Are Reading and Thinking Obsolete?

Are Reading and Thinking Obsolete

0:00

/530.600249

1×

I have been concerned about this subject for some time, but two recent experiences prompted me to explore it in an article.

The first was reading Simon Winchester’s 2023 book “Knowing What We Know,”¹ which traces how knowledge has been transmitted throughout human history. Winchester traces the journey from the earliest account-keeping marks on clay tablets through the invention of writing, the printing press, modern mass media, and the internet in all its multifarious forms, including social media and AI (artificial intelligence).

The second was listening to an episode of the regular CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) Radio program, “Ideas,” specifically the episode broadcast on Thursday, 19 February 2026, titled “Reading and Thinking in a Digital Age.” The program’s producer holds conversations with a number of academic experts in the subject.

Both Winchester and the experts consulted on the radio program attempt to make the case that the attention economy, and social media in particular, both magnified and accelerated by the increasing ubiquity of AI, are degrading our higher-level reading skills, and therefore our ability to think deeply about, and to form judgments on, what we have read.

These assertions resonated with me, as they seemed to make intuitive sense: but is my reaction just the product of my inherent old-guy conservatism towards anything genuinely new, or am I right to be concerned? 

I think the underlying question is whether higher-level reading and deeper thinking really matter in our increasingly digital lives.

First, let’s examine reading. While we’re born with the innate ability to learn to speak a language without formal training, learning to read is a skill that takes time, effort, and practice to acquire.² Like any skill, if you don’t use it, you lose it. In fact, it is worse than that, as those with low literacy skills are less likely to do the type of reading that will maintain or improve their skills, in a vicious cycle.³

Not all reading has equal value. Academics who study this area characterize eight types of higher-level reading skills and practices, from critical reading, through literary reading, to reading as a challenge.⁴

Adriaan Van der Weel (professor emeritus at Leiden University), in that Ideas program, says “High level reading has been important for creating and maintaining the sort of sophisticated society that we live in today. If we don’t keep up this higher-level reading, then possibly we’re losing an essential ability to keep up the society we’ve created.” Van der Weel quotes George Orwell: “If people cannot read well, then they cannot think well, and if they cannot think well, then others will do the thinking for them.”

How does use of the internet, particularly social media and generative AI, affect the ability to read and think well?

The effects are not black and white. Some uses are beneficial, some are detrimental.

Much published work comes from studying data in the PISA (Programme of International Student Assessment) surveys of 63 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries, surveys which have been ongoing since 2000.

One 2022 study of PISA data (largely pre-AI) found a correlation between increased online chatting and decreased reading literacy and awareness of useful reading strategies.⁵ Another study of the same PISA data set found that internet use for learning had significant positive literacy effects, but prolonged internet use had negative effects, while digital device use in classes was ineffective.⁶

A 2024 study of Spanish 15-year-olds in 2018 found that moderate internet use improved reading comprehension, while extreme use was detrimental. Also, the more online gaming time, the worse the comprehension.⁷

A 2023 Survey of Adult Skills by the OECD assessed literacy, numeracy, and adaptive problem-solving skills among adults aged sixteen to sixty-four in the thirty-one participating countries (mostly western democracies), compared to ten years previously.⁸ While there was much variation between and within countries, the average rate of literacy stayed stable or declined. The report noted most OECD countries have achieved near-universal internet access in that time, which has changed how most people get their information, but didn’t make a causal link between that and literacy decline.

A more-recent study looked at AI GPT use among US high school students, specifically the impact of AI summaries, AI outlines, and both Q&A and Socratic AI chatbots on reading comprehension. They found “AI tools significantly improved comprehension in lower performing participants and significantly worsened comprehension in higher performing participants.”⁹

A 2024 study in China that compared the use of structured AI to traditional methods of learning English literature found that use of AI can be helpful.¹⁰

In summary, these studies indicate that dedicated learning programs can help improve literacy and thinking, but too much unstructured use is harmful.

Here is how. Much of the public-facing internet now, especially social media, is devoted to the attention economy, utilizing algorithms “designed to capture and retain user attention, often at the cost of deep focus and cognitive rest.”¹¹ Unstructured use of social media provides a constant barrage of new information, with no time between dopamine-producing hits of novelty, and leaves no time for reflection. This increases the cognitive load (the amount of effort used in working memory), which in turn measurably reduces comprehension and learning.¹²

Other studies have found even structured use of AI can be harmful.

Structured AI queries can assist by reducing the cognitive load of analysis. AI can deal with huge datasets and spot trends or correlations that might not be easily detected by humans. AI can also summarize large amounts of disparate information. However, this cognitive off-loading may reduce our own analytical ability and, in the long-term, our ability to think rationally and critically. With AI summaries and analyses, there is no need to read anything long or complicated, and by extension there is no need to think deeply about anything, to determine our own thoughts on any given idea or issue. Some have called this effect “cognitive laziness”, in which we are, essentially, turning over basic thinking tasks to AI programs.¹³ It's another instance of "use the skill or lose it."

Clearly, there is cause for concern. If our reading and thinking skills decline, what does it mean for humanity’s ongoing struggle to find solutions to climate change?

I think the most important determinant of whether we will be successful in reducing GHGs and reversing anthropogenic climate change is our ability to think deeply about the issues at stake, about the problems, and then think of genuinely new solutions. The thinking that needs to occur includes not just thinking by scientists, engineers, business people, and political leaders, but by ordinary citizens, whose understanding and support is necessary, in governments of all types. If everyone’s thinking is impaired by the accelerating attention economy together with over-use of AI, problems may not be properly understood, solutions may be fewer and poorer, and solutions may not be implemented by leaders due to lack of understanding and support by the public.

The final troubling aspect to these trends in reading and thinking is the question of the role a newsletter like SweetLightning (a medium that asks you to do long-form reading and to think about what you have read) might play in the future. If you have made it this far, you (and we) may be part of a shrinking minority.

Reading

1. Simon Winchester, Knowing What We Know, (Harper Collins, 2023)
2. Share, David L. “Blueprint for a Universal Theory of Learning to Read: The Combinatorial Model.” Reading Research Quarterly 60, no. 2 (2025): e603. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.603.
3. Mallows, David, and Jennifer Litster. “Literacy as Supply and Demand.” Zeitschrift Für Weiterbildungsforschung - Report 39, no. 2 (2016): 171–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40955-016-0061-1.
4. Schüller-Zwierlein, André, Anne Mangen, Miha Kovač, and Adriaan van der Weel. “Why Higher-Level Reading Is Important.” First Monday, ahead of print, September 5, 2022. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v27i5.12770.
5. Luyten, Hans. “The Global Rise of Online Chatting and Its Adverse Effect on Reading Literacy.” Studies in Educational Evaluation 72 (March 2022): 101101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101101.
6. Otsuka, Yoshiomi. “Evaluation of the Effect of ICT in Education on the Academic Literacy of High School Students.” 2021 Ninth International Symposium on Computing and Networking Workshops (CANDARW), November 2021, 305–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/CANDARW53999.2021.00058.
7. Rico-Juan, Juan Ramón, Beatriz Peña-Acuña, and Oscar Navarro-Martinez. “Holistic Exploration of Reading Comprehension Skills, Technology and Socioeconomic Factors in Spanish Teenagers.” Heliyon 10, no. 12 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e32637.
8. OECD. “Do Adults Have the Skills They Need to Thrive in a Changing World?: Survey of Adult Skills 2023.” OECD Skills Studies, ahead of print, December 10, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1787/b263dc5d-en.
9. Etkin, Hudson K., Kai J. Etkin, Ryan J. Carter, and Camarin E. Rolle. “Differential Effects of GPT-Based Tools on Comprehension of Standardized Passages.” Frontiers in Education 10 (March 2025). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1506752.
10. Liu, Wenxia, and Yunsong Wang. “The Effects of Using AI Tools on Critical Thinking in English Literature Classes Among EFL Learners: An Intervention Study.” European Journal of Education 59, no. 4 (2024): e12804. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12804.
11. Singh, R. “The Algorithm Effect: How Social Media Shapes Your Thinking.” International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology, ahead of print, 2025. https://doi.org/10.48175/ijarsct-28066.
12. Nwodo, Nenne Adaora. “The Impact of Social Media Integration on Cognitive Load and Information Processing in High School Classrooms: A Literature Review.” International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation 6, no. 3 (2025): 136–41. https://doi.org/10.54660/.IJMRGE.2025.6.3.136-141.
13. Gerlich, Michael. “AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking.” Societies 15, no. 1 (2025): 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006.