Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Study Shows Youth Plugged In Most of the Day

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the turn-on-tune-in-drop-out dept.

The Internet 157

An anonymous reader writes "The amount of time youngsters are spending on the web has ballooned to exceed the average adult's full working week, according to a new study. A few years ago, the same researchers thought that teens and tweens were consuming about as much media as possible in the hours available. But now they've have found a way to pack in even more. Young people now devote an average of seven hours and 38 minutes to daily media use, or about 53 hours a week according to Kaiser Family Foundation findings released today."

cancel ×

157 comments

For those too lazy (5, Informative)

Misanthrope (49269) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843142)

To click through and download the PDF
TV 4:29
Music/Audio 2:31
Computer 1:29
Video Games 1:13
Print :38
Movies :25

With a 29% multitasking cut, so from 10:45 total it comes down to 7:38

Not really sure this is all that surprising to me, it's hard for me to feel alarmed over the print and music portions of the time.

Re:For those too lazy (2, Interesting)

treeves (963993) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843180)

TFS contradicts when it says kids are spending X hours on *the web*. Only 1.5 hrs /day on the computer. Or are kids surfing the web on TVs now? I had thought internet TV use was quite limited.
When you consider how much time in school is actual class time, I'm sure this means more TV than classroom time. And if these numbers are averages I hate to imagine the kids at the far end of the curve.

Re:For those too lazy (4, Informative)

Misanthrope (49269) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843244)

" The report is based on a survey conducted between October 2008 and May 2009 among a nationally representative sample of 2,002 3rd-12th grade students ages 8-18, including a self-selected subsample of 702 respondents who completed seven-day media use diaries, which were used to calculate multitasking proportions."

It also is biased by the type of respondent who would complete a seven day media diary, wth kaiser.

Re:For those too lazy (5, Funny)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843790)

Someone should do a study into the kind of people who participate in surveys to see if they are naturally inclined over-represented in potentially headline grabbing statistics. But I suspect the result would be biased.

Re:For those too lazy (1, Redundant)

blackpaw (240313) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844366)

Funny and Insightful mod option needed.

Re:For those too lazy (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844038)

So a good question is; how representative is this self-selected subsample? Are these the "heavy" media users? It requires a specific kind of personality to want to keep a seven-day media use diary and no doubt this personality also affects the way they use media. Not to mention seven days isn't a particularly long measurement time; my own media use behaviour varies dramatically during the course of a year, I have no doubt schoolchildren with exam weeks and holidays have even more fluctuating media usage patterns.

Re:For those too lazy (2, Insightful)

ubrgeek (679399) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844492)

So kids who supposedly spend too much time being "plugged in" are going to take time to stop texting, surfing, whatever to complete a journal? The article doesn't say if they were compensated to do so (free downloads at the iTunes store, downloadable ringtones, whatever) so I'm curious what the motivation was for participating. I'm guessing things haven't changed _that_ much since I was a kid and I'd take the voluntary assignment as just that, a volunteer assignment and do whatever it was to make it look like I did it and did it well in hopes of (a) getting some sort of reward and/or (b) making it look like I'm really special by giving the questioner answers I thought they wanted.

Re:For those too lazy (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843766)

TFS contradicts when it says kids are spending X hours on *the web*. Only 1.5 hrs /day on the computer. Or are kids surfing the web on TVs now?

Kids are surfing the net and watching TV on their smart phones till 4am.

Please tell me you didn't nod off again and miss the arrival of iPhone, Android, Pre, and Droid, Rumpelstiltskin.

Re:For those too lazy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30843964)

Kids are surfing the net and watching TV on their smart phones till 4am.

Please tell me you didn't nod off again and miss the arrival of iPhone, Android, Pre, and Droid, Rumpelstiltskin.

Silly icebike, napping is for us and smart phones are for kids.

-- ...and sometimes, for tricky rabbits!

Re:For those too lazy (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844224)

Rumpelstiltskin? is that the new Microsoft smart phone?

Re:For those too lazy (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844590)

Given the current cost of something like an iPhone, including contract or the cost of data without a contract, is this really something available to most of the 10-18 demographic?

Re:For those too lazy (2, Informative)

NekSnappa (803141) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844786)

I think you mean Rip Van Winkle. He's the one who took a 20 year nap after pounding a few beers and bowling some 9 pin with ghosts.

Rumplestiltskin was a dwarf who spun gold from straw.

Re:For those too lazy (4, Insightful)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843308)

I actually *am* surprised -- by the time they spend in front of a TV. The "kids" I know think TVs are a relic -- the idea of making an appointment with your media seems absurd to them.

Re:For those too lazy (3, Insightful)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843482)

I'm guessing torrented episodes also count, as would Hulu and so on...

Re:For those too lazy (2, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844524)

Especially since the way networks are run, you really *can't* make an appointment with your media anymore. Shows are either moved, cancelled by sports, or on hiatus. They seem to *want* us to download shows.

Re:For those too lazy (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844808)

I'm 32 and it seems absurd to me, appointment with my media. LOL
Sorry can't think of a better word to summarise it but lol, it's so archaic, who has the time? It's 2010 not 1987.

Re:For those too lazy (4, Interesting)

red_blue_yellow (1353825) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843328)

Although the article does contain some overtones of negativity, I think this quote does really present the key importance of the issue:

"When children are spending this much time doing anything, we need to understand how it's affecting them -- for good and bad," Drew Altman, president and chief executive of the foundation.

Here are my thoughts on each item:

TV 4:29 - Almost entirely negative, I suspect; surely the overwhelming advertisements alone cancel out any benefits the few educational shows.

Music/Audio 2:31 - As a musician, I have a hard time knocking this. Premature deafness from blasting those headphones is no good, though.

Computer 1:29 - As a computer scientist, well, let's just say I'm about 10x this. It can range from really good (research) to horrible (4chan).

Video Games 1:13 - I think this is a healthy dose. Games with physical activity and (gasp) sunlight are better, but this could be worse.

Print 0:38 - I'm surprised this number even exists. I assume the majority of it is beneficial in some ways -- exposure to articulating an idea in writing, if nothing else.

Movies 0:25 - Movies are usually a bit more thought provoking than TV. A slight negative here, but it's still a small number.

Overall, I do believe there is reason for concern, but not outright panic. Let the psychologists do their work and we will only understand the effects of this better.

Re:For those too lazy (1)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843364)

Print 0:38 - I'm surprised this number even exists. I assume the majority of it is beneficial in some ways -- exposure to articulating an idea in writing, if nothing else.

I'd bet it's only there because of schoolwork. I also don't think it reflects anything -- you can find plenty of well-written material online, in almost any genre.

Re:For those too lazy (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843762)

Computer 1:29 - As a computer scientist, well, let's just say I'm about 10x this. It can range from really good (research) to horrible (4chan).

Slashdot somewhere in that range? Or was that to beyond horrible to mention?

Our kids (2, Interesting)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843452)

TV (pay channels): about 1 hour
Playstation: 1-2 hours
Computer (mostly web): 1-2 hours
MP3 & suchlike: less than 1 hour
Reading (overlaps with MP3, and includes homework): 2-4 hours

The Playstation games are nonviolent or relatively low violence (Afrika, LittleBigPlanet, a few Ratchet&Clank). Reading time does not include PC time. They also get 2-4 hours of outside playing or at various hobby activities. This is the routine that we have right now, based largely on the kids' preferences.

It seems that the kids in the survey don't have much time left over for hobbies or being outside, or even for reading books...

Re:Our kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30843710)

Your kids go to bed pretty late then.

Assuming they are home from school @ 3:30
4:30 After TV
6:30 After Playastation
8:30 After Computer
12:30 After homework / MP3

(Granted homework probably comes first for their day - or after some healthy playstation...)
I guess dinner and family time occur in front of the TV or during homework.

Re:Our kids (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844512)

Your kids go to bed pretty late then.

Yes, they do. They have never been sleepers, even when babies.
However, your time estimates are a little off, as they appear to assume the maximum of each range can occur on a school day. Using the lower end of each range, and adding another hour for meals, means they're in bed around 11:30, which is almost right. Actually they're mostly in bed around 11:00, but some of the reading time is while in bed.
The upper end of the range occurs on weekend days, when there may be more Playstation, or a few hours of horseriding/ballet/skiing/etc. instead of school. They sleep in until 08:00 on weekends, but that leaves lots of time for them to fill.

Re:For those too lazy (3, Interesting)

plastbox (1577037) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843714)

How is this news? In an average day, excluding the 7.5 hours I spend in front of a computer at work, I still manage to pack in a lot of "media"-time.

TV: 5
Music/Audio: 1.5 - 2
Computer: 7
Video Games: 1
Print: <1 - 2 (I do reading stints, where I consume much more, but on average..)
Movies: 0.3

Of course, my multitasking factor is probably higher than these lame kids'. Laptop is always on, always on the table in front of me so I can chat, surf, perhaps program a little. The TV is for the most part on as well, except that part of the evening where the most interesting program is Oprah. I read on the bus to and from work while listening to music, and naturally "TV Games" pretty much has to overlap 100% with either "Computer" or "TV" (disregarding portables, which I don't own).

News? Hardly.News to the Slashdot crowd..? Definitely not. Scaremongering for technophobic parents? Yes.

Re:For those too lazy (0, Redundant)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843780)

Multitasking is not examined in TFS.

Or maybe it does, I'm too lazy.

This stat is rather curious (3, Interesting)

Paktu (1103861) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843160)

The survey taker's school "doesn't use grades" for 0% of heavy users, 3% of medium users, and 10% of light users. This statistic by itself makes me unconvinced about the overall findings...do you mean to tell me that 0% of heavy internet users attend schools that don't give grades? What the hell is the sample size, anyway???

I love stories like this that make me feel young. (1)

PoliTech (998983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843168)

It's good to know that the youth of today are taking advantage of the advances in technology as I always have. It also good to know that I've been keeping up!

Is this really a surprise? (2, Insightful)

Third Position (1725934) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843174)

I don't really see how anyone could be surprised by this. As more media options become available and more convenient to access, it seems like a logical progression. Also, you're media consumption devices are more flexible, you can consume from more sources of media concurrently. Your cell phone can likely provide you with verbal communication, music, social networks, even movies and radio. And that's probably the simplest device at your disposal these days.

That's all? (3, Funny)

Jeian (409916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843206)

Amateurs.

Re:That's all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30843222)

And if their routers go down? MASS PANIC as none of them seem to know how to fix the things. Or how to configure an email client. Or install basic software.

Re:That's all? (2, Interesting)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843238)

common now. When Papa needs the router reset, who does he most often turn to? The 10 year old, or his wife? The 10 year old most likely either knows how already, or can Google it and follow the steps.

Re:That's all? (4, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843272)

or can Google it and follow the steps.

No, not when the router is down usually.

Re:That's all? (1)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843296)

Most people have more than one way to get online these days, just like there is an increasing amount of computers in each household. If the router's down, the kid will know to use the nearest smartphone.

Re:That's all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30843530)

Bzzt.

AFAIK, personal smartphones have password prompts out of the box, like wireless routers. IT policies are set to lock your dad's Blackberries so your family doesn't go mucking with the company data.

The 10-year old won't be able to go online alone unless he has his own smartphone. Oh, wait... then why would he even care about the home router anyway?

Re:That's all? (1)

plastbox (1577037) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843846)

The scenario was that the dad has asked the kid to fix the Internet connection. If the kid says he needs to go online using dad's phone, I'd think dad's password on the phone isn't such a huge hurdle to overcome, eh?

I have a smartphone, and I'll be damned if that even remotely reduces my need of a proper Internet connection (and thus router). I don't see your point.

Re:That's all? (2, Funny)

polar red (215081) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843260)

jup. less than 16 hours a day is for sissies.

Re:That's all? (1)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843330)

This would have been funny 4, or even 3 years ago. But these days? When are you at any point *not* within hand's reach of an internet connection?
I even keep a netbook by my bed in case something comes up I'd like to check *while trying to fall asleep*...

Re:That's all? (4, Funny)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843396)

I even keep a netbook by my bed in case something comes up I'd like to check *while trying to fall asleep*...

I see I'm not the only one who needs porn to fall asleep.

NEWS FLASH: New Discovery!! (3, Funny)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843214)

Researchers have recently discovered gamblers like money, scholars spend lots of time reading and fishermen are often on boats.

Re:NEWS FLASH: New Discovery!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30843322)

They also discovered slashdot commenters tend to use sarcasm.

Re:NEWS FLASH: New Discovery!! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30843740)

OMG! Amazing! This changes everything I ever thought about slashdot!

more reading, less doing. (4, Interesting)

bronney (638318) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843216)

What concerns me most is that the next generation might spend more time reading about something and not have the time to actually DO them. I find the information overload very annoying already at work. Mostly emails. And I feel myself slowly being trained into ASKING for the info rather than experimenting and have your own observation in things.

Don't know how to put it in better words.

Re:more reading, less doing. (1)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843250)

Don't know how to put it in better words.

Why not ask Jeeves? Oops, wrong decade.

Re:more reading, less doing. (1)

poor_boi (548340) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843346)

It's OK to build on the foundations of others' work.

Re:more reading, less doing. (4, Interesting)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843386)

I think his point was that they won't reach the "build" part at all. There are so many things to do/consume/interact-with, that they'll just follow a thread of "virtual actions"(corny phrase, I know), and won't feel the need to experience much in real life. This isn't an unreasonable theory, IMO.

Re:more reading, less doing. (1)

plastbox (1577037) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843874)

Those interested in the technical bits will. Not all problems are adequately solvable by following a step-by-step guide online, hell, most problems I'd actually need to look up are a fair bit to complex to write a simple instructable for (hence real books). Even the problems that can be solved easily by following other people's instructions will lead the potential geek to think about and perhaps research the hows and whys of the solution he/she just implemented.

Re:more reading, less doing. (3, Insightful)

jandersen (462034) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843646)

It certainly sounds dramatic, but I think there may be a positive note to add, because where a decade ago children engaged mostly in passively being entertained, the trend now is that they take part, ie are active. A recent study has shown that the main factor explaining why boys in particular don't seem to learn English very well, found that the trick is to get them write more; and that while writing essays is seen as boring and pointless, blogging is seen as cool and meaningful.

Re:more reading, less doing. (2, Funny)

bjartur (1705192) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844264)

blog [..] meaningful

LOL

Re:more reading, less doing. (1)

dushkin (965522) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843652)

And I feel myself slowly being trained into ASKING for the info rather than experimenting and have your own observation in things.

Don't know how to put it in better words.

Me neither. Can anyone think of a good way?

Re:more reading, less doing. (1)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843720)

True, and somehow mankind will adapt (as a species) to deal with this. Some people will be better in coping with this, and be more successful in life than people who are not. Better in filtering/ignoring crap, seeking out the good stuff, deciding what's most important etc. And over time, natural selection will make sure that humans are better equipped to deal with their new surroundings. Electronic gadgets & information everywhere, always-connected, buildings filled with smart sensor networks, electronic records kept of everything etc.

I'm not sure I would entirely like such a 'brave new world' though... some aspects yes, some aspects not so much.

Re:more reading, less doing. (1)

shawb (16347) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844046)

Think meta-organism. With people and computers being the neurons of a brain-like structure. Those who don't care much about their personal information and share everything freely... they'll be the sensory apparatus. Those people who microblurt every piece of information that comes their way through twitter, which is then set to automatically publish to facebook and Myspace and their personal blogs via RSS and so on and so on... those will be the myelinated sheath axons. Google would make up the Hippocampus. Slashdotters would form the gray matter of some lobe of the brain (and I would be quite surprised if that was the amygdala... Fox News and Comedy Central would make much better candidates for the twin amygdalae.) I guess Fark would make a great damaged frontal lobe.

Uggh. I should stop this line of thinking before I hurt something... or start taking myself seriously.

Re:more reading, less doing. (1)

NekSnappa (803141) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844842)

Kind of like the 'ractives' (interactive videos) in Stephensons' "The Diamond Age"

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30843284)

IBF WE ARE BORG

I'm Shocked! (2, Interesting)

cyberzephyr (705742) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843316)

/. readers already know this. For 10 years i have almost always laughed at the fact we see it here before they, (The uninformed public) do.

  Look at the network news and see the slide.

Re:I'm Shocked! (3, Insightful)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843402)

Yes... If only /. readers were in charge, things would be different. Very, very different (I'll have nightmares tonight).

Re:I'm Shocked! (3, Funny)

dsoltesz (563978) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843704)

Yes: kids would have reached these levels of online consumption 10 years ago and we'd already have brain chips connecting us to the Interwebs 24/7 so we wouldn't need to keep those clumsy netbooks next to the bed for midnight porn surfing.

Kids... (3, Insightful)

lewko (195646) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843338)

No wonder they can't find time to spell properly.

Your typical teenager probably doesn't even use a pen, and the majority of their communication would be on a device with a built-in spell checker. IT is as though they go out of their way to spell like an idiot. Is it really that much more efficient to type "Im going 2 da park"?

As technology gets smarter, we as a society will be getting dumber. We are setting ourselves up to be completely pwnd by Skynet.

WALL-E (1)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843384)

I think this clip from WALL-E [youtube.com] is sadly a very real possibility.

Your taxes at work (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843392)

Don't blame the children.
They are not the ones that decide to pay less on education and that ebonics or it's more recent equivalent is good enough.
It's not just Texas and California now with cheap schools that produce students equipt to do little more than say "do you want fries with that?".

Re:Your taxes at work (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30843784)

Not only less funds for education on itself, it's also the notion that having more people pass is more important than actually teaching them something. I know quite a few teachers, and they do what they can, but the whole system seems to work against them. It's about numbers, not knowledge anymore.

Re:Your taxes at work (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843818)

it's also the notion that having more people pass is more important than actually teaching them something.

This is the root of the problem. By the time it is bad enough to be forced not to pass a kid, the kid is so far lost and hates school so much - because of being so lost - that it is too late.

Re:Your taxes at work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30844626)

Speaking as a 17 year old currently sitting in "higher" computing while being lectured on the absolute stone wall basics of networking as if it was rocket science, I cannot begin to express how true the parent post is. Almost anything useful I know, I have taught myself from the internet. Its just as bad here in the UK. However I'm leaving in May for college.

I'm leaving, because nothing I have learnt in the past 2/3 years is going to be of any remote use to me ever. I'd like to not waste my life.

Re:Your taxes at work (1)

JosKarith (757063) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844864)

Problem is that the UK academic system has shifted so that all you are taught up till the end of your A-levels is how to pass the next set of exams. How to think for yourself, analyze problems and evaluate situations is left to the first year of uni/college. That's why the first year is such a shock for so many students. Everything before that has become purely about the school hitting targets, not about educating you.

Re:Your taxes at work (4, Informative)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843794)

Don't blame the children.
They are not the ones that decide to pay less on education and that ebonics or it's more recent equivalent is good enough.

We are paying more than we were 20 years ago yet children are doing worse in school.

The problem isn't with the money (maybe in some districts) but the way they teach kids now.

My daughter was not taught how to read using phonics, she was taught using "sight words." I asked the teacher she wasn't learning the multiplication table and the teacher said that it was not taught anymore because they prefered 'concepts.' As a result, my daughter does multiplication (not addition but multiplication!!!!) using her fingers. She reads well now due to the time I have spent with her but her writing is still terrible (but it looks pretty.)

Now I fully admit that I should have taken the time to have taught her myself instead of relying on the school system. But I do remember being taught these things when I went to school. And passing out a multiplication table or phonics sheet is not expensive.

Re:Your taxes at work (1)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844466)

Phonics? Bleugh! So you can't spell then, I assume?

I was taught the roots of words and why they are spelt the way they are (as well as some rules of thumb and memorized exceptions).

Re:Your taxes at work (2, Interesting)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843870)

Don't blame the teachers either.

A good administration would get rid of bad teachers.

A bad administration would harass good teachers and keep the bad ones.

Within limits, money is not the issue; however, shared vision is.

Re:Kids... (1)

Game_Ender (815505) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843398)

Why should we spend time learning how to spell everything perfectly if we have a computer that can automatically correct the small errors for us? Not spending hours memorizing the exact spelling of words frees up more time for humans to spend time learning other higher level things.

Re:Kids... (2, Informative)

thoughtspace (1444717) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843534)

Because language is one of the most powerful tools, spell-check is fallible, and you expand your vocabulary in the process.

Spent my life in cold-hard research and development. Grammar and spelling are used much more than any mathematical formulae (Slashdot spell-check does not catch that one!). The higher the 'level' you go, the more abstract concepts become. Hence, the more the language semantics matter.

Not only that, it is much more professional when you present documents with the correct spelling. You might not care; but the person who notices might be important to your future.

Re:Kids... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30843610)

Your use of formulae is both incorrect, and pedantic.

Consider the following two sentences:
1)"Bicycles and motorcycles are used more than any car."
2)"Bicycles and motorcycles are used more than any cars."

Clearly the former is grammatically superior.

Re:Kids... (2)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844476)

Rate parent up please!

Re:Kids... (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844526)

Unfortunately, the only people who really try to learn higher level things are those who try to spell properly because those who don't, don't bother to learn at all.

Re:Kids... (2, Interesting)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843444)

There is another way to look at this: They're optimizing. Reporters often have shorthand text (or at least had, when they needed to use a pen), it's a faster way to log information. If all you really need to do is relay the information that you'll be at the park, then this isn't that tragic. As for spell checkers, I find that over time they improve my spelling (I know there's a big debate over this particular thing, I'm just pointing out that there's more than one outcome).

So what if they're not as fast/accurate with a pen as you were at their age? Do/will they need to be?

The one thing I hope they don't drop is books. Hell, even audiobooks. They get plenty of chance to just parse words when they're online, but what they're probably less used to is consuming large, contiguous streams of information.

Re:Kids... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30843712)

Is it really that much more efficient to type "Im going 2 da park"?

Yes, if you write that with the standard cell phone keypad.

Re:Kids... (1)

lewko (195646) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844572)

I assure you the majority of sub-literate such comments on Youtube which prompted my original rant, were not typed on a cellphone.

It's the product of laziness combined with acceptance of mediocrity as the norm.

Change!

Re:Kids... (1)

kyz (225372) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844530)

They can spell properly. Kids choose to spell like idiots because it makes them different from their parents.

It's the same reason they listen to music that's "unlistenable noise" if you ask their parents. In fact, a friend of mine complained his kids were into noisecore. Ha! He grew up being into heavy metal, which annoyed his parents who preferred the Beatles.

Texting doesn't make you a worse speller, because you have to know how to spell something properly before you can make it shorter for text-speak. Ask a linguistics professor about it sometime [blogspot.com] .

It's culture, not medium. (3, Insightful)

Nebulious (1241096) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844676)

When you see kids insisting on incorrect spelling/grammar online, it's not necessarily because the medium encourages bastardizing the language in every instance. It's a desire to cool by being anti-intellectual. In their minds, only a nerd and an adult takes out the times to make everything they type in informal settings 'perfect.' We even do it here in sophisticated places like Slashdot. When someone brings up or wants to enforce the subtle differences between affect and effect, we just hand-wave it, call them grammar Nazis, and move on. It's the same thing. So next time you feel like blindly criticizing the next generation, why not try holding that critical lens to yourself as well?

Re:Kids... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844750)

I'm not sure how old you are, so at 27 I may well fall into the kids-who-need-to-get-off-your-lawn demographic, but I can barely remember how to use a pen. I post more words on Slashdot alone every day than I write with a pen in a year. I write under a hundred words per month with a pen, and about the only time that I use one is when I need to sign for something. Last month, my second book was published. I don't think you can correlate ability to use a pen with command of the English language.

Re:Kids... (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844824)

"Im going 2 da park" wouldn't be so common if god damned SMS messages weren't so expensive and twitter had more than 140 chars.
Efficiency is king and even I find myself re-writing a 140char tweet for 2 minutes sometimes to fit it in the optimal space, as for SMS less so nowadays but it frustrates me that good english can't be applied to it.

That being said it comes with age, I grew up with the beginnings of the 2 cool 4 school lol crowd and we all used shorthand back in the BBS and ICQ days but the vast majority of us grew up and adjusted our use of language online, none the less "2" vs "too" is sorely tempting when I'm dying for some characters nowadays. (Instead I opt for & rather than and)

This just in (1)

Korbeau (913903) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843480)

American media cover daily struggle in life 24/24, and Americans tune in.

Daily struggle at 4.

So, what else would you have them do? (3, Insightful)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843636)

All this tells us is that people are filling their spare time.

An individual spends a certain amount of time asleep, a certain amount at school or working (or housekeeping, or whatever), a certain amount eating, washing(!), travelling and all the other miscelleanea of living. Then they have some time spare - is that such a surprise?

All this study does is tell those people who believe studies what those individuals spend their time doing. Would you prefer they spend that time drinking, instead?

Oh yes, that thing about multi-tasking media. All that tells us is how unfulfilling sources like TV are - people don't actually *watch* it, they just have it on in the background (while doing something more interesting) just in case something worthy of their attention does happen. That's all TV is today - whatever age you are.

Re:So, what else would you have them do? (2, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843716)

doing something productive, thats what.

don't complain american is full of dumb fat lazy people when the kids of today spend almost a full working day glued to a monitor, with their brain in park.

Re:So, what else would you have them do? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30843862)

I guess you missed the day they taught sentence strucure (commas, capitalization, etc)

Re:So, what else would you have them do? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30844880)

doing something productive

Such as what? The way I see it, we (the species) are going to die right here on planet Earth. We accelerate that eventuality via our rampant productivity by increasing the number of people, buildings, automobiles and decreasing the amount of arable land, clean air and water, energy, and the number of other species. Furthermore, the Multimedia-Industrial Complex says this is good for us: production and consumption is the end-all be-all of existence. People don't want to move into outer space, nor explore inner space, nor feed the hungry, heal the sick, or engage in any noble enterprise. Work, consume, work, consume. So, enjoy your brain-dead fat-ass zombies -- they are the end-product of our society.

Re:So, what else would you have them do? (1)

wjc_25 (1686272) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844806)

Speaking as a college first-year, I'm sure I get well above that number, if we're counting generously. Nearly all my profs use Powerpoint, so that's a few hours of media usage right there. And then I tend to leave Facebook and Gmail open as I study, whether I'm using the computer or not, so there's a few more hours. When I hang out with the others at my hall, almost inevitably there's a TV on or someone's playing Wii or Madden. I'd say the only time I'm not connected to some sort of media is when I'm sleeping or out walking.

Well I'm 20 (0, Redundant)

enter to exit (1049190) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843708)

well I'm 20 and for most of the people i know thats a underestimation.

Everyone has FB/twitter on their phones with basic www access. I don't buy a newspaper unless they are giving away a free shirt or something, I check the news on my phone and sometimes pay the 15c an article during the break/commute (honestly, the headings are enough most of the time).

My job description involves the internet mainly email, a voIP setup we use for phoning people and an online database. My phone has an ebook that i use sometimes (but i find it difficult to deditate a decent amount of time to just reading a book, especially with my phone buzzing status updates and messages). I only go to my local libary to leech the free wireless access (like everyone else there).

I go home and turn on my laptop and stream TV shows onto my plasma while reading slashdot/BBC/forums, shows very often not on local TV (curb your enthusiasm, for one). There is not a moment i am not the internet. It's always in my pocket.
This site needs to include UBB code or WYSIWYG, i spend 10 minutes trying to get the formatting right with HTML.

Re:Well I'm 20 (1)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844484)

"... the headings are enough most of the time ..."

Sheesh!

My Lawn (1)

ozdeadman (1656597) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843812)

damn kids, get off my lawn

It is true! (1, Funny)

santax (1541065) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843816)

My girlfriend is 12 years younger than me and it is true. She is getting plugged most of the day. Hey, can you blame me?

Re:It is true! (2, Funny)

ami.one (897193) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843942)

With that age difference I can't even dream of blaming you; Its mostly the fault of your friendly neighborhood teen. ;-)

Re:It is true! (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844624)

You insensitive clod ;) That hurts!

Re:It is true! (3, Funny)

precariousgray (1663153) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844052)

My girlfriend is 12 years younger than me and it is true. She is getting plugged most of the day. Hey, can you blame me?

No, I wouldn't blame you, as long as you're the one plugging her.

When the internet bred overtake the TV bred. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30843860)

Better the internet than the TV. The internet is interactive and encourages critical thinking and problem solving. I think it will produce a much more informed and engaged public than the TV generations of old. The internet has an ever increasing influence on political and philosophical thought. We have yet to see the full potential of an entire population raised by the internet. I'm optimistic.

Re:When the internet bred overtake the TV bred. (4, Funny)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844222)

The internet is interactive and encourages critical thinking and problem solving.

ROFLMAO

the people will destroy what the people love (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30844006)

whatever it is, it's a problem, not the "way of the future," not something that could be leveraged for a good result

it's a problem with the internet and the cure will be in destroying something that people enjoy

that's the way it always goes

Great! (4, Funny)

Col Bat Guano (633857) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844034)

Now they'll be too busy to get on my lawn!

Only 7:38? (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844066)

Christ, son, I have that much streaming in NOW. When one goal is to archive the internets useful shit, you come across this problem often. Hell, I burned five roboboards just trying to handle so many incoming 56K streams.

Rank amateurs, I tell you. Are these kids just learning how to utilize a computer in this study?

less than 8 hours a day? (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844108)

Try watching a 30 hour Monty Python marathon sometime(the only breaks are commercial breaks), that's real dedication to your media.

I suppose you could just watch the DVDs straight through and only take breaks to pee, but no sleeping, that would be cheating.

Ironically (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844116)

Most adults also spend their entire working week on teh intarwebs.

Of course they're plugged in. (1)

machine321 (458769) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844538)

If you don't plug them in, how are you going to charge them?

Quall (2, Insightful)

quall (1441799) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844754)

I am not surprised either. In fact, it is preparing them for the world outside of high-school. I am an adult in my mid 20s and I spend practically the whole day in front of media. I spend about 8 hours at work on a computer, i listen to music in my car when I go to and from work, and in the evening I watch tv. I spend probably 11 or 12 hours in front of media as an adult. The weekends are the only times where I spend very little of my time on media. According to that study, kids who spend a lot of time on media are generally stressed and depressed. I wonder if that is an cause for the media time consumption and not an affect. At least they will know how to use those things. It is practically required in the working class these days.

Its not consumption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30844800)

A person consumes a hamburger, it no longer exists as a hamburger. People watch videos or listen to music. The video and music still exist after they have finished. The items can be viewed or listened to again and again. It is not consumption. Unless of course you are talking about people actually eating 16 mm film for example or chewing on CDs, in which case I agree that this would be consumption.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...