What readers? We're talking to each other.
Gee, I don't know. Maybe the 214 views registered on this thread that are not the six people who have posted in the thread? This is what I was talking about in post 20 about perceived audience (yet you keep charging at the same points with all the fervor of a meth-crazed horse with blinders on about what you perceive my motives to be after I've made it explicit what they are repeatedly in that post and others). You're talking about the posters in the thread and what they've said. I'm talking about who I assume the other 208 might be based on the fact that this article was selected for its popular appeal by industry professionals for some professionally informed reason. That's been why I thought it defensible the whole time and why I've been responding this way to the people in this thread. I'm motivated to serve a popular audience with this thread. You, in turn have been telling me I'm "pissy" or "irate" because of what you and these others are saying when in red lettering I told you in my second post specifically why I was responding the way I was to avoid this very perception:
I've read a number of past posts from people in this thread and I know from experience that many of you are perfectly intelligent people whose viewpoints I respect, so please don't think I'm calling you stupid here. The fact is I'm frustrated by the dismissively destructive skim reading attitude, and that's what's going to come through below.
Later, I further explained my tone taking in a latter post, saying:
The condescending tone now is because I shouldn't have to say any of this because my expectations of Bluelighters are popular widely understood expectations.
Again, this is all because of who we perceive is being talked about. I'm thinking that Bluelighters in general, the 208 others viewing the thread, are who you're telling me shouldn't be interested in this thread or in the article. You're telling me I'm getting pissy because of the comments in this thread, when I told you from the start my frustration is not with any of you, it's with the skimming style of internet reading, which you yourself have stated:
Speaking generally, I think that there is something to be said in favor of demonizing the lamentable practice of skimming
That's what's so simple and silly, and why I am disbelieving and find that your analogies about what my responses are like (the BBC documentary one) are complicated and don't match up to what's been stated in the thread. I'm seriously wondering about your motives at this point.
Forbes and and the New York Times are not scholarly sources of psychological literature.
Yes, which is why I lamented before posting those articles that my thread on this topic that I thought I'd be able to refer you to was pruned before posting them. This is also why I only stated I was posting them to claim what I was talking about was "a thing," and never said there was a scientific consensus. Think about what you’re even asking for: definitive scientific consensus about how the internet generation’s reading comprehension in 2012(?!). I said it was documented extensively (and numerous articles and books, as well as yes, some scientific studies that bolster the claims therein, have been written about the general topic of a large change in literacy styles spurred by the effects of the internet on reading). You're the one telling me I've made all sorts of different claims I haven't, and that I have motives I've told you I don't repeatedly.
Here's an analysis of web based reading pattern's about how web based reading is different than linear print reading.
Here’s an article written in response to an assessment of 19,000 test scores. Here’s some studies about how reading online (the disproportionately used source of reading material for the younger versus even slightly older generations) differs from classic linear print reading:
study 1;
study 2
All this and far far more I can't be asked to spend hours dredging up hangs together to support what I've said. That's about as much as can be expected in 2012. Stop making unrealistic demands and acting as though I'm making things up because I can't meet them. Stop ignoring me in order to justify yourself, or, in the case of the following, ignoring yourself to justify yourself:
You make obscenely long paragraphs. That is, to the best of my knowledge the definition of a wall of text.
From Urban Dictionary:
A piece of writing ... with 20 to 400 sentences without using paragraphs or any bit of spacing at all.
Now go ahead and count the number of lines in the largest paragraph for me and for yourself in this thread. My largest is 10 lines (post #11), how "obscene," and your longest is 14 (post #17). Are you joking or just a jerk?
I've put in all the effort I'm willing to put in to explain myself to somebody content to manufacture the same verbal traps and make believe he's caught something over and over again. Now I'm ignoring you and this thread. You, perhaps, smoke too much meth.