First, how is literacy measured today? How was is measured in years past? Standards change. Without knowing how the standard has changed, we cannot say for certain that literacy is at an all-time high.

Second, you're saying theoretically smart people are unable to comprehend written language simply because they're inundated with too much information and/or distractions? That may be so, but it doesn't mean their comprehension--as practiced--isn't in the toilet. I'll grant you the possibility that the theoretical potential for reading comprehension has not declined in recent years--even though this wasn't my blog's point anyway--but realized comprehension is indeed terrible. Whatever the reason, and you posit a couple, people generally don't comprehend well, even those who are supposedly far above average in their capabilities.

As for trade-offs, I'll just say this (avoiding many other cans of worms): if reading comprehension is subpar, countless other skills will suffer.

As noted in this thread, this study shows very clearly that literacy of college graduates -- a group that can be reasonably expected to have advanced reading skills -- is declining, and has already declined to levels that I can only describe as pathetic.

The public schools have abandoned the phonic method of teaching reading in favor exceedingly poor substitutes, such as the "sight word" method. This can only lead to a decline in literacy, and has. Furthermore, this is not news. It was predicted by Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld in his 1973 book, The New Illiterates.

The decline in literacy is real, and it is by design. If you want to combat it, homeschool your kids and make sure they read books of ever-increasing complexity -- up to and (especially) including the Word of God. Indeed, the Bible is the best argument for strong reading skills, which may explain why evil public schools are deliberately dumbing down American kids.

So in summary, try to see the bigger picture instead of measuring things with narrow metrics that don't encapsulate how things have changed. There's plenty of things that are better or worse than before, but

I think Dave made it clear things have changed for the worse as far as literacy is concerned. By your own implied admission, practiced literacy (as opposed to theoretical potential) is worse because of distractions and volume. Theory aside, modern literacy actually sucks.

instead of looking at one thing and saying that it is the culprit and we must rush to fix it,

I don't recall noting any one thing that is the culprit for any larger trend. I merely suggested poor literacy may spell the end of any useful blogging. (One may debate whether or not that end has already arrived.) I did not imply that poor literacy would be the only cause of the end of the blogosphere. In fact, I even allowed ample room for the blogosphere to continue and not end at all.

I did not suggest fixing anything at all, let alone rushing to do it. I merely proposed how one thing may lead to another.

let's look at the problem more holistically and promote changes that fix the current situation.

There was no promotion of changes in my blog. I didn't advocate anything but merely observed and hypothesized. My hypothesis may be wrong, to be sure--and time will tell--but not for any of the reasons you claim.

If you'd like me to propose a change--rushed or not, narrow or holistic--to fix the problem, I certainly can. Then you're welcome to demonstrate its flaws or benefits. Meanwhile, I'm trying to avoid pointing out how your reply appears, in several respects, to be proving my point. <--Note the distracting smiley!

People are not reading and comprehending because of the volume of things they read...

Chris brings out a good point here. I think competency does decline with volume, even if it shouldn't or needn't. I want to broaden its application, though. I think this applies to more than just reading comprehension.

Driving is a common example. In my experience, people who would otherwise be fair drivers tend to behave as morons when the traffic volume increases significantly. I've witnessed this in countless individuals (i.e., I observed them in both settings). For example, if a traffic light is out, the intersection is supposed to be treated as a four-way stop. If there is almost nobody else on the road, drivers tend to do just that (excepting those lawless jerks who just try to get away with whatever they can and so run the light). Add a hundred cars around the intersection, though, and very few seem capable of knowing what to do. Clearly, all those other cars change nothing substantive. The rules are still the same. They still work. For reasons I can fathom but don't fully grok, people turn into morons when volume is increased.

My fellow engineers appear to perform likewise. As long as they have one task to do, they're reasonably okay (I could easily debate this with countless examples, but I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt). Add a second task, and they start to freak out, even if the tasks are serialized and not parallel. Add a third or fourth, and you may as well hang it up. Managers sensitive to this phenomenon are in the habit of only assigned very few bugs to engineers, for example, and withholding the rest until their plate is cleaner. Again, the rules are still the same. They still work. Fix the highest priority bug first, then the next, etc. But when these so-called professionals see a full plate of bugs, they choose to freak out and forsake the rules and the process, and their productivity drops. And heaven help them if any of these is to be done in parallel. (Geez, programmers, professional parallelism is no different than a simple, multitasking scheduler.)

If this trend is true (volume diminishes competence), then literacy is indeed declining--by Chris' own formula. Worse, if this trend is true across the board (not just as applied to reading comprehension), then as our world gets busier, more technologically sophisticated, and generally more complicated, it would seem dire predictions about competency would be fitting to myriad endeavors. Woe are we.

Should I attempt a rushed, narrow proposal to fix this problem? Simplify! Simplicity is actually considered by many to be a spiritual discipline. I've recommended it for many reasons, although competence was not formerly among them.

A less rushed, more holistic proposal for a solution would be the one to which I keep returning. In a word, disciple. Seek the Lord. Accept His salvation. Be discipled. Grow. Disciple others. Godly obedience leads to maturity. Maturity leads to wisdom. Wisdom leads to competence. In truth, there is no quick fix for our society's woes. We are where we are, in the bigger picture, because we have largely rejected the Lord, His Word, and His ways. Return to Him, one by one, and He will heal our society. (My prediction, though, is that this will not happen--in America, anyway--despite the best efforts of the obedient few.)

Might this phenomenon (volume diminishing competence) explain the common problems in dense, urban environs? There may be too many steps between cause and effect to reliably test this hypothesis.

Why does volume diminish competence? I am often asked whether I feel like too much information is overwhelming or if I like having such resources available. I get the impression most would respond with the former, that they're overwhelmed. Why? What is it about people, how they think, that would motivate them to shun information in order to reduce complexity? Why does volume diminish competence?

Why do a hundred cars overwhelm when three do not, when all the rules apply equally either way? Is it so simple as an increase in the number of neurons necessary to analyze and respond to the situation? The "formula" is no more complicated. An equation with low coefficients is solved the same way as the same equation with large coefficients. I see this in my students frequently, freaking out over a change in the magnitude of the coefficients, even though nothing else changes, least of all the process for solving. I can understand that this happens, but I don't really understand why.

If the neuron explanation is accurate, then maybe any given "formula", a situation needing analysis and response, requires a differing number of neurons to model it. In this analogy, then, the same formula but with larger coefficients will require more neurons--more cognitive abstraction--as that with smaller coefficients. Is it as simple as the number 1 taking one neuron and the number 100 taking one hundred neurons (or so the example goes), despite them both meaning conceptually the same thing differing only in magnitude? This would suggest the problem lies in the method of modeling.

If situations are modeled abstractly enough, they can often be represented by simpler formulae. This may be the crux. If intelligence is limited by, say, levels of abstraction, then the very modeling of the situation--not the variables' values, per se--is what determines what each person's threshold is for handling greater volumes.

The confirmed decline in literacy aside, the phenomenon to which Chris refers would be that professional complexities have expanded (as gases tend to do) to the point that most engineers are now sacrificing competence in order to accommodate volumes. In other words, volumes have increased beyond the otherwise efficient limits of their mental modeling abilities. Put another way, given the rising demands placed upon engineers, IQs in the 130s are no longer sufficient to maintain historic levels of competence.

The implications could be staggering, even suggesting we may be near a peak in our culture's growth, barring significant overhaul or a baby boom of geniuses. Of course, there could be a shift in the culture such that volumes appear to drop, thereby allowing competence to rise.

How might volumes appear to drop without an actual decline in society? I think one way is specialization. By narrowing a field of mastery, the "extraneous" may be ignored. Of course, this isn't a real solution. This is how you end up with people who appear to be fabulous at one skill but can't, say, carry on a basic social interaction. In truth, the total level of incompetence would still be rising. Specialization would only cause a temporary delay in the overall decline of competence, possibly even making it worse when it's finally revealed.