Comments on: Txting makes u stupid

By: Joe

Joe — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 13:04:56 +0000

Oh, I wasn’t talking about your post! LOL. Sorry for the miscommunication. I was directly responding to the comment above mine, in which the writer stated “…this group of retards who can’t think without a mobile.”

By: Editor

Editor — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 03:05:11 +0000

Joe: I’m not sure what you’re referring to with the term “retard,” which does not appear in the post. The point the paper I cited was making is that exclusive use of a restricted vocabulary while more efficient for communications (cf. Claude Shannon) is limiting (by definition). This is analogous to use of digital compression in music (as in mp3′s), which is why audiophiles stick with vinyl.

By: Joe

Joe — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 02:21:18 +0000

In 2012 the term “retard” is extremely offensive and hurtful. Your comment concerns me much more than a 140 character limit. Younger generations are making communication more efficient. We use concise, to the point bursts of text to get a point across with little waste. Though you do sound more intelligent and well-educated. Congrats.

By: ChristianGehman

ChristianGehman — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:42:22 +0000

The education that comes from reading books is more importantly about re-experiencing the dance of the mind that created the text (logopoeia, or “the dance of the intellect among words” to use Pound’s term) than it is about “keyboarding” or penmanship. But on the other hand, texting’s shorthand abbreviations might be perfect for communicating brief messages between people who could easily qualify as ill-educated louts or “dummies.”
Where is the texting dictionary?
Has there been any poetry or fiction written in the texting idiom?

By: Freedom Farter

Freedom Farter — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 16:17:18 +0000

I believe there is a more impactful fallout from the the texters that has yet to be realized.

Much like organized sports, reality TV, and drugs, mobile phone technology is dumbing up our nations youth and priming them to become indebted cattle in a slave/master relationship – with the establishment on one end, and this text generation on the other end, all grown up and ready to serve. with no traditional skills and no means of survival without their masters, they won’t stand a chance.

now that’s not exactly what’s going to happen, because you can’t discount an entire generation. they’re not all stupid. this article does generalize (i supposse you have to with such a short article), who exactly is in this group of retards who can’t think without a mobile.

I’m in my early thirties and got my first cell phone at 21, my first cell phone with a color screen at 26, and my first iPhone at 30. I think we can all agree that the effects of a generation having smart phones in pre-school is a little hard to predict and will require some scientific studies and time to tell.

I don’t believe the author was talking about how kids are the only people with cell phones, most people own a cell phone and most of those people have a smart phone. but kids are different, i’ve observed them in groups, all texting. my girlfriend’s 13 year old sister doesn’t like anything. maybe she’ll figure it out but as of right now, it seems that the only thing she enjoys doing (besides getting high) is texting. That’s a problem.

By: Editor

Editor — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:30:17 +0000

Chuck: “Or is their intelligence just shifting into a new realm.” Yes, that’s the essence of the study, which points out that the new realm, with its specialized vocabulary diminished conventional vocabulary, probably will not lead to high-paying jobs. So they are becoming functionally stupid in the real world while becoming brilliant in the social networking world. It will be interesting to see how they adapt. Maybe they will invent an alternative social-networking economy,for example?

By: Chuck

Chuck — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 18:28:37 +0000

Nearly every advancement that’s been made in technology, art, music, philosophy, etc. has been frowned upon by the “older” generation. It used to bother me (and still does sometimes) that my kids didn’t spend as much time on writing and penmanship as much as I did in school. But in my day, those things were actually more important than they are now. My mother had to learn short hand in school. She could easily make the argument that my kids and I are idiots because we don’t know short hand. These days, the kids are learning keyboard skills and using technology much sooner than I did. So as the world changes, so do the skills necessary for survival and advancement. Textisms may not be as complex and organic as traditional, written language, but the kids are communicating (and quite well), and they are doing it on technology undreamed of just a few decades ago. So are the kids/texters really getting dumber? Or is their intelligence just shifting into a new realm not measured by written language (or at least not the written language we all grew up learning). Perhaps we need a new ruler to measure intelligence and education.

By: Editor

Editor — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 22:40:34 +0000

Yes, corrected. Clearly, I m txting 2 much! :)

By: DennisM

DennisM — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 22:34:38 +0000

“How else to explain the zombies who text while driving or randomly jaywalking in traffic, AGNWE*?

If that is a text abbreviation for “and God knows what else” should it not be AGKWE?

By: Dr. Engima

Dr. Engima — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 21:50:40 +0000

This is ridiculous – I’m almost 30 years old and the people I know, some of whom are decades older than me, all text. Texting is a widely used form of shorthand communication when a phone call or email isn’t necessary. I’m not sure if you are all 80+ years old or utterly out of touch with society, but texting is a very normal mode of communication now. It is 2012 CE in case you forgot. Texting is used by the intelligent and the…less intelligent, as well. Not to mention that people who text don’t use texting as their only source of communication.

It seems simple minded to make these leaps in assumption that someone who texts only texts all the time, and that they never use sophisticated terminology whatsoever when texting. Plus, texting allows others to communicate instantly and share experiences/knowledge immediately. Lest you forget, it also gives introvert personalities a more comfortable means of communication, which is a benefit.

Anyway I’ll stop ranting, but this article, as others have professed before me, seems to thematically express “I’m old and have a superficial understanding of how younger people communicate via text; therefore it is stupid and they are stupid. I think I am smart, but am out of touch with modern day social communication.”

By: NakedApe

NakedApe — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:31:19 +0000

Ooops, I meant to say “I’d rather contemplate cosmology than use a paper and a pencil…” (I was distracted from my mote of wisdom by the plumber coming to fix my leaking pipes — LOL!)

By: NakedApe

NakedApe — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:27:00 +0000

I remember when the first electronic calculators came out in the late ’70′s and everybody was saying that not having to do mental arithmetic would stunt our intelligence. Today, such an argument seems ridiculous. Many of us have given up the various petty drudgeries of modern life to concentrate on bigger and better things. I’d rather contemplate cosmology and using a paper and a pencil to do multiplication. Relax people, our intelligence isn’t going anywhere.

By: holly

holly — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:10:32 +0000

when i was young i use to read Clarke, Heinlein, Asimov, etc. quite a lot of science fiction…why do I have the feeling that texting has something to do with future industrialization and jobs- machines! dexterity of thumbs- the prime flanges — one must have forgotten that social thinkers stated that rap music would help educate…I remember in it’s origin but things changed; hence, hopefully texting will have a purpose- the glass is half full :)

By: Willie Smith

Willie Smith — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 06:27:06 +0000

Quite disturbing. What shall we as a people do? Conform, rebel, what? Surely, we cannot allow our nation, our generations, to become functionally illeterate in communicating.

By: ryan

ryan — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 23:52:49 +0000

other studies have found that texting has less to do with convenience and more to do with comfort. I wish i had a link, but alas it was some time ago i read that. basically they said it was a bit like sitting in a confessional, the anonymity and facelessness makes it more comfortable for people to talk. I dont however fully accept what is said in the study from the article. Is it maybe possible that simpler speech may be preferred by people of lesser intelligence or with a smaller vocabulary. Maybe that is why they choose texting as their preferred communication medium rather than the texting making them stupid. eh, just my 2 cents.

By: Kyle Rybski

Kyle Rybski — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 21:54:32 +0000

“In these days of instantaneous voice communication, doesn’t texting seem like a, well, rather primitive way to communicate?”

Text can be read at any time and with exactly the clarity with which it was typed. Phonecalls are necessarily real-time and quality suffers in transit. Text will be my preferred medium of communication until both are obsolete.

By: Cybernettr

Cybernettr — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 17:35:33 +0000

In these days of instantaneous voice communication, doesn’t texting seem like a, well, rather primitive way to communicate?

When I was a kid, I imagined myself a secret agent, and I passed coded messages to my friend down the street through a pipe in the alley (no the pipe didn’t lead directly to our houses, we had to go and retrieve the messages LOL!).

I suspect that texting adds that little bit of a “secret agent” feel for kids to modern-day communications.

By: Tomas_James

Tomas_James — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:25:45 +0000

“Damn kids and your technology ” that all I see when I read this. I completely agree with Dirk and Carl on this one.

By: Carl

Carl — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:04:03 +0000

Meh. Another, “kids these days” study.

By: Jotto999

Jotto999 — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:09:17 +0000

This looks like evidence that reading a variety of things (as opposed to just text messages) is good for vocabulary, not that texting causes bad vocabulary. Is the conclusion drawn here really scientific?

By: IC

IC — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:13:17 +0000

I agree with Razor. Texting is a time limited idea. texting while driving doubly so. First, hands free texting will take off and second cars will start to drive themselves. Problem solved, … and yet tons of tax dollars are being spent on legislation and on studies such as the one mentioned in the post for an issue that will take care of itself.

By: anthony

anthony — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:59:39 +0000

Have you read the study? Social sciences also employ the scientific method – that is why they call it “social sciences”.

By: anthony

anthony — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:52:49 +0000

What makes the study “dodgy”?

By: melajara

melajara — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:05:37 +0000

Accelerating intelligence for the machines
BUT
Accelerating stupidity for the people

Is that really a progress!?

By: Razor

Razor — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:16:55 +0000

Hmmm, I think texting might die off in its current form. Speech to text for word processing hasn’t been exactly snapped up. But it’s ideal for when you want to send a short text message. And cos theres no fiddly button pressing the text will come out in long format. Even if you’re a texting addict you’re still going to do most of your communication orally – so you’re still going to build up the same vocab. This is a very dodgy study.

By: Nils Davis

Nils Davis — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:38:39 +0000

So people who don’t read have smaller vocabs and can use fewer words. Does this have anything actually to do with texting? Don’t see any causal link here at all.

By: William Jones

William Jones — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 01:04:56 +0000

nicely described.
could not help but appreciate your truth.
scary to know at least half a generation will be stunted.
no wonder most of the kids cannot explain themselves in a way that makes sense to the rest of the people who run things.

By: Dirk

Dirk — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:08:09 +0000

It amazes me how much research takes place in the social sciences that is tolerated as “science” with as obviously pre-disposed and biased ‘hypothesis” as the conclusions of this study (could quote). There is a severe slant to so much social research that I would say is politically motivated, it is concerning to me that so many people must be trusting in the results without considering the sources.