6 ms·

Thinking that you can judge someone's intelligence by their spelling and grammar is so incredibly wrong. And I don't mean wrong in a moral "don't be that guy" w

by corin_ 15y ago

Thinking that you can judge someone's intelligence by their spelling and grammar is so incredibly wrong. And I don't mean wrong in a moral "don't be that guy" way (though that too), I mean wrong as in technically inaccurate.

c1sc0 15y ago
Can you elaborate on how this is technically inaccurate? Is there something like a Flesch-Kincaid test for intelligence?
- corin_ 15y ago
  The simplest answer I can give is that spelling and grammar are basically learned facts, sometimes they are single facts (how to spell a single word), sometimes they are rules ("i" before "e"... which ironically is a mostly incorrect rule, but hey it's just an example). As such, why is Person A considered less intelligent for not knowing how to spell "there" vs. "their" than Person B who doesn't know the date on which Hitler shot himself? Or Person C who doesn't know the triple point of water? Or Person D who never learned what the whole P vs. NP thing is about? The second reason is, in my opinion, the most important: even if you simplify people down to two categories, "people who have fully grasped all spelling/grammar" and "people who have done their best but still fail to get it right", the only way to say that the second group is less intelligent than the first is to massively simplify intelligence, the same way IQ tests do. If you're a mathematical genius but have terrible spelling, poor social skills, and basically no skills in anything outside maths, are you intelligent? What about if you're a literary giant whose best-sellers are praised by snobby critics and working class teenagers alike, but who couldn't square 15 without a calculator, are you intelligent? Here's a quote I like: "But there has always been something opaque about I.Q. In the first place, there’s no consensus about what intelligence is. Some people think intelligence is the ability to adapt to an environment, others that capacity to think abstractly, and so on." That's taken from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/opinion/14brooks.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/opinion/14brooks.html?_r=1 which follows nicely on from what I'm saying. I think I've probably rambled on quite enough, but will just finish on a subjective note. I score high on IQ tests, I'm quick with numbers, I (until getting bored and dropping out of school) got high marks on exams without studying, yet I can think of many people I consider more intelligent than myself who couldn't say what I have just said about myself. Think about it yourself - I think it's unlikely (though possible of course) that you're the most intelligent person you know, even by your own judgement, and of those you rank above yourself, I doubt they all excel in every single area that could be used to judge intelligence.
  - cbr 15y ago
    > "i" before "e"... which ironically is a mostly incorrect rule Really? $ cat /usr/share/dict/words | grep -c ie 3953 $ cat /usr/share/dict/words | grep -c ei 2650
    - corin_ 15y ago
      Sorry, it's the "except after 'c'" bit (which I left out) that's mostly incorrect: # cat /usr/share/dict/british-english-insane | grep -c cie 1375 # cat /usr/share/dict/british-english-insane | grep -c cei 352 So that works only ~20% of the time. With the general "i before e"... Is being more often true than false enough to make it a valid "rule"? Using your numbers it's correct ~60% of the time, with my dictionary it's correct ~76% of the time: # cat /usr/share/dict/british-english-insane | grep -c ie 25961 # cat /usr/share/dict/british-english-insane | grep -c ei 8255 But even at 3/4, not sure you can call that a good "rule", if it's wrong that often. But of course, that could be swung subjectively if the most used words follow the rule and the least used words break it... which I imagine is the case, since people do still use this rule, but I'm not sure of an easy way to argue the point. Edit: I suppose one way would be to assume that british-english-small (with 50083 words compared to insane's 638286) is comprised of the five thousand most used words (which I assume is roughly the logic?)... Small shows that "i before e" is correct 88% of the time, and "cei not cie" is correct ~27%. So in fact, limiting to most common words does make both percentages go up, the "except after c" is still much more often wrong than right, and the general "i before e" is... perhaps now high enough to call a good rule? Not sure.
- DanBC 15y ago
  See the number of people on HN who use it's when they mean its. See also the people using English as a second language. I agree that the blog was awful and reflects really poorly on TSA. There is a big difference between simple English or plain English and bad English.
- bane 15y ago
  Grammar and vocabulary is a learned social construct with peculiarities associated with the social group the grammar is derived from. What is correct in one social group may be wrong in another. For example, my first sentence is incorrect in some social milieus as it finishes with a preposition. Demonstrating "correct" grammar merely demonstrates memorization of expected social norms ('communicate as the group does') for the group that one is a member of -- or wishes to be a member of. "Incorrect" grammar is not a global quality as all grammar and vocabulary is local with respect to group membership, geography, language exposure, temporal presence, and other factors. In addition there are certain idioms and informal speech present in specific social groups that may not conform to even that own group's peculiar grammar and lexicon! Grammar and vocabulary are often a type of shibboleth used to demonstrate group membership or to discern group membership of an individual you are evaluating. Quite often pedantic demonstrations of grammarian prescriptivism is merely attempted to assert their social norm on another person of a different social group membership and are often uninformed as to the derivations of the rules they are attempting to impose. In other words, outside of pedagogic concerns, it's a dominance demonstration typical of primates and should generally be considered as nothing more.
maqr 15y ago
"too" ;) I think there actually is something to be said for PR people having good spelling and grammar. The way this blog post is written might give the impression that the TSA is not a professional organization. It reflects poorly on the agency. It might lead one to the conclusion that if the public face of the TSA can't communicate effectively, the organization might have other problems as well. edit: I just looked at the blogger's bio (http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/01/meet-our-bloggers_29.html http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/01/meet-our-bloggers_29.html), here's the interesting bit for context: > I started with the TSA in September 2002. I worked at the Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG) for 5 years and am currently residing at TSA headquarters. I started as a Transportation Security Officer (TSO), and have since been promoted to a Social Media Analyst with the Office of Strategic Communications and Public Affairs to manage and write for the Blog.
- corin_ 15y ago
  > "too" ;) ARGHH. Despite what I said I fucking hate typos, to the extent that most of my friends now correct their own when texting/IMing just so I don't do it for them. To the rest of your comment: I completely agree that it reflects badly on the TSA, just not that it means the individual is stupid. Much the same as a company that has a website that looks like it was designed literally by a 6 year old in MS paint has clearly done something moronic, but the fact that they aren't artistic doesn't mean the person who made it is not intelligent.
  - tankenmate 15y ago
    It is a reasonably good hedge, a sufficiently intelligent / shrewd person wouldn't allow themselves to be put in such a situation. It is better to be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
    - ktizo 15y ago
      I will make a reasonable bet here that the TSA is the sort of bureaucracy that is likely to see media as something of a joke department that is useful for promoting people sideways into if they are rubbish at doing security theatre.
temphn 15y ago
No. Speaking intuitively, if you can't judge someone's intelligence by their writing ability, what possible measure could you use? Grammatical deficiencies are symptoms of conceptual deficiencies. Speaking technically, vocabulary tests are some of the most highly g-loaded batteries around: Different tests in a test battery may correlate with (or "load onto") the g factor of the battery to different degrees. These correlations are known as g loadings. An individual test taker's g factor score can be estimated using the loadings. Full-scale IQ scores from a test battery will usually be highly correlated with g factor scores. For example, the correlations between g factor scores and full-scale IQ scores from Wechsler's tests have been found to be greater than .95. The g loadings of mental tests are always positive and range from slightly greater than zero to slightly less than unity. Raven's Progressive Matrices is among the tests with the highest g loadings, around .80. Tests of vocabulary and general information are also typically found to have high g loadings.[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_%28psychometrics%29 It's unclear to me what your underlying premises are. We will likely go in circles about whether you believe intelligence can be measured, whether it is meaningful, whether g is a measure of intelligence, whether it differs between individuals and groups, and so on. So let's agree to disagree. Yet whatever your definition of intelligence, I believe it is hard to deny that the TSA is run by morons.
- amirmc 15y ago
  You're trying to equate doing a vocabulary test with writing for a public audience (and then using that writing as a proxy for judging the individual's intelligence). Vocab tests and writing skills are not the same.
- ThomPete 15y ago
  "if you can't judge someone's intelligence by their writing ability, what possible measure could you use?" Who says you can judge it by their ability to write? That's assuming the conclusion and not very intelligent where I come from. Also there are many people who write great but have nothing intelligent to say.
  - tankenmate 15y ago
jonnathanson 15y ago
There's at least some correlation. How strong that correlation may be is debatable, and there are always exceptions and extenuating circumstances. But writing is an expression of thought, and as such, its elegance -- or lack thereof -- often reveals quite a bit about the mind of its author.
- onemoreact 15y ago
  Correlation's don't have to be linear. The correlation could easily be negative at the high end of the IQ scale and positive at the low end of the IQ scale. Great writers don't expose their minds they shape the readers mind though both elegance and fnord.
  - jonnathanson 15y ago
    "Correlation's don't have to be linear." True. "The correlation could easily be negative at the high end of the IQ scale and positive at the low end of the IQ scale." This is conjecture, though. And, while entirely possible, it doesn't necessarily seem to be borne out by available evidence. "Great writers don't expose their minds they shape the readers mind..." This is a false dichotomy. "Exposing" one's mind, and influencing someone else's, are not mutually exclusive activities. Furthermore, shaping a reader's mind is not the sole province of the "great" writer. Terrible writers are often capable of influencing people. While I would agree that stronger writers are probably more capable of influence, influence itself is an after-effect of writing and an observational artifact. It is not intrinsic to the written product. My point is that, since writing is necessarily an act of expression, the strength of one's expression reveals something about the strength of what one is trying to express. It's hard to cleanly separate the two. Now, I'll readily concede that intelligence is probably not the most important variable in the quality of one's writing. Things like training, education, practice, exposure to other writing (via reading), etc., are far more important. But intelligence is in the equation. Exactly how significant it is is up for debate.
    - onemoreact 15y ago
      the strength of one's expression reveals something about the strength of what one is trying to express My point is simply that someone like mark twain is able to bend otherwise poor grammar to fit a number of ends. Because the English language so redundant and people are used to imperfect prose you can convey some types of subtext though gibberish more cleanly than you can with perfect prose. There are plenty of hacks that confuse the issue, but don't confuse pretense with actual mastery.
crusso 15y ago
I tend to judge people poorly when they use bad grammar. Then again, one of the most brilliant guys I know regularly sends out email messages that are barely decipherable -- much less grammatically correct. In general, bad grammar makes a bad first impression. I allow them to prove otherwise with the content of what they're saying.
Sthorpe 15y ago
I personally struggle when writing. However, when I write something important, I make sure to have someone proof read it. The message shouldn't be lost by simple grammar errors. And so,...I would say its a intelligence problem.

by corin_ 15y ago

c1sc0 15y ago

Can you elaborate on how this is technically inaccurate? Is there something like a Flesch-Kincaid test for intelligence?

corin_ 15y ago
The simplest answer I can give is that spelling and grammar are basically learned facts, sometimes they are single facts (how to spell a single word), sometimes they are rules ("i" before "e"... which ironically is a mostly incorrect rule, but hey it's just an example). As such, why is Person A considered less intelligent for not knowing how to spell "there" vs. "their" than Person B who doesn't know the date on which Hitler shot himself? Or Person C who doesn't know the triple point of water? Or Person D who never learned what the whole P vs. NP thing is about? The second reason is, in my opinion, the most important: even if you simplify people down to two categories, "people who have fully grasped all spelling/grammar" and "people who have done their best but still fail to get it right", the only way to say that the second group is less intelligent than the first is to massively simplify intelligence, the same way IQ tests do. If you're a mathematical genius but have terrible spelling, poor social skills, and basically no skills in anything outside maths, are you intelligent? What about if you're a literary giant whose best-sellers are praised by snobby critics and working class teenagers alike, but who couldn't square 15 without a calculator, are you intelligent? Here's a quote I like: "But there has always been something opaque about I.Q. In the first place, there’s no consensus about what intelligence is. Some people think intelligence is the ability to adapt to an environment, others that capacity to think abstractly, and so on." That's taken from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/opinion/14brooks.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/opinion/14brooks.html?_r=1 which follows nicely on from what I'm saying. I think I've probably rambled on quite enough, but will just finish on a subjective note. I score high on IQ tests, I'm quick with numbers, I (until getting bored and dropping out of school) got high marks on exams without studying, yet I can think of many people I consider more intelligent than myself who couldn't say what I have just said about myself. Think about it yourself - I think it's unlikely (though possible of course) that you're the most intelligent person you know, even by your own judgement, and of those you rank above yourself, I doubt they all excel in every single area that could be used to judge intelligence.
- cbr 15y ago
  > "i" before "e"... which ironically is a mostly incorrect rule Really? $ cat /usr/share/dict/words | grep -c ie 3953 $ cat /usr/share/dict/words | grep -c ei 2650
  - corin_ 15y ago
    Sorry, it's the "except after 'c'" bit (which I left out) that's mostly incorrect: # cat /usr/share/dict/british-english-insane | grep -c cie 1375 # cat /usr/share/dict/british-english-insane | grep -c cei 352 So that works only ~20% of the time. With the general "i before e"... Is being more often true than false enough to make it a valid "rule"? Using your numbers it's correct ~60% of the time, with my dictionary it's correct ~76% of the time: # cat /usr/share/dict/british-english-insane | grep -c ie 25961 # cat /usr/share/dict/british-english-insane | grep -c ei 8255 But even at 3/4, not sure you can call that a good "rule", if it's wrong that often. But of course, that could be swung subjectively if the most used words follow the rule and the least used words break it... which I imagine is the case, since people do still use this rule, but I'm not sure of an easy way to argue the point. Edit: I suppose one way would be to assume that british-english-small (with 50083 words compared to insane's 638286) is comprised of the five thousand most used words (which I assume is roughly the logic?)... Small shows that "i before e" is correct 88% of the time, and "cei not cie" is correct ~27%. So in fact, limiting to most common words does make both percentages go up, the "except after c" is still much more often wrong than right, and the general "i before e" is... perhaps now high enough to call a good rule? Not sure.
DanBC 15y ago
See the number of people on HN who use it's when they mean its. See also the people using English as a second language. I agree that the blog was awful and reflects really poorly on TSA. There is a big difference between simple English or plain English and bad English.
bane 15y ago
Grammar and vocabulary is a learned social construct with peculiarities associated with the social group the grammar is derived from. What is correct in one social group may be wrong in another. For example, my first sentence is incorrect in some social milieus as it finishes with a preposition. Demonstrating "correct" grammar merely demonstrates memorization of expected social norms ('communicate as the group does') for the group that one is a member of -- or wishes to be a member of. "Incorrect" grammar is not a global quality as all grammar and vocabulary is local with respect to group membership, geography, language exposure, temporal presence, and other factors. In addition there are certain idioms and informal speech present in specific social groups that may not conform to even that own group's peculiar grammar and lexicon! Grammar and vocabulary are often a type of shibboleth used to demonstrate group membership or to discern group membership of an individual you are evaluating. Quite often pedantic demonstrations of grammarian prescriptivism is merely attempted to assert their social norm on another person of a different social group membership and are often uninformed as to the derivations of the rules they are attempting to impose. In other words, outside of pedagogic concerns, it's a dominance demonstration typical of primates and should generally be considered as nothing more.

maqr 15y ago

"too" ;) I think there actually is something to be said for PR people having good spelling and grammar. The way this blog post is written might give the impression that the TSA is not a professional organization. It reflects poorly on the agency. It might lead one to the conclusion that if the public face of the TSA can't communicate effectively, the organization might have other problems as well. edit: I just looked at the blogger's bio (http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/01/meet-our-bloggers_29.html http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/01/meet-our-bloggers_29.html), here's the interesting bit for context: > I started with the TSA in September 2002. I worked at the Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG) for 5 years and am currently residing at TSA headquarters. I started as a Transportation Security Officer (TSO), and have since been promoted to a Social Media Analyst with the Office of Strategic Communications and Public Affairs to manage and write for the Blog.

corin_ 15y ago
> "too" ;) ARGHH. Despite what I said I fucking hate typos, to the extent that most of my friends now correct their own when texting/IMing just so I don't do it for them. To the rest of your comment: I completely agree that it reflects badly on the TSA, just not that it means the individual is stupid. Much the same as a company that has a website that looks like it was designed literally by a 6 year old in MS paint has clearly done something moronic, but the fact that they aren't artistic doesn't mean the person who made it is not intelligent.
- tankenmate 15y ago
  It is a reasonably good hedge, a sufficiently intelligent / shrewd person wouldn't allow themselves to be put in such a situation. It is better to be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
  - ktizo 15y ago
    I will make a reasonable bet here that the TSA is the sort of bureaucracy that is likely to see media as something of a joke department that is useful for promoting people sideways into if they are rubbish at doing security theatre.

temphn 15y ago

No. Speaking intuitively, if you can't judge someone's intelligence by their writing ability, what possible measure could you use? Grammatical deficiencies are symptoms of conceptual deficiencies. Speaking technically, vocabulary tests are some of the most highly g-loaded batteries around: Different tests in a test battery may correlate with (or "load onto") the g factor of the battery to different degrees. These correlations are known as g loadings. An individual test taker's g factor score can be estimated using the loadings. Full-scale IQ scores from a test battery will usually be highly correlated with g factor scores. For example, the correlations between g factor scores and full-scale IQ scores from Wechsler's tests have been found to be greater than .95. The g loadings of mental tests are always positive and range from slightly greater than zero to slightly less than unity. Raven's Progressive Matrices is among the tests with the highest g loadings, around .80. Tests of vocabulary and general information are also typically found to have high g loadings.[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_%28psychometrics%29 It's unclear to me what your underlying premises are. We will likely go in circles about whether you believe intelligence can be measured, whether it is meaningful, whether g is a measure of intelligence, whether it differs between individuals and groups, and so on. So let's agree to disagree. Yet whatever your definition of intelligence, I believe it is hard to deny that the TSA is run by morons.

amirmc 15y ago
You're trying to equate doing a vocabulary test with writing for a public audience (and then using that writing as a proxy for judging the individual's intelligence). Vocab tests and writing skills are not the same.
ThomPete 15y ago
"if you can't judge someone's intelligence by their writing ability, what possible measure could you use?" Who says you can judge it by their ability to write? That's assuming the conclusion and not very intelligent where I come from. Also there are many people who write great but have nothing intelligent to say.
- tankenmate 15y ago

jonnathanson 15y ago

There's at least some correlation. How strong that correlation may be is debatable, and there are always exceptions and extenuating circumstances. But writing is an expression of thought, and as such, its elegance -- or lack thereof -- often reveals quite a bit about the mind of its author.

onemoreact 15y ago
Correlation's don't have to be linear. The correlation could easily be negative at the high end of the IQ scale and positive at the low end of the IQ scale. Great writers don't expose their minds they shape the readers mind though both elegance and fnord.
- jonnathanson 15y ago
  "Correlation's don't have to be linear." True. "The correlation could easily be negative at the high end of the IQ scale and positive at the low end of the IQ scale." This is conjecture, though. And, while entirely possible, it doesn't necessarily seem to be borne out by available evidence. "Great writers don't expose their minds they shape the readers mind..." This is a false dichotomy. "Exposing" one's mind, and influencing someone else's, are not mutually exclusive activities. Furthermore, shaping a reader's mind is not the sole province of the "great" writer. Terrible writers are often capable of influencing people. While I would agree that stronger writers are probably more capable of influence, influence itself is an after-effect of writing and an observational artifact. It is not intrinsic to the written product. My point is that, since writing is necessarily an act of expression, the strength of one's expression reveals something about the strength of what one is trying to express. It's hard to cleanly separate the two. Now, I'll readily concede that intelligence is probably not the most important variable in the quality of one's writing. Things like training, education, practice, exposure to other writing (via reading), etc., are far more important. But intelligence is in the equation. Exactly how significant it is is up for debate.
  - onemoreact 15y ago
    the strength of one's expression reveals something about the strength of what one is trying to express My point is simply that someone like mark twain is able to bend otherwise poor grammar to fit a number of ends. Because the English language so redundant and people are used to imperfect prose you can convey some types of subtext though gibberish more cleanly than you can with perfect prose. There are plenty of hacks that confuse the issue, but don't confuse pretense with actual mastery.

crusso 15y ago

I tend to judge people poorly when they use bad grammar. Then again, one of the most brilliant guys I know regularly sends out email messages that are barely decipherable -- much less grammatically correct. In general, bad grammar makes a bad first impression. I allow them to prove otherwise with the content of what they're saying.

Sthorpe 15y ago

I personally struggle when writing. However, when I write something important, I make sure to have someone proof read it. The message shouldn't be lost by simple grammar errors. And so,...I would say its a intelligence problem.