Dr Neville Buch
Abstract
Many people today find it hard to read long books or understand deep ideas because they are distracted by phones and social media. This problem is called a “crisis of comprehension,” where our brains get lazy and stop thinking for themselves. This essay explains why we need to start “deep reading” again to truly understand what writers mean. It also looks at a critic named Sophia Corwin, who says there is no real problem, and explains why her thinking might be missing the bigger picture.
——————————————————————————–
Why It Is Hard to Read These Days
In the world today, many students and adults have a hard time finishing long readings. One big reason is called “denoetization,” which is a fancy word for when we lose our ability to judge and think for ourselves. Because we spend so much time on apps like TikTok or Instagram, we get used to reading very short, “chopped up” pieces of information. This leads to “symbolic misery,” where we feel bored or lost because we aren’t using our own minds to create meaning. Also, schools often focus on a “Credential Society,” where students only care about getting good grades or “job tickets” instead of actually learning what a book is trying to say.
Why We Should Read for True Meaning
When we read, we should try to find the “intended semantics,” which means the real message the writer wanted to share. If we only read the words on the surface, we might get things wrong or repeat old mistakes from the past. This is called “historical forgetfulness”. To fix this, we need to have a “fusion of horizons,” where we let the book’s ideas challenge what we already think. This helps us become the “author” of our own lives instead of just following what technology tells us to do.
Answering the Critic: Sophia Corwin
A writer named Sophia Corwin argues that this crisis is “fabricated,” or made up. She points to test scores called PISA data that show Australian students are still doing okay at reading. However, the sources suggest that Corwin is stuck in a “techné mindset”. This means she is only looking at “thin” numbers and data instead of the “thick” reality of how people think. While test scores might look stable, they don’t show if people are actually thinking deeply or just mastering the “forms” of school to get a grade. By ignoring the “intellectual wounds” in our society, she misses the real problem.
——————————————————————————–
DoC Analysis: Sophia Corwin’s Problem of Cognition
The following table uses the Dynamic of Cognition (DoC) to show why Sophia Corwin’s view is considered a “regression” (moving backward) compared to the “ascent” (moving forward) of deep reading.
| DoC Component | Pathological Regression (Corwin’s Problem) | Methodological Ascent (Deep Reading) | Rationale |
| Prejudice (Centre) | Thoughtlessness: Relying only on test scores and “obvious” facts. | Reflective Self-Criticism: Questioning if test scores tell the whole story. | Moves from “mindless habit” to active choice. |
| Attitudes (Thinking) | Mechanical Techné: Treating students like data points in a network. | Communicative Action: Reading to truly understand another person’s point of view. | Replaces strategic data-crunching with deep judgment. |
| Exclusion (Sensation) | Historical Forgetfulness: Ignoring how digital habits have changed our brains over time. | Spiral Historiography: Learning from past errors to fix today’s reading problems. | Filters out “institutional bullshit” and manufactured myths. |
| Inclusion (Intuition) | Puny Human Node: Seeing people as just parts of a system or OECD average. | Human Authorship: Reclaiming the power to be the creator of meaning. | Restores reading as a way to start something new. |
——————————————————————————–
Bibliography
- Buch, N. (2025). The Dynamic of Cognition. Academia.edu.
- Buch, N. (2026). The Crisis of Comprehension and the Restoration of Deep Reading. Management Institute for Contributory Economy.
- Buch, N. (2026). Limited Thinking and the Contributory Economy. Management Institute for Contributory Economy.
- Corwin, S. L. (2026). The Fabricated Crisis.
- Mason, D. (2026). Response to the MICE Critique: A DB-FEP + DQA + ELIS Forensic Evaluation.
- McMurtrie, B. (2024, May 9). Is This the End of Reading? The Chronicle of Higher Education.
- Stiegler, B. (1998). Technics and Time, 1: The Fault of Epimetheus. Stanford University Press.
——————————————————————————–
Endnotes
- Literacy in the general population is going through an “immense regression.”
- “Denoetization” is when technical systems stop us from thinking for ourselves.
- Apps and digital clips cause “symbolic misery” and short attention spans.
- A “Credential Society” makes people care more about grades than truth.
- We should read to find the “intended semantics” or the real message.
- The “Epimethean fault” is a way of saying we forget where our ideas came from.
- A “fusion of horizons” is when a reader and a text meet to create new understanding.
- Sophia Corwin uses PISA scores to say there is no reading crisis.
- Corwin’s focus on numbers is called a “techné mindset” or “mechanistic reductionism.”
- Reflective self-criticism helps us move past “thoughtlessness.”
- “Spiral historiography” helps us “uncoil” patterns of mistakes in history.
- Human authorship means being the master of the machines we use.
https://www.academia.edu/166174538/The_Crisis_of_Comprehension_and_the_Restoration_of_Deep_Reading_Part_2_Response_to_Critics
Featured Image: Neville Buch, No Regrets in the Evening of Life.
Neville Buch
Latest posts by Neville Buch (see all)
- The Epistemology of Fanaticism: Wishful Thinking, Political Exploitation, and the Reclamation of Higher Values in Sport – September 27, 2026
- Agency, Spiral History, and the Market Chaos Myth: Reclaiming Human Authorship through the Contributory Economy – September 25, 2026
- The Nostalgia Trap – September 25, 2026