The more information available to people, the more superficial their uptake of it. That's the one worthy message here (and one we have to pay attention to). The rest of the essay smacks of a certain elitism. The author is putting down lecture series, which were very popular in the era, especially among women. Edith and Margaret often attended lectures. In fact, these lectures were one of the few public events 'respectable' women could attend (without male escorts) to satisfy their intellectual thirst while getting out of the oppressive confines of their rooming house.   The author also  appears to be putting down motion pictures, another venue that was allowing for more freedom for middle class women, even if  motion pictures were considered depraved in some circles.  Many early motion pictures were produced for their educational value. Thomas Edison was one in particular who promoted the educational value of the new film medium. 

Sven Birkerts, in a great little book, Reading in the Information Age, claims that reading, as the Victorians knew it, is a sit by the river under a tree kind of activity. I witnessed my 18 year old the other day, reading a book for school, while text-messaging his girlfriend, while playing poker with his friends. Still, he got a good mark on his term paper. I'm guessing the teacher corrected it while watching  The Amazing Race and feeding his infant daughter.

<<This is an age of shifting duties and responsibilities to other shoulders for the purpose of getting others to do as much as possible and the lazy beneficiaries to enjoy the proceeds with the least expenditure of physical and mental force.  The prevalent attitude of mind in the United States, and especially in much of the fashionable and shallow society, is that a good, intellectual training may be required without ones exerting himself very much except to pay a paltry sum for the opportunity. 

There are numerous instances in which one is employed to do all the work for others under the mistaken idea that intellectual vigor can be attained without any real labor. The whole theory, in a nutshell, is that somebody else should do the work while the recipient, sponge-like, absorbs and fills his brain capacity. The woods are full of persons who travel around and present a series of studies on this subject or that, to a group of persons who sit and listen, and perhaps take some notes, and when the series is concluded imagine that they are now high masters in that particular field of knowledge.

Literally, the age is so eager to know without effort that everything must be epitomized to save digging it out, as if that would contribute one iota to one's intellectual strength.

We are so intent on saving time that we fail to save but lose ourselves, and then mass in flocks to use our ears for an hour listening to speeches, or use our eyes in looking at magnified pictures on a screen, and come away satisfied that we have grasped the subject in its entirety.
…
Most minds move sluggishly and in very narrow grooves, and oftentimes clumsily, not suggesting something, but merely following some lead. If one having such a mind becomes a teacher or temporary leader of others, he can not guide or lead others through a series of complex problems or situations.

The great need in educational work is to get men and women of strong, unfettered minds, and whose opinions are plain, simple and safe. Such minds know that the real essence of work is a concentrated energy and that the possessors of this quality of mind, if combined with a wide range of subjects, are not dependent on the shallow artifices of those who always appear to be working under the pressure of a 'rushing mighty wind.'

Editor's observation: Hmm. Church sermons were very much like lectures. So no wonder pious women like Edith thought it perfectly fine to attend 'lectures' to learn about things. This author isn't putting down church sermons, however. At least in one instance, it appears,  it's fine for people to 'flock' together and absorb someone else's ideas. I have many letters from Nicholson relatives who were  Church Ministers. From what I see they weren't necessarily the sharpest pencil in the box, but they could certainly write well and they seemed big on describing human suffering, too--which provided entertainment value.  People expected Ministers to be entertaining. Read this letters and see.