Textese, seems to help develop english skills, not hinder.

Recommended Videos

Zeekar

New member
Jun 1, 2009
231
0
0
If you want to tell me that I should be thanking these people for making it slightly more difficult to read what they have to say so that I can improve my ability to distinguish "language sounds" from broken English, then all I have to say is...

But seriously --

Acaroid said:
...Textese is actually a beneficial way of writing [strong][em]in certain situations[/em][/strong]...
Key phrase emphasized. People don't really get all that annoyed when others text this way, or even when the character limit is very low. It's when they do it in open forums such as...such as The Escapist! that it becomes incredibly irritating for people to use netspeak.

And no, I'm not going to start calling it Textese. That's implying that it's an actual language.
 
Jun 11, 2008
5,331
0
0
I now refer you to two different articles (one of which I think may have already been covered by the escapist), from different countries and of different studies who more or less have discovered that Textese(really Textese?) is actually a beneficial way of writing in certain situations.
Text Talk or leet speak is only and should only be used when trying to fit something into 140 characters on Twitter even then just do another tweet or in a TEXT where it is supposed to be used or in the middle of a game on the internet. Other than there are no appropriate cases to use it and it does leave some people less able to spell words as they are so used to spelling them whatever fucking way looks 1/2 right.
 

Kekkles

New member
Feb 19, 2010
293
0
0
Wow, so much hate for a form of talking. Jeez, it's almost like a Textie killed your mother then continued to write 'lololol ownd allyurbassrblng2us' on her stab ridden corpse or something...

I went a bit graphic there.

Seriously though, get over yourselves, it's a form of talking to one another (through text/in game) which IS fully understandable whether you're too stubborn to admit it or not. Get a load off your mind and just chill out, instead of fretting over such pathetic things. For Christ's sake...
 

thethingthatlurks

New member
Feb 16, 2010
2,102
0
0
rev_boy said:
thethingthatlurks said:
Pardon my sciency edumacated elitist ass for not taking a mere article seriously. Sorry, if it ain't peer reviewed, I ain't givin' no shit 'bout it, and whatever it says is little more than trivial nonsense.
There is a lot to be said for peer-reviewed science - it's helped get society to high level of technology and understanding of the world around us we are at today. However, it's also very narrow-minded of you to say something like that. What you just said was basically the equivalent of a Christian saying "if it ain't in the bible I ain't givin' no shit 'bout it".

Not only that, but peer review isn't a perfect system free from bias. Outside forces can come into play, such as corporate interests / funding for research; and even the government and their propaganda relating to things like drugs (seriously, try and get approval for a study on the positive effects of any currently illegal drug - I fucking dare you).

There is something to be said for ACTUALLY USING YOUR OWN BRAIN AND ANALYTICAL SKILLS.

Plus, none of the great forefathers of science had their ideas peer reviewed, and had they been, they probably would have been ridiculed for dumb ideas like the world being round. Imagine that - a round world! Hahaha how ridiculous.
Wow. That was just so profoundly stupid. Just, wow.

Ok, let's see. First, I should mention that there are journals for everything, including education. Since these are articles, I can only assume that whatever metric they used to arrive at their conclusion was too flawed (or perhaps the sample size too limited) to be published. Ok, normally there's nothing wrong with that. There are plenty of scenarios where this would be appropriate, increased scholastic performance in some district over X years based on standardized test Y for instance. You know, local events. This isn't local. The claim is that textese (and I hate using that word) is no hindrance to the learning of language. If I don't see at least one peer reviewed study to go along with that, I will dismiss that claim as ridiculous without at second thought.

Second, you're right, peer-review isn't all perfect. But (huge 'but' incidentally), it ensures that the supposed bias you assert is next to nonexistent. You see, falsifying data is career suicide for a scientist, and for their company/institution. As for "taboo" research, there really isn't a problem. All that is really needed is a permit from the agency in charge (eg DEA), which is only a formality in most cases. Believe it or not, there are few if any restrictions into drug research, but getting funding is a bit more difficult. Can't submit a proposal entitled "gettin' backed for shits 'n giggles" and expect cash, you know...

Third, no. No, you do not let people "ACTUALLY USING [YOUR] OWN BRAIN AND ANALYTICAL SKILLS." Most people would happily subscribe to any nonsense that suits their preconceived notions. It's pathetic. Please don't elevate the opinion(s) of the general populace to the same level as that/those of experts.

Fourth, did you know there was an analogous system way back when? It was mostly based around oneupman-ship, you know, assholery. The same principles as today apply, of course; evidence, math thingies, well reasoned, and so forth. The main difference was that one's opponent(s) got some sort of sick thrill out of humiliating the hapless proponent of the grand new idea...which isn't all that different today. Ok, so the main difference was the rate at which new ideas were a) tested, and b) adapted. Sure, there were those idiot plebeians that had no idea what those weird people were doing, but it frightened them, so they denounced the whole bloody enterprise. You know, not at all like today. (stem cells, global warming, evolution, cosmic inflation, etc...)

Fifth, please don't try to argue with a science dude about the merits of peer-review.

PS: you do know that it's been known for over 2000 years that the earth is round, yes?
 

remnant_phoenix

New member
Apr 4, 2011
1,439
0
0
Stall said:
remnant_phoenix said:
That's bull.

Give me one good reason why typing "plz" is advantageous over typing "please" OTHER THAN "because it's faster."

It's much faster to steal a car than it is work a job where you can afford to make car payments over the course of 20 years.

Am I saying that using "textese" is tantamount to stealing a car? Of course I'm not. What I'm say is that "because it's faster" is not a good reason, and if you can give me a good reason, we'll talk brass.
Textese developed so that people can take better advantage of the phone's keypad as an instrument to communicate, as well as to compensate for a lack of typing skills in an atmosphere of instantaneous communication. It's much more difficult to type out "please" on a phone than "pls/plz". Hell, the keyboards on smartphones are barely any better, since you still have to peck at the keys. It nothing beyond people figuring out how to make the most out of limited instruments.

Plus, some services charge by character in texts, so typing full words will cost you more money. AND there is often character limits, so you might not be able to type out your full message unless you resort to some "u"s and "plz"s in there. There's practical reasons to it.
I have never had a problem sending grammatically correct text messages, whether on a number pad or a full QWERTY-style smart phone keypad, so I don't buy your argument that "It's much more difficult to type out 'please' on a phone than 'plz/pls'."

I've never heard of services that charge per character. If someone has such as service, then certainly shorthand is understandable. Saving money is good reason.

As for wanting to keep your message under the character limit and relegated to one text message, there are ways to shorten a message and bring it under the character limit without employing shorthand or slang. This is what I do and I find that it's an interesting exercise in concision, which, like grammar, is an important language skill. Using "textese," on the other hand, is only an exercise in laziness.
 

mad825

New member
Mar 28, 2010
3,379
0
0
Textese is only useful in text messages (via moblie device) simply because the bloodly input peripheral is bollocks.
 

face_head_mouth

New member
Sep 16, 2010
126
0
0
remnant_phoenix said:
As an English teacher, I can assure that typing "plz" is not helping people learn how to "manipulate phonetics," it's teaching people that lazy shorthand is superior to professional language formation. When you have a classroom full of 17-year-old students complaining "Why does it matter HOW I write it or say it as long you understand what it means?" as a justification for why there is nothing wrong with slang or shorthand IN AN ACADEMIC WRITING ASSIGNMENT, then you'll see that this idea of "textese" promoting language is absurd.
At my college, one of my psychology professors began the semester by warning students not to use "texting" language in their writing assignments.

That blew my mind. I can at least sort of understand a high-school student trying to sneak it in (they're not as mature, many of them don't read or read only when they're forced to and some of them aren't going for a higher form of education once they graduate), but college students?!
 

rev_boy

New member
Jul 19, 2010
11
0
0
Okay, I should have mentioned I don't actually take the article in the first post seriously - so we are in agreement there. What I was taking issue with was your outright statement that any piece of info not in peer reviewed articles/etc you refuse to even consider.

Falsifying data outright is career suicide indeed, which is what it's much more common for companies / scientists to manipulate data, though this is certainly seen more in some fields than others.

Of course none of this matters if people simply refuse to listen to science for example when making laws/government policies, or in the case of the DEA (who mentioned the DEA? Who even said I was talking about America? Surprisingly there are actually whole other countries in the world and the majority of people live in those, not in the US) regularly refusing allowance of legitimate research which might possibly bring into question government law/policies, while heaping funds and causing no hassle for those which support them. Getting licenses to do drugs / other taboo studies isn't exactly a walk in the park given that in the case of drugs, government organisations can deny permission for any reason or no reason at all with zero accountability.

Can't submit a proposal entitled "gettin' backed for shits 'n giggles" and expect cash, you know...
Not exactly what I was talking about.

did you know there was an analogous system way back when?
And when would that be? History includes a very long period of time, and my patience for your stupidity is thin.

Third, no. No, you do not let people "ACTUALLY USING [YOUR] OWN BRAIN AND ANALYTICAL SKILLS." Most people would happily subscribe to any nonsense that suits their preconceived notions. It's pathetic. Please don't elevate the opinion(s) of the general populace to the same level as that/those of experts.
Now that's some elitist bullshit if i've ever seen it. I submit that you are are happily subscribing to any nonsense that suits your preconceived notions - the only difference between you and the general public is that they don't have their heads stuck up their asses. What qualifies someone as an expert and from where does the authority come to label them so? Do you think the first "experts" had harvard science degrees? People are stupid, I get that - but any kind of qualifying factor in designating you a "smart person" or "expert" is completely and utterly arbitrary. As much as you might try to separate yourself from "lesser" people or "the public" you can't get around that fact, and the fact that even peer-review is basically democracy.

Not to mention, your view of intelligence seems to be primarily based on how closesly someone's views align with your own (big fucking surprise).

Sure, there were those idiot plebeians that had no idea what those weird people were doing, but it frightened them, so they denounced the whole bloody enterprise. You know, not at all like today. (stem cells, global warming, evolution, cosmic inflation, etc...)
I think comparing even stem cell research (probably the most controversial out of the examples you listed) to something like Gallileo's persecution at the hands of the Catholic Church does not do the historical examples justice. Even in the most extreme cases of anti-stem cell research and religious hysteria, nothing nearly as severe occurs. Overall we are living in an age of enlightenment in comparison to the rest of history, and i'll even grant you it's mostly because of modern science doctrines and peer review. However to say what you said about peer review instantly lowers yourself to the level of these "plebians" and makes you a giant, narrow minded hypocrite.

PS: you do know that it's been known for over 2000 years that the earth is round, yes?
Known by who, a small handful of educated people, in isolated periods of history in certain specific societies? Your knowledge of history is lacking, man.

I'll give you this: if you're going to be a fanatical, close-minded, rigidly stupid elitist; then you're better off following peer-reviewed science than following some sort of religious dogma.
 

ReverendJ

New member
Mar 18, 2009
140
0
0
rev_boy said:
What you just said was basically the equivalent of a Christian saying "if it ain't in the bible I ain't givin' no shit 'bout it".
You'd be surprised, actually. The things you discuss, such as a round world, those may not have been peer reviewed as we know it today, but they were provable even to the nascent scientific method in that experimental results were repeatable by all observers. The Bible's assertions, on the other hand, rely on there being 'special' individuals around that the rules don't apply to. Of course YOU can't walk on water, etc, you're not special.

I agree as far as the outside influences, especially when it comes to research on drugs (although I have read a number of studies concerning potential health benefits of some that were portrayed in a positive light). That said, please stop contributing to scientific illiteracy. Enough people seem to think that both religion and science rely on the same thing (i.e. blind faith), when the reality is that any proper experiment should produce the same results for all observers. This, friend, makes it superior. End of story.
 

AndyFromMonday

New member
Feb 5, 2009
3,921
0
0
How about linking the actual study? The media tends to put a spin on everything.

rev_boy said:
What qualifies someone as an expert and from where does the authority come to label them so?
Knowledge? The fact that they have a masters/PHD in a certain field? I fail to see how it's arbitrary.

rev_boy said:
Do you think the first "experts" had harvard science degrees?
We've come a long way since then, haven't we? Let me put it this way. You've got two candidates wanting to become physics teacher. One has zero knowledge in the field whereas the other has a PHD in it. Who do you hire?

The peer review system might not be perfect and there will always be bias and corporate/government interest at play but in the end it's the best system we've got.

Also, science isn't a democracy and it never will be. There are objective standards taken into account and good conclusions are never reached by basing the entire research project on someone's opinion.
 

ReverendJ

New member
Mar 18, 2009
140
0
0
rev_boy said:
Third, no. No, you do not let people "ACTUALLY USING [YOUR] OWN BRAIN AND ANALYTICAL SKILLS." Most people would happily subscribe to any nonsense that suits their preconceived notions. It's pathetic. Please don't elevate the opinion(s) of the general populace to the same level as that/those of experts.
Now that's some elitist bullshit if i've ever seen it. I submit that you are are happily subscribing to any nonsense that suits your preconceived notions - the only difference between you and the general public is that they don't have their heads stuck up their asses. What qualifies someone as an expert and from where does the authority come to label them so? Do you think the first "experts" had harvard science degrees? People are stupid, I get that - but any kind of qualifying factor in designating you a "smart person" or "expert" is completely and utterly arbitrary. As much as you might try to separate yourself from "lesser" people or "the public" you can't get around that fact, and the fact that even peer-review is basically democracy.
I know people who believe that Iraq was involved in 9-11; that Obama isn't an American citizen; that John Edwards actually speaks to dead people; that their pets fully understand spoken English; that microwave ovens give you cancer; that video games were responsible for Columbine; that Democrats hate America; that certain ethnic groups are inherently inferior to others; that God sent Katrina to punish New Orleans sinners; that George W. Bush hated black people; that pharmaceutical companies have a cure for cancer, but refuse to distribute it as the profit margin is lower on a cure than it is on long-term treatment; that Obamacare would establish "death panels" to determine who lives and who dies; and that the Star Wars trilogy gets better every time Lucas fucks with it.

Pardon me for being an elitist, I suppose, for dismissing these ideas. I mean, they've passed the muster of someone using "[THEIR] OWN BRAIN AND ANALYTICAL SKILLS," but I guess my elitist ass just requires more proof. Such as repeatable results for experiments, as the "first experts" were able to provide. Because, you know, science, like... works. It's only people who don't understand it that claim otherwise.
 

thethingthatlurks

New member
Feb 16, 2010
2,102
0
0
Damnit, and I thought I would be able to get through this pile of bullshit with nothing more than sarcasm, dry wit, and full blown retardedness. Silly me...

rev_boy said:
Okay, I should have mentioned I don't actually take the article in the first post seriously - so we are in agreement there. What I was taking issue with was your outright statement that any piece of info not in peer reviewed articles/etc you refuse to even consider.
The first article was junk, I'm glad we're on the same page there. I'm still looking for the study in Br.J.Dev.Psych the BBC article cites, but can't find it in the September release. I guess Wiley has some sort of region lock, but that's not really important right now. At any rate, I wouldn't take the study too seriously. The number of subjects was far too small for any usable conclusions.

Falsifying data outright is career suicide indeed, which is what it's much more common for companies / scientists to manipulate data, though this is certainly seen more in some fields than others.

Of course none of this matters if people simply refuse to listen to science for example when making laws/government policies, or in the case of the DEA (who mentioned the DEA? Who even said I was talking about America? Surprisingly there are actually whole other countries in the world and the majority of people live in those, not in the US) regularly refusing allowance of legitimate research which might possibly bring into question government law/policies, while heaping funds and causing no hassle for those which support them. Getting licenses to do drugs / other taboo studies isn't exactly a walk in the park given that in the case of drugs, government organisations can deny permission for any reason or no reason at all with zero accountability.
No...data doesn't get falsified. It is really easy to catch falsified data, which is why only soon-to-be-unemployed idiots are trying to get away with it. What sometimes happens instead is that the conclusions get skewed, or bloated references values are used, or basically anything to make the sponsor look good. Sadly, this does occasionally happen, though there's never a true division in the scientific community. Shit, even research sponsored by Monsanto isn't purely positive with regard to their products. The reason is simply self-preservation. Shoddy research -> loss of future funding, quite simple. I should mention that a good chunk of food safety and related research is being done in China under sponsorship. There's nothing inherently wrong with either the Chinese institutions or this system. The same reasoning applies; shoody research -> no foreign investments.

Oh yeah, I mentioned the DEA, as most of the readers are from the states. Believe me, I had no intention of belittling whatever country you claim as home...

Not exactly what I was talking about.
Then you're quite incoherent...

And when would that be? History includes a very long period of time, and my patience for your stupidity is thin.
An analogous system to peer review, though in lieu of vying for publications, the scientists in questions opted to publicly humiliate each other in order to prove their ideas superior. I never said it was a good system...

Now that's some elitist bullshit if i've ever seen it. I submit that you are are happily subscribing to any nonsense that suits your preconceived notions - the only difference between you and the general public is that they don't have their heads stuck up their asses. What qualifies someone as an expert and from where does the authority come to label them so? Do you think the first "experts" had harvard science degrees? People are stupid, I get that - but any kind of qualifying factor in designating you a "smart person" or "expert" is completely and utterly arbitrary. As much as you might try to separate yourself from "lesser" people or "the public" you can't get around that fact, and the fact that even peer-review is basically democracy.

Not to mention, your view of intelligence seems to be primarily based on how closesly someone's views align with your own (big fucking surprise).
Ah, so you're as qualified as me - a lowly first year grad student - then? Great! Ok, if efficiency were an issue, would you use a DFT calculation or a semi-empirical calculation with a corresponding mechanism (eg PM3) to determine the IR spectrum of some large organic molecule (>500Da) with some qualitative accuracy?
Ok, this is a pretty stupid question, but I hope the point got across. If you don't recognize those terms, congratulations, you are not an expert! Now kindly stay the hell away from computational chemistry.

An expert is somebody who has studied the material in question in great detail, can offer explanations, and make predictions regarding the outcome of experiments. Degrees are not really the issue here (Few scientists will look to Harvard for the final word on anything), but rather experience. Would you seriously place the opinion of a random member of society on par with that of a true expert in any given field? Please tell me the answer is 'no.' Please?

Oh, and before you say anything, I'm no expert either. I happen to know far more than the layperson about a narrow branch of science, but hardly anything compared to what my mentors know. I'm just a student for now.

As for intelligence, I most certainly do not equate it with competence. I am about as competent in microbiology, geology, aerospace engineering, ancient Chinese literature, and Polish folk dancing as you are (presumably) with quantum mechanics. And whatever understand I may posses is dwarfed into nothingness by any of my professors'. Besides, I do not recall bringing up intelligence, so have fun mutilating that strawman of yours...

I think comparing even stem cell research (probably the most controversial out of the examples you listed) to something like Gallileo's persecution at the hands of the Catholic Church does not do the historical examples justice. Even in the most extreme cases of anti-stem cell research and religious hysteria, nothing nearly as severe occurs. Overall we are living in an age of enlightenment in comparison to the rest of history, and i'll even grant you it's mostly because of modern science doctrines and peer review. However to say what you said about peer review instantly lowers yourself to the level of these "plebians" and makes you a giant, narrow minded hypocrite.
*sigh* It took the church a few centuries too many to apologize for their treatment of Galileo, and you seek to set that equal to modern day idiots who hinder the progress of science? No, obviously nobody in our bloody civilized society is going to seriously attempt to burn somebody at the stake for *gasp* suggesting that terra firma might not be so unique after all. Still, they are a huge problem. Are you familiar with the creationism/evolution debacle in the US? There are still attempts made to get creationism, or its bastard clone intelligent design, to be taught alongside evolution by a sizable portion of the population. Should we listen to them, as their opinions are as you said just as valid as those of real scientists? No? Then perhaps you ought to reconsider your stance on that.

Known by who, a small handful of educated people, in isolated periods of history in certain specific societies? Your knowledge of history is lacking, man.

I'll give you this: if you're going to be a fanatical, close-minded, rigidly stupid elitist; then you're better off following peer-reviewed science than following some sort of religious dogma.
Yeah...a similar number of educated people who understand things you could never imagine. Get over yourself! You are not on the same level as a real scientist, nor is the general public. Does that make you or them any less important in the overall course of humanity? Of course not! Just. Not. In. Fucking. Science.

To be honest, you sound like somebody who got rejected from a science major. If that's the case, I really do wish you the best, and that you eventually get over it.

EDIT: stupid removed >_>
 

Acaroid

New member
Aug 11, 2008
863
0
0
thethingthatlurks said:
Pardon my sciency edumacated elitist ass for not taking a mere article seriously. Sorry, if it ain't peer reviewed, I ain't givin' no shit 'bout it, and whatever it says is little more than trivial nonsense.
Well if you used "Sceincy edumacated elitist ass" brain you could easily find out that the research has not been finalised yet and hence why it has not been put out for any sort of peer review or publication.
 

setting_son

New member
Apr 14, 2009
224
0
0
My own feeling is that people are free to communicate in whatever manner they wish but if you use text speak, I will judge you and I will think you're a moron - and God help you if you think it's acceptable to fill in a job application 'lyk ths'.
 

thethingthatlurks

New member
Feb 16, 2010
2,102
0
0
Acaroid said:
thethingthatlurks said:
Pardon my sciency edumacated elitist ass for not taking a mere article seriously. Sorry, if it ain't peer reviewed, I ain't givin' no shit 'bout it, and whatever it says is little more than trivial nonsense.
Well if you used "Sceincy edumacated elitist ass" brain you could easily find out that the research has not been finalised yet and hence why it has not been put out for any sort of peer review or publication.
Ditto. That's why I rather enjoy mocking stupid articles like this. There's no hint of veracity of any of the claims, sans a promise of future evidence. But hey, even they do end up delivering on their claims, the study (as outlined in the BBC article) is so tiny that no real conclusions can be drawn from it. But hey, grant money don't grow on trees,...
 

dave1004

New member
Sep 20, 2010
199
0
0
I dropped out of high school at grade 8, but even before that I had good spelling and grammar. I spent most of my days reading books and playing outside, so I advanced quite quickly. It may help that I've never had a mobile phone of any type, but I have used some before. People get annoyed because I type...Well, normally.

I'm horrid at math although. Well, I think.

Texting does NOT improve any form of writing skill. Sentences used by "Texters" are almost always choppy, and the grammar is absolutely shredded. There's never any punctuation to see. (Okay, fine, I guess if you consider "OM,G1!221ONE1?" to be proper punctuation, have what ye will.

Sigh.
 

DexterNorgam

New member
Jul 16, 2011
214
0
0
Yea, I'm not moved by any study. I cannot condone text-speak. There is basically no excuse for it. Maybe back in the day when the unlimited texting was not included with the most basic cell plans. Maybe back in the day when no phone had qwerty keypads or even predictive text entry (t9/itap). Today, I cant do it. The problems with communicating by text that text-speak sprung up to circumvent no longer exist.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jun 24, 2011
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
I'll be sure to tell my sons teacher that a misspelled word is a good thing and she should award bonus points for it.

The foolishness of this is right up there with "Listening to music through headphones at extreme volume helps to develop your hearing rather than hinder it".
 

EternalFacepalm

Senior Member
Feb 1, 2011
809
0
21
... Meanwhile, people are unable to understand how "u" isn't an acceptable form of "you," and "I" should be capitalised, from my experience.
I'm sorry to say, but those articles are absolute bullshit.