Oh, and the idea that the percentage of people who know what homonym means is in the single digits is ludicrous. I recall learning what synonyms, homonyms, and antonyms were in third grade.
Remember, the average person has an IQ of 100, and an IQ of 115 is one standard deviation above the mean.
So do I.
I emailed him a message of support, and linked him to this thread. He wrote back and said he appreciated the support, that it meant a lot to him “right now”. Undoubtedly a paste job; but he did use my name and he must at least skim his emails enough to sort supportive from non-supportive (if any of you sends him hate mail, I’d be curious to know what response if any you get).
Considering that my SAT score is past the 99.9 percentile, it would be rather surprising if any word I didn’t know recently was known by more than two or three percent of the population–just by basic statistical reasoning, wouldn’t you think? (And before you call BS on that: I’ll be glad to prove that score, if you are willing to pay for the official score report to be sent to you.) Furthermore, you seem to be vastly overrating the average person’s intellect and knowledge base. I mean, a majority of 18-24 year old Americans are unable to locate Ohio on a U.S. map, for chrissakes!
And really: what is with this relentless attack based on my admitting a lack of familiarity with this one word? What does it have to do with the debate? It kind of shows how desperate you are and so unable to find weakness that you resort to this piss-ant nonsense. You’ve got the numbers on your side, swarming against me, and you still act like an overwhelmed underdog, grasping at straws. I guess I’ll take that as a compliment. 
What grade did they teach you how to spell “weird”? (As long as I’m such a pretentious wannabe, I’ll point out that “i before e except after c, or when sounded like A, as in sleigh or in neigh” doesn’t apply to the word “weird” in any spelling system I know of–British, Canadian, American, or otherwise.) I learned synonyms, antonyms, and homophones early in grade school; and I bet that’s what you are referencing as well–it appears to be common mistake, as **pulykamell **noted. But if you really want to assert that they taught the three you mentioned while not apparently teaching homophones, you went to a very unusual school, and that one **weird **school is not sufficient to bump those numbers out of the single digits where I still wager they are likely to reside.
Okay: I have some business that is going to prevent me from accessing this board for a few days, so this will be my last post until March, most likely (or maybe for like eight years, who knows). Yes, yes: I suppose that means you all automatically win the debate by default, and I lose, suffer general ignominy and so on. Congrats. (I’ll get you one day, Red Baron!)
I don’t know what the percentage is but I am certain it’s lower than you think. Your recollections of your own education are irrelevant to what the population at large was taught, and still remembers.
No, there isn’t a middle ground. The most trivial mistakes and indiscretions, even entirely imaginary ones, must be punished with a symbolic lynching. Gotta make an example of 'em and keep those damn racist white people off balance and walking on egg shells.
As this thread demonstrates, everybody has odd patches in their knowledge. I wouldn’t use the fact that you scored in the 99.9 percentile on the SAT as proof or even great likelihood of anything. I find myself amazed at what some consider commonplace knowledge that I simply had no clue of, and I’m not an intellectual slouch either. Sometimes, you just miss things or even simply forget them.
I wouldn’t expect the general population to know the precise, technical definition of homonym. I would, however, expect somebody who has a love for the English language and works in editing to know it, though. As others have stated, it is a fairly elementary concept, and in my grammar school we went over homonyms, homophones, and homographs. I always thought homonyms were boring: I mean, where’s the fun with a word with two or more definitions? Finding homophones was always fun, on the other hand.
I’m really not trying to insult you or your intelligence, but the stance “well, if I don’t know it, it must be obscure” is a dubious stance, at best. We all miss things from time to time.
I’ll call bs on that, but not your score, just your “basic statistical” reasoning. I referenced the distribution of IQ before, but to be more clear, 15% of the population have an IQ that is one standard deviation above the mean. (And roughly 34%, give or take, have an IQ that is above average but less than one standard deviation greater.) “Two or three” percentage points (actually 2.5%) represents those who are two standard deviations above the mean IQ! Believe me, it does not take a genius to know the definition of homonym.
For a smart person, you continue to make basic errors in reasoning, in particular those involving a dramatic overgeneralization from a single data point (here, the degree to which a data point about 18 to 24 year old survey responses regarding midwestern US geography to either intelligence or vocabulary.)
I’m sure you will, but it’s really more of a dispassionate example of how you really can’t use your estimation of the nature of the word “chink” to be indicative of the larger population’s perception of the word. I’m sure you’re embarrassed about making the admission regarding your own gap in basic knowledge, and I do honestly feel for you in that sense. But it really is a perfect example of how your argument, founded essentially entirely in your own remarkable abilities, is completely insufficient to address the question involved in this debate.
Excellent point! Of course, a search of the SDMB shows me using the word “weird” 44 times, and the word “wierd” once. So, interpret that as you like.
Nope, I meant homonyms. Homophones are a broader category of words, but homonyms are a perfectly suitable subject matter. Why you would insinuate otherwise is … weird.
Yes, very insightful. The entirety of my third grade curriculum was learning synonyms, antonyms and homonyms. Then they sent us home for the year.
That’s entirely why I didn’t just rely on that. It’s a basic component of elementary education AND more than a single digit percentage of the population has an IQ in a range at least one standard deviation above the mean to suggest that awareness and retention of an elementary component of education is not likely to be remarkable.
And, lest you get your editing pencil out, I mean finding homophones that are not also homographs. Homonyms, by definition, are a type of homophone.
Again, your bragging is irrelevant to the topic at hand, which makes it even less impressive than it would be on its own. Your SAT score does not imply much of anything about your vocabulary.
Because you keep going on and on about your own superior language skills (even though they seem to be no better than those of many SDMB posters). You’ve said you are such a strong reader that newspapers should hire you as a volunteer copy editor because you’re better than their own copy editors, and that because you didn’t notice the double meaning in Federico’s headline, most other people wouldn’t have noticed it either. To assert otherwise is an attack on your superior (according to you) copy editing skills. And you’ve said “chink” must be an obscure old slur because you can’t remember hearing anybody else use it. You have worked pretty hard to make this a discussion of your own skills even though they’re not actually relevant to the issue, which makes it a little ironic that you are now complaining about the gaps you have admitted in your own knowledge.
The truth is this: your language skills don’t matter. You may consider yourself a superior reader, but that doesn’t say anything about your knowledge of particular words (it may speak to the likelihood that you know some concepts, but it’s not proof) and plenty of people understood the problem with this headline. That’s what matters to ESPN - the reaction of the general public, not your individual reaction.
No, you lost on the merits several pages ago. That’s why you’ve been posting more and more about your own experiences in school and your taste in movies while ignoring questions and comments about the main issue.
But IQ has zilch-all to do with content knowledge.
It’s just argument from personal incredulity: Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia
The point is clear: Obviously, a lot of people know what a “chink” is. Obviously, most people know it’s offensive even if they don’t use it or hear it. Yes, the writer had a severe lapse in judgment. No, his intention doesn’t matter. What matters is the lapse, and the backlash it caused and damage to ESPN’s reputation, as well as his own. Yes, firing him was very justifiable.
At the risk of sparking a tangential argument that is old and tired, I have to say “Huh?” This is at odds with my knowledge of IQ testing. In fact, a basic component of any typical IQ test is vocabulary.
Depends. Some tests such as Raven’s Matrices (or whatever it’s called) is meant to be a very effective IQ measurement tool that doesn’t rely on language.
No, IQ tests are (supposed to) test strictly and only cognitive skills–pattern recognition and things like that. They are designed specifically not to test vocabulary, knowledge of mathematics, and that kind of thing. You must be thinking of some other kind of test?
(I said “supposed to” because it’s always controversial whether a particular IQ test succeeds in screening out the possibility that content knowledge can affect your score.)
The wikipedia article on IQ never actually gets around to explaining what IQ tests are supposed to measure other than calling it “intelligence.” But the wikipedia article on intelligence is at least a little informative in this regard:
From this you can see reflected the idea that what an IQ test is supposed to be measuring is something independent of content knowledge, and has more to do with an abstract skill of thinking.
True, which is why I qualified my statement with “typical.”
Having been trained in the administration and interpretation of IQ measures, I can assure you that you are wrong. Vocabulary is a common element of IQ testing, and is for example a specific subscale of the Wechsler scales.
What they are* supposed *to be may be another matter. What they are is a set of tests which commonly include a vocabulary section. Perhaps you are confusing an IQ score with concepts like crystallized versus fluid intelligence? IQ tests are believed to tap these aspects of intelligence, but that doesn’t mean they don’t include tests like Vocabulary.
This is contrary to everything I know.
Pleas link me to a copy of a typical IQ test. I looked around but it appears they aren’t easy to find because they are proprietary (I assume). Are there available online somewhere copies of fairly current though no longer in current use versions of IQ tests?
It was drilled into me from an early stage that an IQ test is not supposed to be a test of content knowledge so if you’re right, you’re fighting some serious ignorance, not just on my part but on the part of those who’ve given me this idea.
What’s the nature of your training, exactly? And is administration and interpretation of IQ measures part of your current work?
Are these typical IQ test questions?!?!
If so, I am, and I am not exaggerating, utterly shocked.
How in the world could a test like this be thought meaningful as a measure, specifically, of intelligence?
Please tell me these are not typical.
If they are then I am in need of immediate talking down.
(Meanwhile, though, I’m still having trouble finding anything to back up a claim that IQ tests have a “vocabulary section.” The questions I linked to certainly require substantial vocabulary knowledge, but that’s not the same as having a “vocabulary section.”
“Verbal intelliegnce” =/= “knowledge of vocabulary.”)