How do you define literate?

[The_Fool]

Tools change. Today it is SAE, tomorrow it is metric. Yesterday it was Latin, today it is XML. In some ways we need a level of literacy in yesterday, today and whatever tomorrow might be. The one thing I would propose is that one must be literate faster in the future. Blackberry literacy is so very different from letters carried by private mail carriers, or even the simple cards my girlfriend and I sent to each other in college. Points and condenser give way to electronic ignition. The teen line gives way to the cell phone...to prepubescent children.

I don't have an answer. I do, but I know it is not the right one. Not the one that is going to answer the needs of my grandchildren.

 

[slyc_willie]

I don't have an answer. I do, but I know it is not the right one. Not the one that is going to answer the needs of my grandchildren.

And that's just it. We all have an answer, and none of them are 'correct.' Instead, we go with group consensus and the lowest common denominator, as opposed to actually challenging the next generation to push themselves to learn.

We should be a more literate society than this. A more educated and inquisitve society. We should be a society in which the individual thinks, rather than follows the fads and fashions of the day.

But then, maybe this is the Brave New World after all. And there is no Orwell to warn us.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Do I detect just a smidgen of intellectual snobbery here on this porn site?

ahem...

Yer damn straight, and proud of it. This kind of snobbery, anyway. Knowledge is available to all, and those who refuse it deserve disdain.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Roxanne Appleby]Yer damn straight, and proud of it. This kind of snobbery, anyway. Knowledge is available to all, and those who refuse it deserve disdain.[/QUOTE]


~~~

I seldom take the opportunity to quote one of your posts Roxanne, or even to participate in your threads for reasons previously determined.

And it must seem ludicrous to all that Amicus might deliver a, ah, sermon on humility, of all people, being not the least bit humble myself.

The Lit forum knows of me only what I divulge and usually that which supports a position or offers a rationalization for an understanding. Outside my professional years in broadcasting and print journalism, there is much, much more.

I have worked 'stoop labor' with Mexicans in Washington and Oregon, picking crops. I have worked on a dairy farm and been a logger and a truck driver and an equipment operator, backhoes and Caterpillar crawlers, ditch diggers, road graders and held warning flags for highway construction and hired out for 'day labor' in various areas, worked in factories and plants manufacturing all sorts of things.

The people I met there and in a hundred other places, couldn't spell, didn't vote, never read a book, never finished school, had been in and out of jail, used drugs, spent their paychecks over the weekend and borrowed from me on Tuesday.

They also picked me up when I fell, shared a lunch when I forgot mine, covered for me when I was feeling poorly, helped me move, gave me rides to work, let me bum a smoke, backed me up in a bar fight, and much, much more.

I found more humanity among the great unwashed masses than I ever did on campus or in the professional world.

I tried not to use words of more than three syllables when I talked with them, refrained from metaphors and wise sayings, I mainly listened and observed; I think it has made me a better writer of fiction, about the last thing I ever thought to attempt.

The average IQ is about 105-110, depending on which source you quote. You know what an average is, of course, those doing the menial tasks out in the world probably average around 90, but I have seen no stats to confirm that.

But they are in the vast majority, they are humans, living and loving, suffering and dying, hating and joyous, for reasons all their own.

I have found them everywhere, in America, Canada, in England, France and Germany, all the many places I have ventured; they are as some one said, 'the salt of the earth'.

The funny thing is, they always know. In a hundred little ways, I know they know about me even though I never make a point of expressing it. I never quite understood just how they knew, but they did.

There was a time, when the old saw, "Ignorance is Bliss", made a lot of sense to me. I often wished I could be as 'non-thinking' non aware, as they were.

This is, I think, the thread about education and from what I read, the educated elite seem to have a missionary quest to save the heathens from ignorance. They, you, seem to feel obligated to force them to become aware of the intellectual history of the world.

They don't give a rat's ass.

Never will.

They have their Gods, they have their faith and belief, they accept their culture and their place in life, happily so.

Unlike the intellectual snobs, the effete elite, who have no place, no faith, no culture.

Once they can escape your mandatory education, they never look back, never mourn the wasted days and months and years in boring classrooms. But they take from it the friendships they made, the memories they created, but...learning, was never a part of it.

I used to have some pride in my intellectual propinquity, sallied forth with the same snobbishness I noted here and reveled in it, as y'all are doing.

But...the radio shows I did...I did for them...the newspaper articles I wrote, I wrote for them. The art I do, they consume, the music I play, they listen to.

There is a poem, if memory serves, by Leigh Hunt, "Jenny Kissed Me", which I have always felt summed it up, in a way. I could link you to it, or paste it here, but if you have an interest, you will find it.

I am sure you know this, Roxanne, et al; but when out and about you might curtail that intellectual snobbery, for your own sake, for they don't give a damn and can make life really difficult for you.

amicus...

 

[Weird Harold]

I may be reading things into your post that are not there, but I think I do detect a social expectation of what a young person should know, literate, based on some abstract social imperative put in place by mandatory education that must, by definition, offer a general overview of knowledge at levels and in subjects chosen by the ptb...powers that be (mccaffrey novel)

I also think this question does not take into consideration that fact that most children a raised in homes where both parents work full time, in a nation where a full forty percent of children have no father in the home, thus both the masculine and feminine development of children is left to schools and daycare and after school care facilities.

I tried not to imply anything about "How" anyone might become "literate" -- A term I am deliberately using beyond it's strict dictionary definition -- and am simply trying to determine "WHAT" constitutes "Literate."

Perhaps, the question should have been framed in the negative -- by what lack of information/skill/concept do YOU identify someone as Illiterate or uneducated.

The question was framed and intended to deliberately EXCLUDE considerations such as the consequences of working parents, single parents, inept teachers, and all of the other pet peeves that other discussions of education ge sidetracked into.

The question is NOT about who, how, where, or when, the question is strictly about WHAT-- and specifically about personal opinion and not about educational theorists' doctoral theses and political panaceas. People are always complaining about the "educational system" not teaching students what they should be taught, but nobody ever bothers to state what it is the students should be learning -- or they have some pet subject that simply isn't getting sufficient attention and would solve all of the educational problems of the world.

I'm sorry people, but more music education isn't going make every student a genius, nor is increasing funding and emphasis on any other single subject.

 

[slyc_willie]

This is, I think, the thread about education and from what I read, the educated elite seem to have a missionary quest to save the heathens from ignorance. They, you, seem to feel obligated to force them to become aware of the intellectual history of the world.

They don't give a rat's ass.

Never will.

They have their Gods, they have their faith and belief, they accept their culture and their place in life, happily so.

Unlike the intellectual snobs, the effete elite, who have no place, no faith, no culture.
amicus...

Actually, it's a thread about perception of literacy, not necessarily education.

Would you argue that is is wrong to want to impose a knowledge of history upon those who follow us? 'They don't give a rat's ass,' you argue. 'Never will.' Hell, I didn't give a shit about history, English, sociology or psychology when I was growing up, but my teachers made the effort to instill in me at least a little respect for those disciplines.

And that intellectual pummeling resulted in me eventually graduating with two degrees. I felt an obligation to do so, maybe not for my teachers, but at least for their teachings.

As for 'they have their gods, they accept their place, and happily so,' you need to step outside that little bubble in which you live, because I can assure you that quite a few of those who have suffered from lack of education are NOT 'happily so.'

And I don't mean just the ones who didn't graduate high school. Or those who couldn't afford college. I mean the ones who never had it drilled into their heads that knowledge makes the difference.

And about . . . 'Unlike the intellectual snobs, the effete elite, who have no place, no faith, no culture.'

Wake up and smell what you're shoveling. If you didn't have a place, Amicus, we wouldn't be responding to you.

 

[amicus]

Weird Harold..."...The question is NOT about who, how, where, or when, the question is strictly about WHAT-- and specifically about personal opinion..."

~~~

I would like to think we are on the same page, but I am not so sure...

If you want a 'personal' opinion, mine would be that I don't give a damn about how, 'literate', a person is. Literacy is a bonus in a relationship.

What I judge, in another person, is, I guess, their humanity. Are they a 'good' person? Do they possess integrity and honor and self esteem? Are they real or fabricated?

Even the details in their lives, the level of education, their occupation, none of this holds import for me if I see in their eyes or their behavior that they cannot be trusted, are deceptive or dishonest or, flakey, as a colloquialism.

ah, well, it is late...but I tried...


amicus...

 

[amicus]

Actually, it's a thread about perception of literacy, not necessarily education.

Would you argue that is is wrong to want to impose a knowledge of history upon those who follow us? 'They don't give a rat's ass,' you argue. 'Never will.' Hell, I didn't give a shit about history, English, sociology or psychology when I was growing up, but my teachers made the effort to instill in me at least a little respect for those disciplines.

And that intellectual pummeling resulted in me eventually graduating with two degrees. I felt an obligation to do so, maybe not for my teachers, but at least for their teachings.

As for 'they have their gods, they accept their place, and happily so,' you need to step outside that little bubble in which you live, because I can assure you that quite a few of those who have suffered from lack of education are NOT 'happily so.'

And I don't mean just the ones who didn't graduate high school. Or those who couldn't afford college. I mean the ones who never had it drilled into their heads that knowledge makes the difference.

And about . . . 'Unlike the intellectual snobs, the effete elite, who have no place, no faith, no culture.'

Wake up and smell what you're shoveling. If you didn't have a place, Amicus, we wouldn't be responding to you.

~~~

Hmmm....I am not a Pragmatist, not a 'practical' man, thus my hackles rise when you ask: "Would you argue that is is wrong to want to impose a knowledge of history upon those who follow us?

My first reaction was, yes, it is wrong to impose any knowledge upon any one, child or not, who does not seek that knowledge.

But since I have struggled to find the patience to teach several small children how to write the letters in the alphabet, according to the rules of writing, I suppose I have, myself, imposed some 'knowledge' on others.

"...Hell, I didn't give a shit about history, English, sociology or psychology when I was growing up, but my teachers made the effort to instill in me at least a little respect for those disciplines.

And that intellectual pummeling..."

I am too much the idealist, the dreamer, the purist, if you will, and as I stated, not practical at all.

I infer from what you said, that I placed in boldface, that you think or believe that to educate, is to force knowledge upon unwilling subjects, for their own good.

I don't see education or the learning process that way.

I didn't have the time, working two jobs and all, to educate my own children as I might have wished.

I did have the time however, later, with a grand-daughter and she did not want to put in the work to learn how to make her 'letters' in the tablet I bought for her.

But she did have an interest in planting a garden, the seeds, the watering, the plants coming up and through her interest in that, I led her to want to learn to read and through that to want, mind you, want, to learn her letters.

And she did and she now wants to learn to write stories, as I do.

If nothing else on this forum, in my philosophy, I am consistent, I do not advocate the use of force or imposition on others to achieve my ends. Also consistent is my position that imposed behavior is not healthy for anyone; doing things because you were forced to does not prepare one for life.

I don't think knowledge has to be or can be, 'drilled into one's head'.

As I said elsewhere, learning is the greatest joy of mankind. Each person, each child wants to learn, it is a natural thing. If we treat each as an individual and have enough respect for that individual to discover what it is that they want to learn, it is easy as pie to teach.

amicus....

 

[slyc_willie]

I don't think knowledge has to be or can be, 'drilled into one's head'.

As I said elsewhere, learning is the greatest joy of mankind. Each person, each child wants to learn, it is a natural thing. If we treat each as an individual and have enough respect for that individual to discover what it is that they want to learn, it is easy as pie to teach.

amicus....

No, it's not. The basics have to be impressed. Even forced. As I said, I did not care for learning until it was forced down my throat. THEN, did I learn. Maybe you find offense at 'forcing' a child to learn something, and in basic principle, I can accept that. In application, however, learning must at first be pushed. Once the basics are impregnated, they are there, and they grow.

Didn't you learn anything from basic biology? This is not a kind world. Nothing is moved forward because it is 'gently supposed.' But neither is anything truly realized if there is not given room for an individual to grow.

Therefore, I state: Learning begins with the admittedly forceful introduction of ideas upon the tabula rasa of a young mind. Following that, the individual learns or fails according to their own continued idea -- supported or not -- of education.

 

[amicus]

No, it's not. The basics have to be impressed. Even forced. As I said, I did not care for learning until it was forced down my throat. THEN, did I learn. Maybe you find offense at 'forcing' a child to learn something, and in basic principle, I can accept that. In application, however, learning must at first be pushed. Once the basics are impregnated, they are there, and they grow.

Didn't you learn anything from basic biology? This is not a kind world. Nothing is moved forward because it is 'gently supposed.' But neither is anything truly realized if there is not given room for an individual to grow.

Therefore, I state: Learning begins with the admittedly forceful introduction of ideas upon the tabula rasa of a young mind. Following that, the individual learns or fails according to their own continued idea -- supported or not -- of education.

~~~

Well then, I guess we disagree.

Although there is merit in your words.

That, 'tabula rasa' child has no fear and must be protected.

That does mean, of course, discipline, so that the learning process is not fatal.

Where we disagree, I think, is that I postulate that the child is naturally curious and wants to learn and will learn, if the information is presented properly.

You purport that a child must be forced to learn, I do not.

Another aspect...which I must present from memory as I do not have the energy to do the research again...is that learning is a chronological thing, tied to brain development which is different with each child.

The research I discovered implied that a child is not really ready for serious learning procedures until about age eight, although it does vary from child to child.

Thus, 'forced' learning at age four, five or six, pre school, kindergarten I(german word), may indeed corrupt a child to where they will never 'choose', to learn of their own accord.

Going political here...because of women's lib, heavy taxation, necessitating two incomes, children are forced into pre school and daycare as an economic motive, not in accordance of what is best for the child.

In other words, it's all fucked up.


amicus...

 

[Liar]

Hey Liar - those key dates that I mentioned in my last post? What would be comparable ones for your country. (You are pretty literate so you may know these even though they are not for your country, but 1776 is the Decaration of Independence [which I would be surprised if you didn't know], 1787 is the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, 1863 the most dramatic year of the U.S, civil war [I actually meant to make that 1862 when Lincoln freed the slaves but messed up], etc.

I dunno. I'm sure I was taught a bucketload of years (1718 - the death of Karl XII, 1527 - first parlamentary congressions, 1814 - union w Norway, are the only ones I remember), and I'm sure I passed the tests at the time. But back then I only knew the numbers, and very little what they meant, I mean what they really meant. For the people living there and then, or for the people living here and now. That, I know now, after aquiring knowledge about it on my own. My teachers had so much history to cover that they simply didn't have time to go any deeper than to hammer in basic data so that the kids could pass some kind of comparable exam. Thus I didn't get to learn history, I got to memorize numbers.

And since nobody could explain why the numbers mattered, the numbers didn't stick past the day of the test.

It was years later, in the end of high school that I was taught the most important thing in school: Those damn numbers are written down in things called books. Books remember stuff so that I don't have to. If I need a number, there's a book or database that will tell it to me. We were taught how to navigate these books and databases for the numbers, names and other factual bits we were after. And we were taught that it was not a failure to have to resort to a book to find some odd fact out, but a sign that you had your priorities straight and focused your mind on things more in need of the grey matter.

 

[Liar]

Another aspect...which I must present from memory as I do not have the energy to do the research again...is that learning is a chronological thing, tied to brain development which is different with each child.

The research I discovered implied that a child is not really ready for serious learning procedures until about age eight, although it does vary from child to child.

Sounds like Jean Piaget and cognitive development. At least the same principle, that earky education should be tied to methods and subjects suitable for the physiological development of the kid's brain. That, combined with Lev Vygotskij, who said that it's useless, and possibly harmful to try to rush the learning process.

 

[TheEarl]

I just gave a version of my notion in the edu drops the ball thread:

On this side of the pond, when I talk to someone who has graduated from high school I expect them to understand an allusion to what happened in 1776, 1787, 1863, and 1945; perform basic algebra; have some conception of what the scientific method is; and many other items without which one can hardly be considered to be an educated person. Too often they snicker at the thought that the notion that they should be expected to know such things.


(What would the analogous dates be over there? 1066, 1649, 1688, 1914-18, 1940, etc. ?)

I guess the analagous important history would be knowledge of Romans (56BC veni, vidi, vici) and Saxons, 1066 (Battle of Hastings and Britain's movement from a Scandanavian outlook, to a central European one), 1666 (Great Fire of London), basic knowledge about the Tudors and Stuarts, the Spanish Armada, etc, 1914-18 and 1939 to 1945 (World War 2 started in 1939, not 40!).

One thing which is not currently taught in English history is the British Empire. I remember that it was touched upon very briefly, once, by one of my teachers, when explaining why Britain had such importance in world politics, despite its small geographical size. However, it's barely talked about and when it is, it's emphasised as slavery, degradation and conquest, with the positive effects of colonialism completely glossed over.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

Another aspect...which I must present from memory as I do not have the energy to do the research again...is that learning is a chronological thing, tied to brain development which is different with each child.

The research I discovered implied that a child is not really ready for serious learning procedures until about age eight, although it does vary from child to child.

Thus, 'forced' learning at age four, five or six, pre school, kindergarten I(german word), may indeed corrupt a child to where they will never 'choose', to learn of their own accord.

However, there is significant research that a child's language centres are designed to be activated early and often and, in fact, start losing the capability to learn with age. Foreign languages are the major example of this one; if you've not been taught it early, then it's going to be very hard to learn.

The Earl

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=TheEarl]However, there is significant research that a child's language centres are designed to be activated early and often and, in fact, start losing the capability to learn with age. Foreign languages are the major example of this one; if you've not been taught it early, then it's going to be very hard to learn.

The Earl[/QUOTE]

~~~

Excellent point, Earl, I have read that also and wondered, if so, is it wise or not, to teach a second language at an early age or not...


amicus

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Liar]Sounds like Jean Piaget and cognitive development. At least the same principle, that earky education should be tied to methods and subjects suitable for the physiological development of the kid's brain. That, combined with Lev Vygotskij, who said that it's useless, and possibly harmful to try to rush the learning process.[/QUOTE]

~~~


Yes, Thank you, Liar.

"...Piaget divided schemes that children use to understand the world through four main stages, roughly correlated with and becoming increasingly sophisticated with age:

* Sensorimotor stage (years 0–2)
* Preoperational stage (years 2–7)
* Concrete operational stage (years 7–11)
* Formal operational stage (years 11–adulthood)

~~~

From reading, I know that many Litsters have young children and may think or believe that early education is beneficial, it may not be...something to think about.


amicus...

 

[rgraham666]

No, it's not. The basics have to be impressed. Even forced. As I said, I did not care for learning until it was forced down my throat. THEN, did I learn. Maybe you find offense at 'forcing' a child to learn something, and in basic principle, I can accept that. In application, however, learning must at first be pushed. Once the basics are impregnated, they are there, and they grow.

Didn't you learn anything from basic biology? This is not a kind world. Nothing is moved forward because it is 'gently supposed.' But neither is anything truly realized if there is not given room for an individual to grow.

Therefore, I state: Learning begins with the admittedly forceful introduction of ideas upon the tabula rasa of a young mind. Following that, the individual learns or fails according to their own continued idea -- supported or not -- of education.

My experience was the opposite. I loved learning. I could read before I went to school. The first time I got to stand in the corner was for reading a Grade 8 science textbook instead of 'Look Jane, look. See Spot run!'

But between shit kickings from the normal kids, the school system's decision that I was uneducable early on and my family's attitude which was 'Why should we care if you do well in school? Or even exist for that matter?' I got over it

 

[oggbashan]

My definition would be:

"Able to function fully as a participating member of the particular society of which the individual is part."

I think I am literate in the UK and in the AH.

I would not be literate in countries when I have no knowledge of the language e.g. Greece, Russia, or Japan. I think I have the capacity to become literate in those countries if I became resident.

It irritates me slightly that some Brits retiring to Spain make no attempt to become competent in Spanish, nor to engage themselves with the Spanish communities in which they live. Of course, some Brits do integrate, but many don't even try. I would regard the non-tryers as illiterate (and discourteous to their country of residence).

Og

 

[kendo1]

It irritates me slightly that some Brits retiring to Spain make no attempt to become competent in Spanish, nor to engage themselves with the Spanish communities in which they live. Of course, some Brits do integrate, but many don't even try. I would regard the non-tryers as illiterate (and discourteous to their country of residence).

Og

And immigrants to this country?

 

[oggbashan]

And immigrants to this country?

Yes. They should make attempts to be able to communicate in and to understand the language of the country in which they live.

Help should be provided to help them to learn English. My wife tutored a Chinese-speaking boy from Taiwan. At age 9, within 18 months of arrival of the UK, he was assessed by his school as being "only ordinary" at English, but exceptional in Mathematics and Sciences. The assessing teacher hadn't been told that English was his third language. With help from his parents, from that school, and from subsequent schools, he took his Masters at MIT and his Ph.D soon afterwards.

One of my daughters has been mentoring a Somali family. They older children spoke Tigrayan at home, learned Egyptian and classical Arabic, then French and finally, after arrival in this country, English. They are literate in English and one is about to complete a law degree.

Our local (and recent) Polish community tends to speak and write better English than our local Youff. I remember visiting a Chinese takeaway in rural Wales. All the staff spoke competent English and Welsh.

I saw interviews with some locals about the Bollywood extravangza in Yorkshire. The locals, of several national origins, were speaking Yorkshire.

In our local community there are an increasing number of first generation immigrants. Most are from the recently extended EU but almost all are communicating fluently and grammatically in English.

Og

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

[QUOTE=Roxanne Appleby]Yer damn straight, and proud of it. This kind of snobbery, anyway. Knowledge is available to all, and those who refuse it deserve disdain.

~~~

I seldom take the opportunity to quote one of your posts Roxanne, or even to participate in your threads for reasons previously determined.

The people I met there and in a hundred other places, couldn't spell, didn't vote, never read a book, never finished school, had been in and out of jail, used drugs, spent their paychecks over the weekend and borrowed from me on Tuesday.

They also picked me up when I fell, shared a lunch when I forgot mine, covered for me when I was feeling poorly, helped me move, gave me rides to work, let me bum a smoke, backed me up in a bar fight, and much, much more.

I found more humanity among the great unwashed masses than I ever did on campus or in the professional world.

I am sure you know this, Roxanne, et al; but when out and about you might curtail that intellectual snobbery, for your own sake, for they don't give a damn and can make life really difficult for you.

amicus...

Not relevent. Of course one should not look down upon others who lack bookish knowledge because they never had an opportunity to acquire it. That kind of snobbery is hardly better than racism, in that it demeans on the basis of a characteristic over which an individual has no control and which says nothing about the content of his character. In contrast, those who had the opportunity to learn, such as attending 12 years of primary education in the U.S., did not avail themselves of it, and have never taken action to redress the shortcoming, have earned my deprecation with years of steady application to the process of honing their ignorance.

"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son." Too many people miss that valuable little lesson.


Edit to add: Also there is the bell curve, and the shocking fact that half the population is below median intelligence, many by quite a distance. That little lesson from Animal House should say, "Fat, drunk and ignorant," since intelligence is a characteristic over which one has little or no control. It is gift distributed on a lottery basis: those who have it did nothing to earn it, and deserve no special admiration on that basis; those who have less of it deserve no less regard.

As always it comes down to character - one admires those who have that, and not those who do not. Turning one's face from knowledge when it is offered is a character defect. I won't damn a person for life because they were foolish during their youth, but if they have the capacity and never seek to repair the mistake, that's a different matter.

 

[Pure]

The people I met there and in a hundred other places, couldn't spell, didn't vote, never read a book, never finished school, had been in and out of jail, used drugs, spent their paychecks over the weekend and borrowed from me on Tuesday.

They also picked me up when I fell, shared a lunch when I forgot mine, covered for me when I was feeling poorly, helped me move, gave me rides to work, let me bum a smoke, backed me up in a bar fight, and much, much more.

I found more humanity among the great unwashed masses than I ever did on campus or in the professional world.

i don't think the thread was about 'who is admirable' or 'who is a fine person,' or 'who do you want to back you up in a bar fight.' Many common day laborers probably have these qualities. Unskilled or semi skilled or skilled in manual labor are occupational categories not gradings as to character, virtue or admirability. The proverbial 'ditch digger' who cannot even write his name, or read, may well be an admirable person: honest and loyal, ready to lay down his life for his friends or family.

Although there is something to be learned from his perspectives on the world and life, they may be skewed. Perhaps he thinks other races are closer to the apes than his own race. Perhaps he thinks children are best kept quiet and beaten regularly for their misdeeds. Perhaps he thinks he has a right to kill his wife if she's unfaithful. Perhaps *she* thinks that an ice cold drink, or jumping off a chair, after sex will stop conception.

However, job/skill level is not connected to virtue. there is no shortage of literate villains, or just callously indifferent; the trial of "Lord Black" in Chicago is about an alleged theft [or malfeasance] by a highly educated person, indeed the author of several works of history. Some high Nazi officials were highly educated and cultured.

I agree with the posters who define basic literacy as ability to do certain job related tasks, such as rr has listed; reading directions; making simple records; also adding the prices of meal items, though the cash registers do this also. filling out a job application might also be mentioned. Also the ability to write a simple letter: illiterate persons in some countries go to 'letter writers' for services.

Some computer skills are now basic to functioning, though i wouldn't say programming is one of them. But creating files, saving and altering them; using email; downloading programs, pictures and documents are basid. Knowledge of terminology is helpful. What is Windows, what is 'memory.'


At the higher level one is talking "cultural literacy" and "historical knowledge," and i agree that know a bit of one's country's history, great authors etc. AS WELL AS other countries' history, authors, art.

ADDED: One think i don't see mentioned, is some legal and law related knowledge. What happens in a courtroom. How to testify, to address a judge. One's rights, if charged. How do you file a 'small claim,' or apply for citizenship. At a lower level, how do you write an objection to an unfair job evaluation, or make a case to one's bosses regarding not being paid properly.
==

ADDED further: Weird H, I don't see a basic problem in quantifying the above points. There are measures of vocabulary, reading comprehension, mathematical literacy. I'd say "basic" literacy is something like a grade 9 level. Higher forms of literacy are represented in university level tests, like the SATS. Lets say, above 600. There are area tests as well. None of this is very mysterious, where an educational system chooses to assess itself and its students.

 

[Weird Harold]

My definition would be:

"Able to function fully as a participating member of the particular society of which the individual is part."

And a very nice qualitative definition it is, but...

How would you quantify the necessary elements that make up "function fully as a participarting member ... of society?"

I think I am literate in the UK and in the AH.

I would not be literate in countries when I have no knowledge of the language e.g. Greece, Russia, or Japan. I think I have the capacity to become literate in those countries if I became resident.

By the strict definition of "literate" which is confined to language skills and/or reading ability, you're correct, but...

In the broader sense of literate in which I asked the question, does your general educational a level somehow become less because you move to a place where you can't communicate that general knowledge? Do your math skills somehow vanish or your undersanding of basic newtonian physics suddenly become invalid?

As for physics changing with language, after cab rides in Thailand and Spain, I couldn't swear that speaking something other than English doesn't empower your vehicles horn to actualy move obstructions out of the way.

I suspect that such "situational illiteracy" is usually fairly easily correctable for a person who is already "literate" in some other context but not for someone who isn't already "literate" in some context.

 

[gauchecritic]

I define literate as not having to ask someone else.

Literally, literate is being able to read and understand every day language.

The skill required in deciphering the utilisation of simple structural elements, albeit without the inherent constraints/freedoms of a greater than mean vocabulary.

I wouldn't apply literate to anything other than language.

Mathematically there are any number of people that have the ability to take any three consecutive numbers chosen randomly from points on a scale of 1 to 20 involving doubling or trebling any or all of them and subtracting the the result from a given figure ranging from 2 to 501, in the blink of an eye, but are functionally enumerate and might guess that Euclid plays for Barcelona.

 

[Grushenka]

I wouldn't apply literate to anything other than language.

Thank you. Yes!