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.