If A causes B, and you see B, it's a logical fallacy to presume that the B you observe was caused by A. That's the core of what I'm discussing here: pointing out that B is caused by more than just A, and that A itself isn't as common as you seem to suggest, so your Bayesian inference of how much B is caused by A is weighted all wrong.

You came in, excited to share with the world about the reading debates, and then making the mistake of overassigning that cause to every effect you see. I'm pointing out the errors in your reasoning.

I'm not discouraging you from being excited about the topic. It's important. I already agree with you. I also don't need hours of podcast audio to summarize what I already know from extensive reading on the topic, over literal decades. I'm not arguing with you about the history or the science.

I am, however, asking you to, like, actually read and understand what I'm saying. You've leapt to an unsupported conclusion (the illiterate people I encounter are illiterate because they weren't taught phonics) based on a bad reasoning from a correct premise that I agree with (phonics instruction is the best method of teaching literacy, and too many educators went down the wrong path in the past). And separately, you seem to be under the misconception that people born in 2000 suffer from this problem worse than people born in 1980 or 1960. That's been my consistent position this entire thread.