Men most guilty of text discrimination

By Greg Thom Herald Sun January 25, 2011 9:27AM

Men really, really care about your grammar. Fact. Source: The Sunday Telegraph

PURISTS may believe SMS text messaging is killing the English language, but good grammar, it seems, is unlikely to go out of style.

The Herald Sun reports new research into the nation's texting habits has revealed more than half of all Australians dislike receiving truncated SMS that include abbreviations. Men are less tolerant than women of shorthand texting, with 40 per cent preferring proper spelling compared to 32 per cent of their gender opposites. Topping the list of irritating missives are "totes" (short for "totally"), "4COL" (for crying out loud) and "wut" (what). More than half of men (56 per cent) are more likely to find them silly or unnecessary compared to 37 per cent of women. Despite the findings, Australians love affair with texting continues to grow at an astonishing rate.

More than one in 10 of us send more than 10 SMS every day.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, 18 to 24-year-olds are the most avid texters, pumping out as many as of 40 SMS every weekend. Just because some SMS abbreviations are given the thumbs down however, doesn't mean others don't hit the right note. The top five most regularly used SMS abbreviations include "lol" (laugh out loud); "b4" (before); "omg" (oh my god); "gr8" (great) and "fyi" (for your information).

When it comes to firing off a text message, it seems we are not all the same. Researchers have categorised SMS users into five groups ranging from practical texters who use the technology for no-nonsense tasks such as reminding a spouse to pick up some milk, to textaholics whose mobiles run their lives. Telstra consumer executive Director Rebekah O'Flaherty said customers sent more than nine billion SMSes in 2009/2010. "Whether we're in the office, at home or on the move, SMS is an indispensable way for Australians to communicate, with Telstra's research suggesting setting up social outings, getting a message out en-masse and trying to avoid confrontation being the main drivers,'' she said.

The study also revealed:

ALMOST half of all Australians sleep with their mobile phone either on or right next to their bed every night.

MORE than three quarters of seniors aged 65 years and over send an SMS on a daily basis, with five per cent firing off up to 10 texts on the weekend.

The five groups of texters identified by Telstra in the survey were:

1. Practi Texter: Sends a handful of SMSes each day, mainly for practical purposes, such as reminding their partner to pick up milk or confirm a time to catch up with friends.

2. Straight shooter: Friends and family are lucky to ever receive a text message from a straight shooter and if they do, it's likely to contain a one-word answer such as "yes" or "no".

3. Textaholic: Always texting, even if it's to let someone know they've just left them a voicemail or to remind them to return an earlier SMS.

4. Silent Texter: Known to pull out the mobile phone and start texting whenever there is a lull in conversation. Hates awkward silences.

5. Mass Texter: Love sending an SMS to multiple people at once.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/technology/men-most-guilty-of-text-discrimination/story-e6frfro0-1225994065100#ixzz1C6pwmq60

Video Games and the Depressed Teenager

January 18, 2011, 12:39 pm By RONI CARYN RABIN

Can too many video games make your teenager depressed?

There’s been a lot of buzz about whether video games are habit-forming, and whether parents are exaggerating when they say their teenagers are “addicted” to game playing. Now new research on children who are heavy gamers suggests parents may have something else to worry about: depression. Two recent studies of gamers are among the first to follow large groups of teenagers over time to assess their mental health and how much time they spend playing video games. Their gaming habits were assessed at the start of the study period, and the researchers then followed them for a year or two to see how they were faring.

The results are discouraging. The latest study, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, followed 3,000 students in the third, fourth, seventh and eighth grades in Singapore. Children who were more impulsive and less comfortable with other children spent more time playing video games, the study found. Two years later, these heavy gamers, who played an average of 31 hours a week, compared with 19 hours a week for other students, were more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety and social phobias. They were also more likely to see their grades in school drop and have worse relationships with their parents. The findings come on the heels of another study, released last fall, that followed more than 1,000 healthy Chinese teenagers ages 13 to 18. Those who used the Internet excessively were more than twice as likely as the others to be depressed nine months later; most of the Internet use was for video games, the researchers said. That study was published in The Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine.

Even before the latest study was released, officials with the Entertainment Software Association, which represents companies that sell interactive video games, attacked it. They noted that there is no clear consensus on what defines “pathological gaming” or agreement on whether gaming can really be considered addictive. The association is challenging a state law passed in California in 2005 that bars the sales of violent video games to minors (the case was heard by the United States Supreme Court last year). They have also questioned earlier studies by the researcher, Douglas A. Gentile. But Dr. Gentile, an associate professor of psychology at Iowa State University, says his latest results don’t prove that playing video games causes depression. Rather, he says, in young people a range of mental health problems and what he calls “pathological gaming” may develop in tandem, much as illnesses like the flu and pneumonia can set off one another and lead to new problems. “You can get the flu, and then get pneumonia, which is a different thing, but it kind of came along with the flu, and flu made you at greater risk for it,” Dr. Gentile said. “And then, once you got the pneumonia, you’re at risk from something else.”

He says his study shows a certain chronological progression: Young people who were more impulsive, more socially inept and less empathetic to begin with were more likely to become excessive video game players. Then, once they became what he terms pathological gamers, their grades were more likely to drop, and their relationships with their parents deteriorated. Two years later, they were more likely to suffer from depression, social phobias and anxiety than those who played video games less often. In the study, the few heavy gamers who stopped playing so much tended to show fewer symptoms of depression. Dr. Gentile suggested that teenagers who are experiencing problems may retreat into gaming, and that the gaming may, in turn, increase their depression and isolation. He says that parents should regulate their children’s use of video games and trust their instincts on what constitutes excessive use, something that his critics from the gaming industry also agree on. “We’ve always said these games should be used in moderation and should be a part of a well-rounded lifestyle, along with going outside to play, and reading, and doing schoolwork,” said Dan Hewitt, a spokesman for the Entertainment Software Association.

Many teenagers experience mental health problems and can benefit from psychological or medical help, Mr. Hewitt said, but added, “Why point out their game playing?” That’s where Dr. Gentile disagrees. A gaming habit cannot be ignored, he said. Few youths spontaneously drop the heavy gaming, and even if it’s not the initial trigger for depression, he said, “It looks like it’s an independent actor, not just a symptom of something else.”

[via]

The joys of online activism

Internet campaigns can mobilise national or global pressure to call for justice and common sense in our globalising village.

There are many worrying trends in this modern era of globalisation, most notably the ease with which companies can operate and banks move money around, apparently outside any democratic parameters set by nations or an international community struggling to catch up with a rapidly liberalising context. But I have never been part of the "anti-globalisation" movement because there are so many positive aspects to globalisation. The most important are those related to the incredible improvements in communication that the world has witnessed in the last two or three decades, largely down to the internet. If governments and the UN are failing to keep the excesses of private capital and corruption in check, these new global communities could be an important part of the answer.

Some in the UK would mark Michael Buerk's broadcast about the famine in Ethiopia as a turning point in their consciousness, but there are many other examples of when people in one part of the world realise that suffering and injustice thousands of miles away is of concern to them. Whereas once we cared only about the poor and homeless in our own villages, the world is now our village. Nowhere is this more evident than in an internet campaigning phenomenon that in the space of four years has announced a new vision for what kind of world community is possible: Avaaz. Since my cousin forwarded me an email from the the organisation about a year ago, I have clicked in support of campaigns ranging from banning cluster munitions, stopping a woman being stoned to death in Iran, protecting the oceans and, this week, calling on chocolate companies to boycott Ivory Coast until Laurent Gbagbo steps down. So I've been busy. But not that busy. The beauty of Avaaz, of course, is how easy it is – you just click your support and within days 800,000 people are calling on the US and the EU to ban a pesticide they have probably never heard of, but that kills bees and thus endangers the ecosystem.

Some have criticised this kind of "clicktivism", claiming that it is a shallow form of protest compared with the interlocked arms of marchers of the famous campaigns of the last century. But it is not an either/or situation. All the campaigns Avaaz supports depend on deeply committed campaigners for their heart, evidence and credibility. But Avaaz gives me and its 6.5 million members worldwide a chance to say we care as well. Imagine how much more effective campaigns would have been in the past with this ability to mobilise national, regional or global pressure. Apartheid, Vietnam, women's rights.

Ecpat is a small British charity that fights the trafficking and abuse of children. Last year Avaaz decided to give a boost to Ecpat's pioneering work by focusing on the Hilton hotel chain's refusal to sign a basic code of conduct to train its staff to end possible abuse in its hotels. Rather than deliver the petition to the company headquarters, Avaaz announced that it would put up billboards in the home town of the CEO – boldly linking professional responsibility for a massive business with personal responsibility as a member of the human race. Risky, but it worked. One week and 310,000 signatures later, the Hilton group promised to sign (before the billboards went up).

Last year the Brazilian congress voted on a measure to bar politicians convicted of corruption from standing for office. Most thought the vote would fail, as so many of those in congress were themselves corrupt (estimated at 25%). But in the largest internet campaign in Brazilian history, 2 million people signed a petition supporting the legislation. It passed.

These and many other successes could make a real difference to millions of people. What is attractive about engaging in this way is that it combines surprising perspectives (not the same old gripes) with a stark understanding of the reality of politics. The common theme is reining in power – one of my favourites was a campaign against the Murdoch press taking more of a monopoly grip of British media. This is not about giving, it is about participating. While charity fatigue is a well-known phenomenon, I have yet to come across solidarity fatigue. In an age of "accountability", some have suggested that the small team that runs Avaaz and send us its latest campaign obsessions are unaccountable. But the key to Avaaz's success is precisely its accountability model, one that some of the traditional NGOs (who must be delighted and more than a little envious as they watch this phenomenon) might want to copy. Each potential campaign is trialled on a sample of a few thousand members before it goes live. If there is low take-up, it is dropped. Avaaz responds to its members as much as it informs and leads them.

One funky gimmick Avaaz has is allowing you to see the names of signatories who support a particular campaign. "Jane from Canada, Vikram from India, Colin from Wales". I have wasted plenty of time looking at these names as they roll in, strangers in another part of the planet demonstrating that they care about things I care about. In real time. In my mind, I think: "Nice one Jane, nice one Vikram." Like the neighbourhood watch group operating in my street, Avaaz makes you realise that there is a global community calling for justice and common sense in our globalising village.

via The Guardian by Jonathan Glennie, Tuesday 18 January 2011 07.00 GMT

[via]

Teaching Gaming to re-engage boys in education

Miles O'Brien: Is technology rewiring teens' brains?

Miles O'Brien has produced a cool piece for PBS News Hour about "what could be happening to teenagers' brains as they develop in a rapid-fire, multitasking world of technology and gadgets."

The PBS correspondent is best known from his many years as space and science reporter with CNN—he has also appeared on a few BBTV episodes (1, 2, 3).

This News Hour segment is informative, but the companion chat with his kids is a sober counter-point to the hysteria of "video games/texting/IM/the internet is destroying our minds." Suck it, tech-haters.

Watch video:
• Is Technology Wiring Teens to Have Better Brains? (PBS News Hour)
• Miles O'Brien: Teen Brains on Technology (a chat with News Hour host Hari Sreenivasan)

[via]