DUMBING DOWN

Good question, Set, and one I've thought to myself when I read stuff like - ne1 for anyone. I heard on the radio the other morning that only a fraction of today's youth can tie their shoes (up to age 8), read an analog clock, or do long division, so I don't doubt we are becoming dumbed down.

The text-speak seems to work in their own domain. It is only troublesome here - for some. I can muddle through it, but it's exhausting.

As for admonishing them, "They know not of what you speak . . "

I noticed the thing about an analogue clock more than 20 years ago. The first time it cropped up i was waiting outside a huge indoor mall for my ride, when a kid came from the bus stop to ask the time. I pulled out my pocket watch and showed it to him. Then i felt someone tap me on the shoulder, and when i looked around, it was the same kid, and with a blush, he asked me again what the time was. He couldn't read my watch.

I agree that "texting" shortcuts are a bad way to communicate on a public forum.

Other than that, don't forget that for many A2Kers, English was not their first language.

I tend to separate out communication from technology. I don't know how to put on a corset either, but does that make me dumber than my grandmother? I think shoelaces, analog clocks, or manual math may be a thing of the past someday. They are are a result of technological advancements that make its predecessor obsolete.

Text-speak may some day become common enough that it takes over what we know as English, but I think those days are a ways off. Once it becomes common vernacular, does that make it dumber than say... those of us who don't use Edwardian language today?

I think all of us recognize the difference between non-English speakers, inept English speakers and lazy English speakers. The Dog knows FM will never win any awards for his typing. We all tend to ignore his errors and we can all understand what he means to write. I think we all extend that courtesy to non-English speakers (non-native, i mean, of course). But i refer to those whose efforts are nearly or entirely incomprehensible, but without showing the symptoms of the non-native speaker.

I think that kid was trying to imitate London street talk (which used to be called Cockney--I'm not sure if it still is) with his "f" instead of "th", which flatly did not give him any street cred with us, tho I suspect he thought it made him seem hip.

I got the sense that he might have been Strine . . . but i have no particular reason for saying so. However, i was not referring solely to that thread.

Most young people I know are bilingual -- they do the text speak for texting, and then switch over to English for other situations.

I think that the autocorrect functions on the iPhone etc. might actually be sending things back in the other direction, rendering txtspeak moot except for the meme-y ones. (OMG, WTF, lulz, FTW, etc.)

Very good question and I don't know the answer. I believe that language is critical to being able to process thoughts and information, that the more depowered is the language that one is in command of the less they are are able to function intelligently. The question then becomes 1) are these people able to use good written language in spite of the fact that they don't and 2) if they cant write good language does this also mean that they can't speak and think good language?

My hunch is that one does not have to follow the other, but that where a person gives good written language the finger by refusing to use it the odds are good that they don't care enough about language, or enough about being intelligent, to do the work required to get there. These are people who have chosen a squalid intellectual existence, just as the beatniks and hippies chose a squalid physical existence. I also often get the sense that they have chosen to remain ignorant because they dont like what they think they would find out if they were to examine the world around them, these are people who are subconsciously sure that humanity is doomed, and they are trying to avoid thinking about this as they go about their day.

We don't wear corsets anymore but many public buildings still have analog clocks. It's not going to help anyone (or ne1) if they can't read it. And many shoes and boots still have laces. These things are not antiquated like corsets, so it's not the same thing. Long division and multiplication are useful when you don't have a calculator, and not many of us walk around with one. Next they won't be learning how to spell.

Oh wait - they already aren't.

Is not A2k clearly one of those "other situations"? What does it mean when people refuse to use high powered language here?

It's not bilingual - it's more akin to shorthand.

Cycloptichorn

Right, I was being flip. Didn't mean that txtspk is a legitimate language.

thanks . set !

Yer welcome, Boss . . .

*****************************************

One thing which will, for the foreseeable future, defeat texting speak is that English is the language of international business, and though those who learn the language for that purpose may be aware of texting speak, what they want to learn is standard English. There are literally tens of millions, and possibly hundreds of millions of people in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Singapore who assiduously study standard English.

When I watched the Ken Burns documentary "The Civil War," I was struck by how articulate and even eloquent so many "common" men and women were in their letters to one another.

Who even writes letters today?

I also recall watching a Jay Leno man-on-the street routine wherein he found that virtually no one he interviewed (or at least aired in his clip) knew who appeared on various denominations of our currency. I tried the same test in my office the next day and discovered nearly identical results. I was shocked, not because knowing that Jackson is on a $20 bill is a clear indication of one's education, but because so many people handle money on a daily basis and, apparently, are never curious enough to look at it, let alone care to identify the faces they see.

I don't know that either of these examples signify a "dumbing down," of the populace, but I have come to realize that my expectations of what a person should know and how they should be able to express themselves is not widely shared. I'm not sure it was ever otherwise.

To some extent the soldiers writing letters during the Civil War were less equipped to express themselves and communicate and so were naturally more focused on writing. At that time, no one could to speak with anyone outside of shouting range and visual communication was far more limited than it is today.

Are today's "common" folks dumber than those of the 1860's or is their capacity to think and communicate more diluted or overloaded?

There are young people today whose communication skills seem appalling but who can wrap their minds around concepts that would have befuddled their counter-parts of 150 years ago.

I am concerned with what seems to be a general dumbing down in America, but I've no idea what can be done about it. At the same time, my guess is that 200 years from now, old farts will be bemoaning the ignorance and lack of skills in their young whippersnappers.

I'm not suggesting that people are "dumber," rather i suggest that they accept a very narrow view of the world without bothering to inform themselves any further. Kids are eager to fit in by texting one another--i doubt that many of them are eager to read Jane Austen or James Fennimore Cooper.