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.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Who Needs Facts When Opinions Can Be Inserted Instead?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Eskayp says:

Opinion based 'evidence'

Sadly, those of us who read or participate in forums like TechDirt
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.

Eskayp says:

Re: Re: Opinion based 'evidence'

“…or something.” probably fits.
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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...