I believe that the article has meaningful arguments, such as:
* By contrast, decreasing literary sophistication may lead to decreasing political sophistication.
* Lose the ability to read complex prose and he fears you may also lose the ability to develop complex ideas that “allow you to see nuance and to hold two contradictory thoughts together”. The medium is the message, and the message is currently 280 characters long.
However, I also agree with you that the article does not present evidence that directly supports its arguments.
Studies linking reading comprehension & critical thinking (which I expect means the ability to navigate complex thought) certainly do exist & should have been mentioned.
> I expect if you asked Flesch and Kincaid themselves whether they think a text of lower Flesch–Kincaid readability score means it's "dumber" they would say no.
The "dumber" adjective isn't regarding the text, but the intended audience.
The lower Flesch–Kincaid readability score of inaugural presidential addresses is a lagging indicator of the dumbing down of politics, not a cause.
> Comparing to Washington makes little sense.
Democratization of American politics is a confounding factor, but also directly related. The elites would have higher reading comprehension, so increased democratization would require a dumbing down of politics.
Similarly, the decline in the lower Flesch–Kincaid readability score is noticeably stronger after inaugural presidential addresses stopped being delivered in written form.
So I think that using Washington for comparison is perfectly fine considering that the trend has continued incrementally throughout American history.
* By contrast, decreasing literary sophistication may lead to decreasing political sophistication.
* Lose the ability to read complex prose and he fears you may also lose the ability to develop complex ideas that “allow you to see nuance and to hold two contradictory thoughts together”. The medium is the message, and the message is currently 280 characters long.
However, I also agree with you that the article does not present evidence that directly supports its arguments.
Studies linking reading comprehension & critical thinking (which I expect means the ability to navigate complex thought) certainly do exist & should have been mentioned.
> I expect if you asked Flesch and Kincaid themselves whether they think a text of lower Flesch–Kincaid readability score means it's "dumber" they would say no.
The "dumber" adjective isn't regarding the text, but the intended audience.
The lower Flesch–Kincaid readability score of inaugural presidential addresses is a lagging indicator of the dumbing down of politics, not a cause.
> Comparing to Washington makes little sense.
Democratization of American politics is a confounding factor, but also directly related. The elites would have higher reading comprehension, so increased democratization would require a dumbing down of politics.
Similarly, the decline in the lower Flesch–Kincaid readability score is noticeably stronger after inaugural presidential addresses stopped being delivered in written form.
So I think that using Washington for comparison is perfectly fine considering that the trend has continued incrementally throughout American history.