The Washington Post explores both sides of this issue, but by now, we are probably more familiar with the cons than the pros. There is the old grouse about text speak, emoticons and the decline of writing, along with other, more serious concerns:

There also are concerns about texting while driving, text-bullying and "sexting," or the term for adolescents messaging naked photos of themselves or others. What might have been intended for a friend can be widely distributed, and the texting of lewd photographs of minors can lead to criminal charges.

The American Journal of Psychiatry published an editorial last year by psychiatrist Jerald J. Block, suggesting that addiction to the Internet and text messaging be included in the diagnostic manual for mental illnesses.

Sexting has proved to be a real problem lately, with teens nude cellphone pictures resulting in charges of disseminating child pornography. However, the question about online addiction seems even hairier. We're just beginning to come to terms with the idea of sex addiction (and many still wonder whether it a real addiction) so while it is not surprising that some feel addicted to the internet or texting -or their "crackberries" - it is still up for debate whether this should be classified as an addiction up there with "real" issues like alcohol or drugs. But, as Block points out, we won't know the repercussions of our texting tendencies for some time: "our use of technology today amounts to a large social experiment. We still don't know how it helps us or how it hurts us."

Fortunately, there is also a pro-side to this debate. Al Filreis, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, believes that texting (and instant messaging/emailing) has caused student writing to improve rather than deteriorate:

"In writing, quantity tends to lead to quality," he said, "and we're doing quantity right now." Through texting and other instant communication, Filreis says, his students have learned hard-to-teach lessons about audience, succinctness and syntax. "My students are better writers than they were 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 25 years ago."

Others point out that texting can help create feelings of community and connectedness, bring parents and teens closer together. However, the overall tone of this article is rather alarmist, and seems to fall quite heavily on the cons-side. Filreis is the only expert quoted who believes texting may ultimately be good for teens, everyone else seems to think that texting is a symptom of our decreased attention spans (which may be true), our decaying family structure, and our crippling dependency on technology. But honestly, we're getting pretty sick of all the doomsayer prophesying. Texting is probably not going to destroy the grammar and moral fiber of an entire generation. IMing didn't, despite articles that claimed that abbreviations and emoticons popularized by instant messenger were "part of a continuing assault of technology on formal written English." Six years ago, the New York Times thought IMing could lead to a generation of anti-social, emotionally detached addicts. This brouhaha about texting is really just more of the same. So please, journalists, calm down, the kids are alright.

6,473 Texts a Month, But at What Cost? [Washington Post]

Related: What's The Right Punishment For Teen "Sexting"?

Anyway, needless to say, there was some interesting information in the story, like about how smokers and Asians and women on the Pill all metabolize caffeine at different rates and will thus have differing reactions to the same sized cup of coffee, and other sort of shit you could probably figure out by drinking it, and then a battery of studies about how caffeine is kind of good for you and then the requisite caveat about how caffeine, even if it keeps you alert, will tire out your brain so that it can't really function by the end of the day and its only use will be "clicking through infomercials" while "feeling mentally exhausted." Yup.

The Coffee Junkie's Guide To Caffeine Addiction [NY Mag]

Amid the complexity of perspectives on the human psyche, a slow but relentless change is occurring in how psychologists view self-esteem, said Kernis. It was once thought that more self-esteem necessarily is better self-esteem. In recent years, however, high self-esteem per se has come under attack on several fronts, especially in areas such as aggressive behavior. Also, individuals with high self-esteem sometimes become very unlikable when others or events threaten their egos.

While high self-esteem is still generally valued as a good quality that is important to a happy and productive life, more researchers are breaking it down into finer gradations and starting to understand when high self-esteem turns from good to bad. In fact, it is now thought that there are multiple forms of high self-esteem, only some of which consistently relate to positive psychological functioning.

High Self-Esteem Not Necessarily A Good Thing [EurekaAlert]
Does Sex Addiction Exist? [BBC]
It's The Adultery, Stupid [Vanity Fair] (Where I got the picture.)