What’s the word on it?
Is she really smart enough to teach other people to spell better?
Or is it like diet books, where you can print anything and get 10% who succeed and the other 90% blame themselves for getting nowhere?
What are you talking about?
I believe Wooster is referring to Marilyn Vos Savant’s new book: “Speling iz impartent”. Or something like that…
But does it include “killinum”?
Book reviews are probably best served in IMHO. I’ll move the thread there.
I checked when I saw this question, and they got 8 copies in, but I’m going to be second string, as always.
In the meantime, here’s what Barnes& Noble has on it.
The Art of Spelling: The Madness and the Method
In-Stock: Ships within 24 hours.
Marilyn Vos Savant,Joan Reilly (Illustrator) / Hardcover / Norton,Ww / July 2000
Our Price: $18.36, You Save 20%
From Barnes & Noble
Marilyn Vos Savant has a certified I.Q. of 228, but in her guide to good spelling, she doesn’t condescend. In fact, she solicits: Much of the thrust of The Art of Spelling derives from Savant’s savvy analysis of forty three thousand responses to a spelling survey she conducted. Utilizing this data, Parade columnist Savant describes the origins of good (and bad) spelling, pinpoints common types of mistakes, and outlines the most effective methods of spelling improvement. Too readable to be just a tutorial.
Annotation
A lively, comprehensive look at what our spelling reveals about intelligence andpersonality–from Parade’s “Ask Marilyn” columnist, read by over 80 million people.
- Is there any hope for dreadful spellers?
- How might your spelling illuminate aspects of your personality?
- What does your spelling say about your intelligence?
Answers to these questions–and many more–can be found in Marilyn vos Savant’s delightfully written The Art of Spelling. This book is the result of the “Ask Marilyn” spelling survey, which drew more than 43,000 responses and investigated whether good spelling was a measure of native intelligence, education, personality traits, or desire. With her trademark no-nonsense wit, vos Savant describes the psychological evidence for where good (and bad) spelling originates, provides personality portraits of all kinds of spellers (a superb speller is more likely to keep a tidy house), and offers the most effective methods of spelling improvement known. Vos Savant vividly recounts the turbulent history of English spelling, provides a timely warning against the pitfalls of spell-checkers and other writing tools, and gives a glimpse of a positive future for spelling standards in education. The Art of Spelling will appeal to scholars, students, and language lovers of all ages
I just had to laugh at this:
"(a superb speller is more likely to keep a tidy house), "
Very few people have ever questioned my spelling (neither do the spell-checkers) but we do not want to discuss the state of MESS of my house!!!
I look forward to reading this one - it sounds like fun. 
I just got this book from the library
AND IT SUCKS LEMONS!
I couldn’t believe how awful it is.
-Skinny
-Written apparently mostly by her aide
-Full of vague generalities about how words come from other languages (surprised? Yawn)
-Actually rejects the notion that English could use ANY spelling reform.
-Has only 3 tips on how to spell good. 1)Make a list of words you have trouble with 2)Look them up and read the derivations 3)write them at least 10 times on your study slate (Like Bart Simpson?)
That’s it. Not worth taking out of the library even.
And she’s smarter than Cecil? Hard to figure.
Is there any way we can mail a copy of this to certain posters?
“Uh, excuse me.”
Clears throat and with head hung admits: “I actually enjoyed the book.”
Having made that shameful admission, let me say that it ain’t a great book, nor is her writing style particularly interesting, but…
Since the ability to spell (correctly, of course) without resorting to a spell-check program is becoming somewhat of a lost art, it’s nice to know that someone out there sees the need to write, publish and distribute a book on the subject that might appeal to the general public.
I read it. I enjoyed it. I returned it to the library. So sue me.
Smarter than Unca Cecil? Yeah well, she might think so, but has she ever asked for a debate? Perhaps she ain’t so dumb after all!
The best book for spelling and grammar is Richard Leder’s book, “Sleeping Dogs Don’t Lay: Practical Advice for the Grammatically Challenged”.
Richard Lederer is a professional “verbivore” who specializes in helping others with grammar and spelling issues. He has a radio call-in show at the NPR station in San Diego. You can go to his own Web site at http://pw1.netcom.com/~rlederer/. His essays are HIGHLY entertaining and fun to read. I’m a professional writer whose definition of “spell checker” is a pair of eyeballs, and even I get a lot of neat stuff out of his books.
By the way, you can run a spell checker and still end up with public restroom.
Couple of questions
Is there a web site that displays Marilyn’s columns from Parade magazine. If so, do you know the url?
Second, IIRC her IQ is 228, but as far as my understanding goes, IQs above 200 can not be adequately measured. Assuming that last statement is indeed correct, how did they come with the 228 figure? How can she claim to be the world’s smartest human if there is not a reliable way to estimate IQs over that range?
How about the 10/11-year-old kid who has already entered college, wants to be president, and plans on getting 3 doctorate degrees, astrophysics being one of them, IIRC. It is arguable that he could be smarter than her and not be proven as such from the IQ viewpoint, in light of its measuring limitations. Does anyone know if he has been tested, has his score been revealed and, assuming it has, what is it? Any links about him would be nice too.
A commentary
The alleged fact that there has to be an upper limit that specifies the top score that can be quantitatively measured by tests makes perfect sense. I don’t know that much about IQ examinations, but I imagine that they focus on creativity, or more specifically, problem-solving skills. As such, its capacity to measure intelligence up to a certain theoretical limit would be determined by the intelligence of the test designer.
Clarifying via an example, let’s assume that Cecil is the smartest human and somehow we know his IQ to be exactly 250. The only person who can design a test that could prove Cecil’s superiority over Marilyn would have to be smart enough to think of a problem that Cecil can answer and Marylyn cannot. Thus that person would need to be smarter than Marilyn, which in turn implies that only Cecil, her intellectual superior, would be capable of developing such a tie-breaking problem.
It doesn’t seem reasonable that the tested subject should design his own test and, even if he did, there would be no way to quantify his superiority over the rest of the tested subjects. The purpose of IQ tests is to measure intelligence in relative, non-absolute terms. They are standardized to adhere to a grading scale that allows for comparison of different individual’s intellectual abilities (within the margin of error allowed by statistical fluctuations).
The moment that the grading scale reaches its uppermost theoretical value, scores would become superfluous and lose a great deal of objectivity since there wouldn’t be a referent to which the intelligence of the tested subject could be compared to in tangible terms. At this point intellectual superiority could only be established on qualitative grounds, substantive numerically tangible backing being impossible to come by.
By the aforementioned argument it follows–rather against common sense if I might add–that the reason why there is a 200 limit to IQ’s quantitative measurability is because the smartest test designer’s own IQ hovers around those lines. At this point, a breakdown of quantitative predictability is reached (tests able to measure those scores cannot be designed) and IQs within this range would have to be somehow projected and not measured. Instead of scores being calculated by fitting empirical data to a statistical distribution (gaussian, likely) from which a grading scale could be designed, they would have to be unscientifically estimated. Evidently this would “un-standarize” the tests and limit the reliability, comparative-purposes wise, of the obtained scores.
I apologize for any lack of congruency that might appear on this post. I am soooo sleepy right now I can not think clearly. Possibly tomorrow I will curse myself for posting this. :rolleyes:
Anyhow, any opinions?
A book about spelling? I’d expect more from the supposed “smartest person”. :rolleyes:
-
Spelling reform is a pipe-dream. The language is as it is. Learn it. Should we, perhaps, add the n-with-a-tilde that Spanish has?
-
I can’t resist this: that should be “spell well.” It’s an adverb. Grammar is important too. What do you want; some kind of subliminal spelling tape? Something that requires no work? We’ve all seen the spell-check poem, so computers are no good.
Okay, we do not learn if we do not ask. What’s wrong with “public restroom”?
Not necessarily. It is possible to design a problem from the solution backward. For example, we can create a polynomial with the solutions x = 3, x = 7, x = -4, x = -9, and x = 1. This creates the equation:
x^5 + 2x^4 - 76 x^3 - 14x^2 + 843x -756 = 0
This would be mighty tough to solve by hand, especially in a limited time period. In fact, there isn’t even a general formula for solving fifth order polynomial equations. And yet it was simple as cake to create. I’m sure many non-mathematical examples exist as well.
Well, for one thing, they usually smell pretty bad.