8 ms·

Are you a grammar pedant? This might be why

53 points by nkurz 11y ago

gone35 11y ago
Note the original study[1] is awfully underpowered; the reported effect is weak and highly equivocal; and it reeks of 'researcher degrees of freedom' bias --so caveat lector. (It's PLOS One, after all.) [1] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149885 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
bottled_poe 11y ago
In a social or informal context, most could not care less about linguistic correctness. On the other hand, in a professional context, presentation is highly relevant. The specific details of sentence structure are not important, the point is that it generally indicates a persons attention to detail and ability to communicate effectively.
- jdale27 11y ago
  the point is that it generally indicates a persons attention to detail That should be "a person's attention to detail". Sorry, I could not resist... ;) Sincerely, your local introverted grammar Nazi
- plainOldText 11y ago
  Someone who communicates effectively is definitely paying attention to sentence structure. One's writing can be regarded as a manifestation of one's model of the world. Writing riddled with grammatical errors, incorrect sentence structures and incomplete punctuation indicate an overly simplistic model. A more detailed model yields more predictive power, at the expense of extra brain cycles. If one cannot differentiate between "your" and "you're" I'm pretty sure that person is running a slower "CPU".
- gracenotes 11y ago
  One of the most important things in "professional" writing, which includes technical writing, is clarity. Sticking to a style in that context is important because you shouldn't draw attention away from what you're saying to how you're saying it. The same thing is true of code style, where I think style guides really do improve productivity in codebases touched by multiple people. As you mention, you could also see specific usage patterns as shows of "professionalism" (again in quotes... it's a word that I think should be used carefully re systemic biases). But it's perhaps a little reductionist to view informal contexts as not-caring-about-correctness at one end and professional contexts as caring, because there are many aspects of communication in both that are "incorrect" for different reasons. Usage patterns in work environments are not strictly more correct, then. As the article proposes, being bothered by ungrammatical language is more often just an issue of sensitivity to stimuli. At least in conversations, those of us with the good sense to be descriptivists can hopefully tell when additional clarity would be helpful and when it's just putting other people down to try to look smart.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
Rizz 11y ago
Is a grammar pendant also more intolerant of petty crimes? I could see language errors as a sort of crime against the rules we as a society made.
- aries1980 11y ago
  Yeah, I take breaking coding standards very seriously.
- gracenotes 11y ago
  Who says language rules were intentionally made by we as a society? :) Unless you mean these grammar rules: http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497 http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/2549...
- gbsmith 11y ago
  "pendant" != "pedant". Now that I've identified myself as a spelling pedant, the answer is: Not in general. Judging by the people I've met in life (yes, selection bias ...) there is no correlation. [Disclaimer: This post is bound to contain grammatical errors. I'm not a native English speaker.]
xorcist 11y ago
I'd be more interested in research on grammar tolerants, rather than intolerants. Are their reading fluency not hampered by language hickups? Do they not read as fluent, or at least in the same way, as those more easily bothered?
- Gibbon1 11y ago
  I'm fairly tolerant of bad/odd grammar. ?usually when reading something with crummy grammar all I feel is impression of sloppiness.
Uhhrrr 11y ago
I'm a grammar pedant because I like to help people who write "must of" and confuse it's and its.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  I'm in the same boat. I find it a sign of care and respect that we try to help each other become better. Who cares more, the person who lets you know you have something green between your teeth or the person who pretends it's not there? Do I always politely point out embarrassing details to my friends? Nope. I'm actually most likely to point them out to my friends who appreciate (or at least can handle) that sort of constructive criticism. In this way, honest feedback from me is a sign of respect. Meaning, to some degree, if I feel I have to keep things from you to protect your feelings, I don't believe my communication skills and your emotional intelligence allow for that sort of exchange. That is, I'm too much of a jerk and you're too sensitive for me to point out that your have bad breath. Does having food between your teeth matter? Not ultimately. But saving people from quiet judgment from others matters, surely.
djaychela 11y ago
They spelled extrovert wrong. Deliberately?
- Jenya_ 11y ago
  The spelling with A belongs to Jung himself: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-difference-between-extraversion-and-extroversion/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-diff...
  - djaychela 11y ago
    Interesting...(thanks for the link) But I would have expected them to be consistent within the article? It's done both ways in there.
    - desdiv 11y ago
      It is consistent. The word appears six times in total, and the 5 times the author used it were all consistent: >extraversion >extraverts >Quoting Hans Eysenck: extroverts >extraverts >extraverts >extraversion You're not supposed to correct someone's different spelling when quoting them.
lazyjones 11y ago
The correlation seems to exist, but implying causation is a bit of a stretch. I'm definitely introverted and annoyed by typos and grammar mistakes I can identify (despite making some myself with English being my 3rd language), but I also consider them harmful and contagious: e.g. the possessive "its" is written more often as "it's" than not these days, especially in tech articles and blog entries posted on HN. Therefore it's not really an emotional, knee-jerk reaction, but conscious pedantry and anger because of the harm done to readers through neglect. Here's another theory (well, hypothesis...): extroverted people frequently have a good memory (names, faces, birthdays...) and can tolerate sloppy writing by others because it doesn't affect their own, while those who - like me - need to refresh their memories regularly and possibly rely more on reading for language skills, might find typos and grammar mistakes more harmful.
nerdy 11y ago
But what does this tell us about introverts? Is the "pebble in the shoe" of an introvert an annoyance with the perceived carelessness on the part of the grammatical offender? Or maybe a lack of respect? Is introversion the cause, or a sibling to pedantry of a broader psychological trait? I hated English classes in school, never paid attention. Skipped. Failed. It seemed inconsequential at the time. Gaining access to a BBS was a bit of a culture shock. Computers were fascinating but suddenly my peers cared about spelling, grammar... even punctuation (it happened to be a BBS for a local paper, maybe related). So at 15, I felt out of place and committed to thoroughly learning all of the things I'd skipped in school. Not because of snarky responses, corrections, or others’ expectations but because it impacted my ability to communicate - which I don't particularly enjoy but feel is important. Even now, I'm communicating... but it isn't for the sake of making noise or banging on a keyboard, it's about an idea. We communicate to share thoughts and without that mechanism we wouldn't have shared learning which resulted in anything commonly considered "technology" or "machines" today. My visceral reaction to grammatical errors is the feeling that the person places less of a value on communicating ideas. It isn't about intelligence, it's about values. Does anyone else feel this way? Am I just a pedantic, judgmental asshole?
- logicrook 11y ago
  Usually, people don't feel the same way when thinking about any kind of work; you have to master the basics if you want express something. You need to learn to draw before you can get to the point of expressing yourself via paintings. You need to learn architecture before doing buildings, learn to code to do programs. Yet only the most extreme cases of idiots claim that learning the means of expression stifles expression. Why? I think it boils down to the lack of hard metrics and the link with social issues (the old orwellian fight between classes through language). I'd say that you're not the only one thinking this way, but some would disagree because that makes you an "uncle tom".
  - nerdy 11y ago
    well nevr git lexical nirvana wo brakeing rulez
- 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
bane 11y ago
Perhaps. Grammar pedants (prescriptivists), seem to be made up mostly of people who've come to the conclusion that the particular mode of the language they're most comfortable with is the "correct" one that everybody should be communicating in. It seems to come from some deep-down inflexibility to tolerate or comprehend that other people communicate in different modes. The pedant seems to wish that all the world should structure their communication to be most convenient for them rather than trying to work on increasing the scope of the modes they can work with. They believe there is one kind of audience and their preferred mode is the magical key that ensures correct and precise communication with that audience -- regardless if this is actually true. It makes a kind of sense that this might stem from some deep seated introversion -- people for whom the principal interaction between audience and speaker is themselves. But on the other hand, wouldn't you likely be able to understand any mode of communication within your own mind? What's most often fascinating to me is how deeply wrong and ignorant of grammar most grammar pedants are beyond some superficially memorized rules they've attached themselves to. When pushed for the "why" behind their rules they frequently don't know, or will point to some style manual (usually also full of grammar errors) they believe has taken on an almost holy quality. One of my favorite tactics is the "that's not a word" argument, with fingers pointed to the nearest dictionary as evidence. This of course ignores the simple fact that dictionaries are comprised of words that grammar descriptivists have observed in the wild -- with usage reaching above some non-transient threshold that makes it worth capturing by lexicographers. The worst linguists are those that fall very far on the descriptive side of the spectrum. Some references: http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/correct/prescriptivism/ http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/correct/prescriptivism/ So what is right and wrong in language, and who decides? Some observers claim that the real issue about linguistic right and wrong is one of deciding who wields power and who doesn't. Viewing language as a form of cultural capital, they note that stigmatized forms are typically those used by social groups other than the educated middle classes--professional people, including those in law, medicine, and publishing. Linguists generally would argue that the language of educated middle-class speakers is not better (or worse) than the language of other social groups, any more than Spanish, say, is better or worse than French, Navaho better or worse than Comanche, or Japanese better or worse than Chinese. They would acknowledge that some standardization of form is useful for the variety of a language used, especially in print. They would also insist, however, that expressions appearing in dictionaries and grammars are not the only grammatical forms and may not be suitable for use in all circumstances. They are merely the ones designated for use in circumstances of wider communication. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003588.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003588.h... Perhaps the worst thing about prescriptivism is that it is frequently a device for demonstrating the superiority of the pundit and his or her favorite class of people over everyone else. It feeds discrimination, particularly classism. The standards to which pundits appeal are invariably those of a socioeconomic elite. The standard tends to combine their natural speech with details that one can only acquire by means of extensive education. http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97mar/halpern/nunberg.htm http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97mar/halpern/nu... ...These bare instructions give no reason at all for choosing the singular pronoun. In fact, there is no mention of an error in the use of the plural, which is labeled not "incorrect" or "illogical" but merely "formal," as if the difference between plural and singular were on a level with the difference between cop* and policeman, or horse and steed. ...But the Handbook says only that the sentence is "illogical," giving no indication of what point of logic is violated. What is the student to make of that, especially since the Handbook has not explained the use of the singular as being "logical" in the first place? The student who finds "6b(1)" cropping up on his compositions may learn to rectify the error, but only in the way he learns to rectify his misspellings: by rote, learning nothing else in the process.
mattmanser 11y ago
In an experiment involving 80 Americans Seriously? 80 people gave them all these insights? There's something fundamentally wrong with research if they think that's ok to publish. I got more than 80 questionnaires back for my high school geography project.
- Retra 11y ago
  How many spoonfuls of soup must you taste to know if the pot is salty?
  - mattmanser 11y ago
    A soup is binary salty/not salty. 5 characteristics measured - openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism 5! = 120. So are you arguing 2 === 120 or are you arguing 2 === 5, but whichever one it is, you're missing the point. Do you know why adverts have 'when 80 women were asked 73% agreed pantene makes my hair shinier'? Because it's not scientifically significant, so can't be held as a clinical trial, therefore the product doesn't need regulating. And that's for a binary, shiny/not shiny (salty/not salty). Not for a possibly open, sloppy, introverted, agreeable neurotic. Or a closed, conscientious, introverted, agreeable non-neurotic.
    - Retra 11y ago
      A soup can be sweet, sour, tangy, meaty, bitter, in addition to plenty of other characteristics. >So are you arguing 2 === 120 or are you arguing 2 === 5, but whichever one it is, you're missing the point. It's pretty clear that I'm not arguing either of those (being that I made no mention of cardinality,) but if you want to put words into my mouth, I can see why you'd think I'd be focusing on those kinds of irrelevant details. My point is that the number of samples taken, in and of itself doesn't tell you anything about the significance of a conclusion. You need to know how the sample relates to the population, and how the results characterize the population through the sample.
lowmagnet 11y ago
I consider myself both an introvert and a somewhat-reformed grammar pedant. I tend to only call out mis-spellings and grammar mistakes when they matter. I also prefer writing my own words in an e-prime fashion, eschewing forms of to be. It helps me eliminate most of my use of passive voice and also helps me make less judgemental statements, tying agency to my verbs.
mike_hock 11y ago
Well, an excessive amount of spelling errors on the application could be an indication that they half-ass everything. Which could be a problem in a housemate. Or it could mean they won't give you shit for half-assing everything. Depends.
makecheck 11y ago
No, it reflects how much tolerance you have for laziness. The point of grammar is to be understood. Good grammar shows that the writer is trying to help the reader. Poor grammar shows that the writer doesn’t care, and the reader is forced to figure everything out. Arguably, mistakes that don’t affect understanding can be overlooked without any comment. For example, some words are pretty unique; you can seriously misspell them and still recognize them. On the other hand, you have to be careful with changes to words or even punctuation that can drastically alter the meaning of a sentence. I can also forgive things that are frankly inconsistent in the language. For instance, although I know when to use "its" versus "it’s", I certainly get why someone would think that "it’s" may be correct for possession; and, since it is very unlikely that "it is" will make any sense as a replacement, I can also figure out what was intended every time. No big deal.
upstandingdude 11y ago
"extrAvert"? FUCK! Are you toying with me? I don't care if its a legit variant, it feels wrong. Made me rage more than it should have.
- nkurz 11y ago
  Where do you think you fall on the introvert-extrovert scale? More than a variant, "extravert" is actually the original spelling that Jung used, which he chose because "extra" is a legitimate Latin prefix, while "extro" is not: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-difference-between-extraversion-and-extroversion/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-diff... I'm pretty far on the introverted side, and would prefer spelling it "extraverted" although I'm aware that this is nonstandard in the US. I think this is because I tend to be more attentive to the rules of orthography than to common usage. I'd guess that extroverts tend to care more about social norms than while introverts are more comfortable with consistent rules?
falcrist 11y ago
It strikes me as strange that the article doesn't discuss context at all. For example, if you're commenting on a website or texting me, I'm unlikely to care about grammatical errors. However, if you can't be reasonably close to correct on a website that's selling something, I will be much less like to buy from you.
cheshire137 11y ago
Did the author intentionally repeatedly misspell "extrovert" just to mess with us?
- jeremysmyth 11y ago
  Did you intentionally throw in "extrovert" just to mess with us? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion

53 points by nkurz 11y ago

Note the original study[1] is awfully underpowered; the reported effect is weak and highly equivocal; and it reeks of 'researcher degrees of freedom' bias --so caveat lector. (It's PLOS One, after all.) [1] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149885 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

bottled_poe 11y ago

In a social or informal context, most could not care less about linguistic correctness. On the other hand, in a professional context, presentation is highly relevant. The specific details of sentence structure are not important, the point is that it generally indicates a persons attention to detail and ability to communicate effectively.

jdale27 11y ago
the point is that it generally indicates a persons attention to detail That should be "a person's attention to detail". Sorry, I could not resist... ;) Sincerely, your local introverted grammar Nazi
plainOldText 11y ago
Someone who communicates effectively is definitely paying attention to sentence structure. One's writing can be regarded as a manifestation of one's model of the world. Writing riddled with grammatical errors, incorrect sentence structures and incomplete punctuation indicate an overly simplistic model. A more detailed model yields more predictive power, at the expense of extra brain cycles. If one cannot differentiate between "your" and "you're" I'm pretty sure that person is running a slower "CPU".
gracenotes 11y ago
One of the most important things in "professional" writing, which includes technical writing, is clarity. Sticking to a style in that context is important because you shouldn't draw attention away from what you're saying to how you're saying it. The same thing is true of code style, where I think style guides really do improve productivity in codebases touched by multiple people. As you mention, you could also see specific usage patterns as shows of "professionalism" (again in quotes... it's a word that I think should be used carefully re systemic biases). But it's perhaps a little reductionist to view informal contexts as not-caring-about-correctness at one end and professional contexts as caring, because there are many aspects of communication in both that are "incorrect" for different reasons. Usage patterns in work environments are not strictly more correct, then. As the article proposes, being bothered by ungrammatical language is more often just an issue of sensitivity to stimuli. At least in conversations, those of us with the good sense to be descriptivists can hopefully tell when additional clarity would be helpful and when it's just putting other people down to try to look smart.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

Rizz 11y ago

Is a grammar pendant also more intolerant of petty crimes? I could see language errors as a sort of crime against the rules we as a society made.

aries1980 11y ago
Yeah, I take breaking coding standards very seriously.
gracenotes 11y ago
Who says language rules were intentionally made by we as a society? :) Unless you mean these grammar rules: http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497 http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/2549...
gbsmith 11y ago
"pendant" != "pedant". Now that I've identified myself as a spelling pedant, the answer is: Not in general. Judging by the people I've met in life (yes, selection bias ...) there is no correlation. [Disclaimer: This post is bound to contain grammatical errors. I'm not a native English speaker.]

xorcist 11y ago

I'd be more interested in research on grammar tolerants, rather than intolerants. Are their reading fluency not hampered by language hickups? Do they not read as fluent, or at least in the same way, as those more easily bothered?

Gibbon1 11y ago
I'm fairly tolerant of bad/odd grammar. ?usually when reading something with crummy grammar all I feel is impression of sloppiness.

Uhhrrr 11y ago

I'm a grammar pedant because I like to help people who write "must of" and confuse it's and its.

humanrebar 11y ago
I'm in the same boat. I find it a sign of care and respect that we try to help each other become better. Who cares more, the person who lets you know you have something green between your teeth or the person who pretends it's not there? Do I always politely point out embarrassing details to my friends? Nope. I'm actually most likely to point them out to my friends who appreciate (or at least can handle) that sort of constructive criticism. In this way, honest feedback from me is a sign of respect. Meaning, to some degree, if I feel I have to keep things from you to protect your feelings, I don't believe my communication skills and your emotional intelligence allow for that sort of exchange. That is, I'm too much of a jerk and you're too sensitive for me to point out that your have bad breath. Does having food between your teeth matter? Not ultimately. But saving people from quiet judgment from others matters, surely.

djaychela 11y ago

They spelled extrovert wrong. Deliberately?

Jenya_ 11y ago
The spelling with A belongs to Jung himself: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-difference-between-extraversion-and-extroversion/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-diff...
- djaychela 11y ago
  Interesting...(thanks for the link) But I would have expected them to be consistent within the article? It's done both ways in there.
  - desdiv 11y ago
    It is consistent. The word appears six times in total, and the 5 times the author used it were all consistent: >extraversion >extraverts >Quoting Hans Eysenck: extroverts >extraverts >extraverts >extraversion You're not supposed to correct someone's different spelling when quoting them.

lazyjones 11y ago

The correlation seems to exist, but implying causation is a bit of a stretch. I'm definitely introverted and annoyed by typos and grammar mistakes I can identify (despite making some myself with English being my 3rd language), but I also consider them harmful and contagious: e.g. the possessive "its" is written more often as "it's" than not these days, especially in tech articles and blog entries posted on HN. Therefore it's not really an emotional, knee-jerk reaction, but conscious pedantry and anger because of the harm done to readers through neglect. Here's another theory (well, hypothesis...): extroverted people frequently have a good memory (names, faces, birthdays...) and can tolerate sloppy writing by others because it doesn't affect their own, while those who - like me - need to refresh their memories regularly and possibly rely more on reading for language skills, might find typos and grammar mistakes more harmful.

nerdy 11y ago

But what does this tell us about introverts? Is the "pebble in the shoe" of an introvert an annoyance with the perceived carelessness on the part of the grammatical offender? Or maybe a lack of respect? Is introversion the cause, or a sibling to pedantry of a broader psychological trait? I hated English classes in school, never paid attention. Skipped. Failed. It seemed inconsequential at the time. Gaining access to a BBS was a bit of a culture shock. Computers were fascinating but suddenly my peers cared about spelling, grammar... even punctuation (it happened to be a BBS for a local paper, maybe related). So at 15, I felt out of place and committed to thoroughly learning all of the things I'd skipped in school. Not because of snarky responses, corrections, or others’ expectations but because it impacted my ability to communicate - which I don't particularly enjoy but feel is important. Even now, I'm communicating... but it isn't for the sake of making noise or banging on a keyboard, it's about an idea. We communicate to share thoughts and without that mechanism we wouldn't have shared learning which resulted in anything commonly considered "technology" or "machines" today. My visceral reaction to grammatical errors is the feeling that the person places less of a value on communicating ideas. It isn't about intelligence, it's about values. Does anyone else feel this way? Am I just a pedantic, judgmental asshole?

logicrook 11y ago
Usually, people don't feel the same way when thinking about any kind of work; you have to master the basics if you want express something. You need to learn to draw before you can get to the point of expressing yourself via paintings. You need to learn architecture before doing buildings, learn to code to do programs. Yet only the most extreme cases of idiots claim that learning the means of expression stifles expression. Why? I think it boils down to the lack of hard metrics and the link with social issues (the old orwellian fight between classes through language). I'd say that you're not the only one thinking this way, but some would disagree because that makes you an "uncle tom".
- nerdy 11y ago
  well nevr git lexical nirvana wo brakeing rulez
11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

bane 11y ago

Perhaps. Grammar pedants (prescriptivists), seem to be made up mostly of people who've come to the conclusion that the particular mode of the language they're most comfortable with is the "correct" one that everybody should be communicating in. It seems to come from some deep-down inflexibility to tolerate or comprehend that other people communicate in different modes. The pedant seems to wish that all the world should structure their communication to be most convenient for them rather than trying to work on increasing the scope of the modes they can work with. They believe there is one kind of audience and their preferred mode is the magical key that ensures correct and precise communication with that audience -- regardless if this is actually true. It makes a kind of sense that this might stem from some deep seated introversion -- people for whom the principal interaction between audience and speaker is themselves. But on the other hand, wouldn't you likely be able to understand any mode of communication within your own mind? What's most often fascinating to me is how deeply wrong and ignorant of grammar most grammar pedants are beyond some superficially memorized rules they've attached themselves to. When pushed for the "why" behind their rules they frequently don't know, or will point to some style manual (usually also full of grammar errors) they believe has taken on an almost holy quality. One of my favorite tactics is the "that's not a word" argument, with fingers pointed to the nearest dictionary as evidence. This of course ignores the simple fact that dictionaries are comprised of words that grammar descriptivists have observed in the wild -- with usage reaching above some non-transient threshold that makes it worth capturing by lexicographers. The worst linguists are those that fall very far on the descriptive side of the spectrum. Some references: http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/correct/prescriptivism/ http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/correct/prescriptivism/ So what is right and wrong in language, and who decides? Some observers claim that the real issue about linguistic right and wrong is one of deciding who wields power and who doesn't. Viewing language as a form of cultural capital, they note that stigmatized forms are typically those used by social groups other than the educated middle classes--professional people, including those in law, medicine, and publishing. Linguists generally would argue that the language of educated middle-class speakers is not better (or worse) than the language of other social groups, any more than Spanish, say, is better or worse than French, Navaho better or worse than Comanche, or Japanese better or worse than Chinese. They would acknowledge that some standardization of form is useful for the variety of a language used, especially in print. They would also insist, however, that expressions appearing in dictionaries and grammars are not the only grammatical forms and may not be suitable for use in all circumstances. They are merely the ones designated for use in circumstances of wider communication. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003588.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003588.h... Perhaps the worst thing about prescriptivism is that it is frequently a device for demonstrating the superiority of the pundit and his or her favorite class of people over everyone else. It feeds discrimination, particularly classism. The standards to which pundits appeal are invariably those of a socioeconomic elite. The standard tends to combine their natural speech with details that one can only acquire by means of extensive education. http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97mar/halpern/nunberg.htm http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97mar/halpern/nu... ...These bare instructions give no reason at all for choosing the singular pronoun. In fact, there is no mention of an error in the use of the plural, which is labeled not "incorrect" or "illogical" but merely "formal," as if the difference between plural and singular were on a level with the difference between cop* and policeman, or horse and steed. ...But the Handbook says only that the sentence is "illogical," giving no indication of what point of logic is violated. What is the student to make of that, especially since the Handbook has not explained the use of the singular as being "logical" in the first place? The student who finds "6b(1)" cropping up on his compositions may learn to rectify the error, but only in the way he learns to rectify his misspellings: by rote, learning nothing else in the process.

mattmanser 11y ago

In an experiment involving 80 Americans Seriously? 80 people gave them all these insights? There's something fundamentally wrong with research if they think that's ok to publish. I got more than 80 questionnaires back for my high school geography project.

Retra 11y ago
How many spoonfuls of soup must you taste to know if the pot is salty?
- mattmanser 11y ago
  A soup is binary salty/not salty. 5 characteristics measured - openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism 5! = 120. So are you arguing 2 === 120 or are you arguing 2 === 5, but whichever one it is, you're missing the point. Do you know why adverts have 'when 80 women were asked 73% agreed pantene makes my hair shinier'? Because it's not scientifically significant, so can't be held as a clinical trial, therefore the product doesn't need regulating. And that's for a binary, shiny/not shiny (salty/not salty). Not for a possibly open, sloppy, introverted, agreeable neurotic. Or a closed, conscientious, introverted, agreeable non-neurotic.
  - Retra 11y ago
    A soup can be sweet, sour, tangy, meaty, bitter, in addition to plenty of other characteristics. >So are you arguing 2 === 120 or are you arguing 2 === 5, but whichever one it is, you're missing the point. It's pretty clear that I'm not arguing either of those (being that I made no mention of cardinality,) but if you want to put words into my mouth, I can see why you'd think I'd be focusing on those kinds of irrelevant details. My point is that the number of samples taken, in and of itself doesn't tell you anything about the significance of a conclusion. You need to know how the sample relates to the population, and how the results characterize the population through the sample.

lowmagnet 11y ago

I consider myself both an introvert and a somewhat-reformed grammar pedant. I tend to only call out mis-spellings and grammar mistakes when they matter. I also prefer writing my own words in an e-prime fashion, eschewing forms of to be. It helps me eliminate most of my use of passive voice and also helps me make less judgemental statements, tying agency to my verbs.

mike_hock 11y ago

Well, an excessive amount of spelling errors on the application could be an indication that they half-ass everything. Which could be a problem in a housemate. Or it could mean they won't give you shit for half-assing everything. Depends.

makecheck 11y ago

No, it reflects how much tolerance you have for laziness. The point of grammar is to be understood. Good grammar shows that the writer is trying to help the reader. Poor grammar shows that the writer doesn’t care, and the reader is forced to figure everything out. Arguably, mistakes that don’t affect understanding can be overlooked without any comment. For example, some words are pretty unique; you can seriously misspell them and still recognize them. On the other hand, you have to be careful with changes to words or even punctuation that can drastically alter the meaning of a sentence. I can also forgive things that are frankly inconsistent in the language. For instance, although I know when to use "its" versus "it’s", I certainly get why someone would think that "it’s" may be correct for possession; and, since it is very unlikely that "it is" will make any sense as a replacement, I can also figure out what was intended every time. No big deal.

upstandingdude 11y ago

"extrAvert"? FUCK! Are you toying with me? I don't care if its a legit variant, it feels wrong. Made me rage more than it should have.

nkurz 11y ago
Where do you think you fall on the introvert-extrovert scale? More than a variant, "extravert" is actually the original spelling that Jung used, which he chose because "extra" is a legitimate Latin prefix, while "extro" is not: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-difference-between-extraversion-and-extroversion/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-diff... I'm pretty far on the introverted side, and would prefer spelling it "extraverted" although I'm aware that this is nonstandard in the US. I think this is because I tend to be more attentive to the rules of orthography than to common usage. I'd guess that extroverts tend to care more about social norms than while introverts are more comfortable with consistent rules?

falcrist 11y ago

It strikes me as strange that the article doesn't discuss context at all. For example, if you're commenting on a website or texting me, I'm unlikely to care about grammatical errors. However, if you can't be reasonably close to correct on a website that's selling something, I will be much less like to buy from you.

cheshire137 11y ago

Did the author intentionally repeatedly misspell "extrovert" just to mess with us?

jeremysmyth 11y ago
Did you intentionally throw in "extrovert" just to mess with us? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion