Grammar Equals Intelligence?

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


I wish everybody in this boards were as nice as you and others has been so far when it comes to the shortcomings of people like me with grammar, spelling and punctuation deficiencies.

I do have a college education in my native language and as a Puertorrican we are born Americans, but English is limited to be our second language and just for basic skills.

I happen to be marry to a an American born and raised in the US.

reply to post by marg6043


OHNO

marg is here with her words of wisdom and cutting wit.

Which is great.

If ever there was a case for posts being wise but not grammatically correct, marg would win it - we likes marg.

Which illustrates my point wonderfully.

I wish I had time to read this entire thread! Personally, I'm not bothered (much) by bad grammar.
While it might not be an accurate indication of education or intelligence,
one can surmise that someone who says: "It don't make no difference"
is not working on their doctoral thesis.

Conversely, some of the cleverest writing I've ever seen was right here on ATS.
We have some very sharp people here.

A great tool for anyone wanting to be a more conscientious writer:
The Elements of Style online: www.bartleby.com...

reply to post by Pandapple


Then there are those of us who try and type beyond are means and don't really give a crap about spell checking.... like you said it does not prove anything

As someone who adores the English language and hates to see it befouled by common buffoons, I do have a tendency to scoff at bad grammar, but it does not in any way equate to a persons intelligence.

I understand most people are lazy and prefer to type quickly, rather than correctly.

I believe the use of proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation are critical to an effective post. It doesn't mean your smarter than everyone else, just more attentive to the details.

The simple placement of a comma, can sometimes change the whole meaning of a sentence or paragragh.

reply to post by Pandapple


.but grammars are be good?

Personally, I view this issue as one of form over substance.
I have an advanced degree and consider myself challenged at typing and spelling.
Sometimes I think much faster than I can type and frankly, spelling, particularly in an internet post, is probably a fourth tier concern if it is a concern at all.

The object is communication -- do you understand what I am trying to convey?
If you do, but let your own pet peeves get in the way of communication, then it speaks more to your personal hang ups and perhaps even intelligence than mine.

Sorry, but grammar only reflects education, and not intelligence.

It isn't necessarily about education, either.

I read an abstract from a study (sorry, memory fails me) that examined spoken language patterns across various demographics. One of the underlying assumptions in this study was that the most well-educated would speak in complete sentences using perfect subject-verb agreement, without dangling participles or prepositions, etc. Well guess what? It turns out that the very best and brightest among us communicate with others of similar intelligence in a very fast and loose way.

Written language isn't exactly the same as spoken language, but then again a message board post isn't an essay or a blog. It's more conversational. If you are bright and confident, then you aren't encumbered by a slavish pedantry over perfect grammatical structure in an informal environment. How's my grammar?

Bright people who are interested in communicating ideas should ignore the pitiful bleating coming from those who have no ideas to share, but only rules to follow.

reply to post by applebiter

It turns out that the very best and brightest among us communicate with others of similar intelligence in a very fast and loose way.

Correct. That's because they are able to use shorthand for concepts that the less gifted need to have explained for them in full.

There is another factor at work here, though.

Studies have shown that the greatest number of grammatical and syntactical errors are made by bureaucrats and politicians making public announcements, speakers at academic conferences, etc. The pressure of having to sound formal and credible is often too much, and word hash results.

The worst-spoken and -written English in the world, in my experience, is that of international development professionals (international agency types, project managers, consultants and counterpart-country bureaucrats). These people will not use a simple Anglo-Saxon word where a sequipedelian Latinism will serve. They stuff their sentences with unnecessary and often contradictory qualifying clauses, turning the route from subject to verb into something resembling an SAS obstacle course. They are also consumnate experts in the art of changing a short, meaningful word into a long, meaningless one through the process of suffixicalizatorismicalizatoriousneccesarizisticability.

It's the thought that counts.
I can tell alot about people by how they write.
Stupid people make the same kinds of mistakes.
I can tell when someone is bright and English isn't their first language. AND I can tell when someone isn't so bright and English isn't their first language.
No tangible connction. If the idea is sound and communicated effectively, grammar is negligible.
HOWEVER, it takes a certain command of the basic elements of communication itself to communicate well. Regardless of the tools employed.

reply to post by Astyanax

I know we're not supposed to, but....



I think there's class in the East called "how to communicate like an American capitalist." Only the class is never taught by an American. Becasue it's a secret. SSSssshhhh!

I will admit that I don't like it when people use poor grammar but I am not going to be a jerk a point out a persons flaws just for the sake of insult. The only time I might talk about poor grammar is when someone makes a post so bad that it is unreadable. I kindly ask for a translation and do my best not to insult whoever wrote it.

I realize that not everyone I talk to uses English as there native tongue, but you can usually tell the difference between someone who doesn't speak the language very well and someone who is just lazy or uneducated.

I hate it when people use "4u" instead of "for you" and other such text messaging style abbreviations. I would never complain about it though, but in the back of my mind I do think that the person using them are less intelligent than I or at least extremly lazy. How hard is it to type out the word "for"?

reply to post by cpjason


cpjason, you make a good point. In fact, the ATS Handbook, and T&Cs specificially mention the use of 'text speak' (I'm not quoting here, but you know what I mean) as verbotten.

Examples...."2" for to, too or two. Etcetera.

I'm noticing, though....and not a critiscm, just an observation, of a more insidious trend. It is the use of 'homonyms'.

The 'text speak' came about partly from early Internet chat forums, then seemed useful in the ubiquitous BlackBerry....saved money and time...and got the point across.

But, one big example I can point to is 'there'. AND, "they're" and "their".

One is a pronoun, one is a contraction of a verb and pronoun...and since I'm not an English major, not sure how to quantify the word 'there'.

While we understand the meaning, in context, it does lend one to a certain, shall we say, opinion of the author?

No one is perfect (that's why they invented copy editors!) but we also don't have a personal copy editor at our beck and call. I think, when it's all said (typed?) and done, when the point is made, then small typos or grammar mistakes aren't for naught.

Just my thought.

I think if you're going to create text for others to read, you should take the time to utilize proper spelling and grammar. Doing otherwise is just ignorant.

reply to post by djerwulfe

i must confess your post mystified me.

What exactly are you laughing at? And why on earth aren't you supposed to?

And what, if anything, do 'American capitalists' have to do with the subject of my post?

Explain, so we can all share the joke.

reply to post by Pandapple


I see where you are coming from. BUT this is simply human nature to judge in this way. If somebody in the city approached you with a pamphlet and they have torn clothes, dirty hands and generally a sloppy appearance, I bet the majority of people would not take them seriously and even consider listening or looking at their pamphlet.

If however somebody in the city is well dressed and presentable and tries to give you a pamphlet, most ppl would not brush them off nearly as quickly.

I think its great that we have such a diverse range of people and opinions who choose to contribute to this site. However, since the official language of this website is English, people should feel confident in their ability to express their views in ENGLISH before posting. Yes, it is difficult if it is not your native language and I am NOT AT ALL saying only native-English speaking people should get to post. My simple message is this: feel free to read as much as you desire, but when you decide to post something, ensure you do so in a coherent, concise manner to the best of your ability.

PS: Personally, I dont care if you do not spell things right, or if your grammar is awful - just dont make it a strain for the reader to see and understand what you are trying to say!

[edit on 24/6/2008 by ExamineAllViews]

reply to post by Pandapple


i think it matters only what you say not how you say it. XD

reply to post by Astyanax


Um, I note the awkward extravagance with wording in mid-low level beauracrats from the East.

Couple people in my lab were instructed on how to talk to Americans before coming to the Univ. Almost told to talk like John Wayne or our stereotypical Used Car Salesman.

I think alot of the inefficient rhetoric is a result of people trying to tackle or engage in activities that are culturally alien.
Our version of boisterous commercial spin and hustling-type business demeanors, posturing and customs are strange if you aren't born into it.

People also just want to sound smart.

I thought you described this well, hence...

And i thought you were being ironic with all the ridiculous words that meant things about extravagant words... no?

[edit on 26-6-2008 by djerwulfe]