That's assuming people read the best books.

Let's not forget that Fifty Shades of Grey was the best selling book of the decade (in the US):

https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/20...

Not doing that would still make them illiterate in some degree.

But even with mediocre books, at least they wouldn't be reading the attention-killing dopamine chasing snippets of BS on most online websites.

Do it sound like these "don't read even a book per year" people read The Well or LessWrong or something of the sort online?

Your reading preferences are not the gold standard in what makes a good book or makes one "literate". The same applies to every other single individual.

At the same time the internet obviously doesn't only contain "dopamine chasing snippets of BS". Online discussions and articles can improve critical thinking or make someone think deeper about their views and motivation just like literature can. Yet you deny that by bluntly saying all people reading no books are illiterate.

As a side note, before you start gatekeeping literacy you may want to avoid grammar mistakes in your own writing. Though it will not make your point come across less elitist, unfortunately.

Yes, but those were just examples, not meant to pinpoint the golden standard but to illustrate the point.

>The same applies to every other single individual.

Yes, but it shouldn't apply to a collective cultural consensus.

Of course in this era nothing can be said to be of a higher standard, and everything cultural is subjective, lest one offends the high priests of mass culture and their "individual (consumer) is king" religion. So feel free to downvote, like other cultures and eras would have felt free to upvote.

>As a side note, before you start gatekeeping literacy you may want to avoid grammar mistakes in your own writing.

Ah, the ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with the substance of the argument.

Never mind that I'm not a native speaker, and I would like to see how you would have fared in my language :-)

If you judge others based on what they read you better meet your own standards, that's all I'm saying.

> Never mind that I'm not a native speaker

Me neither. Even though according to your statements in previous comments I'm illiterate.

I don't judge any particular person, much less one I'm involved in argument with, for that to be an ad-hominen.

I also don't abstracty judge people in general/in toto (e.g. morally, or in some such capacity) I judge their literacy/culture etc.

For this purpose, "what you read" has historically been even better than a mere correlation / proxy (being "well read" having been an essential attribute of culture).

It's not your ability to read words that is relevant, but your ability to understand contexts and meanings.

And I don't mean "deep thought" level critique and understanding. More like following a paragraph and understanding what is being said.

"Literacy"? Not really. AFAIK, there's the "functional literacy" term for that.

Being able to read road signs and the like?

In an idiocracy, it doesn't.

Literacy meant more than simple being able to read and write on a technical level. (Not that most people not reading "even a book a year" can read and write coherently or "read the Economist" otherwise).

I do agree it would be better if people read more actual books but this seems like a degree of literacy issue while illiterate tends to mean "completely unable to read."

If you can read the words in an article, but don't understand what it says, should you really be considered literate?

Understanding what it says is not understanding the meanings of separate words, but the meaning of the text in question.