alone. Gray grew certain that this loss of independence has been harmful to their mental health.

Note: This is a version of my Torment Nexus newsletter, which I send out via Ghost, the open-source publishing platform. You can see other issues and sign up here.