Who Needs Facts When Opinions Can Be Inserted Instead?
from the misleading-with-studies dept
While actual studies looking at the language skills of kids who send instant messages and SMS text messages suggest that there's no difference in language skills, why should actually looking at the subjects stop those who are worried about the impacts of these communications technologies? The folks over at Reader's Digest -- who built their whole business on the idea of "condensing" things down -- have published a study saying that many parents believe that such messaging technologies harm the vocabulary skills of their kids. Of course, the headline is more inflammatory than reality, because it's still less than half of parents who believe so (a quarter of parents believe such technologies help vocabulary skills). Still, the problem with this study is that it's not studying the actual issue at all. It's studying what parents think is happening, as opposed to what is actually happening. However, for many people that distinction gets lost, and they assume the study actually says something it never did.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opinion based 'evidence'
are severely outnumbered by others who believe truth is to be found
in modern 'reality' shows, news shouting-match 'debates', and other infotainment.
Much of today's news media has become a narcotic for the masses;
an addictive product designed to dull the ability to think critically .
Readers Digest has found that half a truth is like half a brick:
you can throw it twice as far.
For anyone pushing a particular political, religious, or social agenda, it must be like shooting fish in a barrel.
Don't confuse or dismay them with the facts, just keep them entertained.
Then, once you have them reduced to the lowest common denominator, it's easy to hold the reins.
TechDirt & Linux help keep my thinking free.
Cobwebby maybe, but still free, as in freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Opinion based 'evidence'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Opinion based 'evidence'
Most educated people just call it drivel.
I generally try to break sentences
into sections or fragments
that can be easily scanned by eyeball.
Not by phrases or anything grammatical,
just something to facilitate visual uptake.
This geezer finds it all to easy to be overwhelmed by long run-on sentences that lose the central thought in a variety of subphrases which, while enlightening, can also be very confusing to those of us who are less adept at keeping the train of thought on track over the entirety of the whole extended statement.
We preboomers suffer decreasing attention spans.
Long statements make us crotchety.
Succint logic is something I appreciate.
Just wish I could do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just like learning another language
[ link to this | view in chronology ]