Qualifications for Verbal Discussion

[brewnog]

Being a non-USian, I don't know what these SAT thingies are, but I would like to assure BT that I recently sat an SHL verbal reasoning aptitude test, and passed within (what I believe to be) his criteria. I would expect most regular members of the board (BT included) to perform well too.

Knavish, I'm not doubting the existence of any social networks here. But I very much doubt people would argue alongside fellow clique members if they did not genuinely share their sentiments. I'd like to think that I've formed some such sort of link with, say, Danger, but you wouldn't catch me arguing for his case in, say, a gun or SUV discussion.

 

[BicycleTree]

No one said that busing was bad, but that your suggestions were impractical and evidence was presented that verified it. Yet, you continued...

I do recall that some of my suggestions have actually been implemented in other places.

Edit: I also recall that your estimate of 8%, which I consider very low, would cover tens of thousands of people. Impractical, yet practical for tens of thousands of people? Yeah...

 

[BicycleTree]

Frankly, I would love for people to take the proposed test. Brewnog, if you've done something similar, then perhaps you are qualified for verbal discussion. I would like to know who is worth talking to and who is not.

 

[Evo]

I think almost everyone would fail, you included. Most people here are very bright, but there is a difference between general intelligence and perfection in a particular area.

Actually that's one of my strongest areas, if not my strongest. Funny, I still remember a score of 99 in reading comprehension on an Iowa test (MANY years ago), but have forgotten my other scores.

 

[brewnog]

Yeah I'm going to back out of this one, I think. I've said what I wanted to say, and don't want to stir anything else up.

Anyway, BicycleTree, please don't take it personally. I assure you that I do share a lot of your opinions, especially with regard to unnecessary car use, and I do usually appreciate (and sometimes, god forbid, enjoy!) what you have to say. I'm sorry if I appeared harsh, but many of us (myself included, you may have noticed) have a terrible stubborn streak, and nobody likes it when the conversation gets nasty (although compared to some forums, this is like a picnic!).

 

[BicycleTree]

Well, Evo, maybe you're just not paying attention so you make mistakes that way. You always seem kind of confused to me. One time it was painkillers, but then there was that wikipedia thing. Why don't you take the test again?

 

[Evo]

I do recall that some of my suggestions have actually been implemented in other places.

Yes, but it is not a cookie cutter solution. And your stubborness makes people less and less likely to keep an open mind to your ideas. Testing "smart" is great, but "people skills" are invaluable and will make a lot of difference in success in life. We all have different skill sets and learning from each other here is one of the best free lessons any of us will ever have.

 

[Knavish]

I want to note that passages found in 10 RS aren't terribly hard; after all, the test is aimed for high schoolers. Seeing the most of the posters here are older, I'm sure they could all ease through it. I've heard some of the GRE passages are harder though (but hell if I know anything about that.. I just got out of high school).

 

[Evo]

but then there was that wikipedia thing.

A couple of us pointed out where you misunderstood the wikipedia sentence.

 

[Evo]

I want to note that passages found in 10 RS aren't terrible hard; after all, the test is aimed for high schoolers. Seeing the most of the posters here are older, I'm sure they could all ease through it. I've heard some of the GRE passages are harder though (but hell if I know anything about that.. I just got out of high school).

I believe you're right.

 

[BicycleTree]

A couple of us pointed out where you misunderstood the wikipedia sentence.

Yes... and you were all wrong. This is an example of what I'm talking about. As I recall, the point was dismissed as not important and Hurkyl challenged me to find more substantial evidence.

 

[BicycleTree]

To go over it again, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburbanization:

Second sentence in introductory paragraph: "Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, commuting to work"

They live in the suburbs _instead_ of living where they work; therefore the suburbs is not where they work. As additional support for that inference, the topic is "suburbanization" therefore they are not merely moving from one suburb to another, for that would not constitute suburbanization. And clearly few people commute from the suburbs to rural areas, therefore the workplace referred to here is the city, and the living place is the suburbs.

Now, eventually it turned out I was wrong in thinking that most suburban commuters go to the city (that hasn't been true since 1970) but as explained above, the sentence does not say that.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I like the reading comprehension test idea, but just for people's own edification. If someone were to take it privately and find they didn't do well, they might consider paying more attention when they read.

For discussion purposes here, I don't think a good score on a calm, quiet reading comprehension test would be a good measure of anything. It is clear that people's reading comprehension, and the clarity of their writing, changes according to how exited they are. There's a saying to the effect that the more heated the discussion, the less sense anyone makes.

 

[BicycleTree]

Yes. That's another reason why the verbal comprehension test would not mean that those taking it are qualified for discussion, only that they are not disqualified because their peak comprehension falls short.

 

[brewnog]

It is clear that people's clarity of their writing, changes according to how exited they are.

Sorry to paraphrase, but that was priceless. Absolutely priceless.

 

[Hurkyl]

Wow, I run to the store and two more pages pop up!


Another problem with the idea of the test is it's ignoring one of the biggest differences between conversation and literature -- if I don't understand something, I can ask you for clarification, or you can correct me.

(And this is fortunate, because the quality of presentation in a forum like this is generally much less than, say, a published paper)

 

[Evo]

To go over it again, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburbanization:

Second sentence in introductory paragraph: "Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, commuting to work"

And you misunderstood it to mean "They live in the suburbs _instead_ of living where they work; therefore the suburbs is not where they work

Now, eventually it turned out I was wrong in thinking that most suburban commuters go to the city (that hasn't been true since 1970) but as explained above, the sentence does not say that.

You were the only one that misinterpreted it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Sorry to paraphrase, but that was priceless. Absolutely priceless.

NOW IM VARY TEECKED OFF! YOOO MISSKWOTED ME!YOU LIMEY BASTED!

 

[brewnog]

NOW IM VARY TEECKED OFF! YOOO MISSKWOTED ME!YOU LIMEY BASTED!

$0rry z00b! ur teh b0mb, z00b! l00k @ ur l33t $ki11z! w00t!

 

[zoobyshoe]

$0rry z00b! ur teh b0mb, z00b! l00k @ ur l33t $ki11z! w00t!

ARRRRGGGGHHHHH @$&%%* $#@@@#%! ½¾•¢¢³é

 

[BicycleTree]

And you misunderstood it to mean "They live in the suburbs _instead_ of living where they work; therefore the suburbs is not where they work

Um, "They live in the suburbs _instead_ of living where they work" can correctly be derived from that sentence. ("Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, commuting to work") Otherwise, what does the "instead" in the sentence mean? "Instead" of what?

Brewnog, I know you don't want to get involved, but I think you must also see the correct meaning of this sentence. Would you offer your 2 cents? No problem if you don't want to.

 

[zoobyshoe]

They live in the suburbs _instead_ of living where they work; therefore the suburbs is not where they work.

I agree with the others. Your "...therefore the suburbs is not where they work," is just you grasping at the whiff of a technicality that might help you save face. It is clear it says they don't work in the suburbs where they live but it absolutely does not exclude them from working in other suburbs, or non-town industrial parks for that matter.

 

[Evo]

Um, "They live in the suburbs _instead_ of living where they work" can correctly be derived from that sentence. ("Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, commuting to work") Otherwise, what does the "instead" in the sentence mean? "Instead" of what?

It doesn't imply anything other than they live somewhere different from where they work. You took it mean they ONLY worked in the city, the rest of us took it to mean exactly what it said, that they worked someplace other than where they lived, which could be anywhere.

 

[Knavish]

Screw what the sentence says. How about you people get some facts? This is how I believe it went: Some time ago, people fled from the deteriorating inner city to suburbs (increasing innovations in transportation facilitated commuting from the city job to the suburb home); nowadays, though, jobs have been moving into the suburbs.

 

[brewnog]

Brewnog, I know you don't want to get involved, but I think you must also see the correct meaning of this sentence. Would you offer your 2 cents? np if you don't want to.

Ok, but I'd like to point out that I didn't argue this in the first case, so I don't want to be torn to shreds if I'm wrong. I'm only saying something because you invited me to, not because I think you/Evo is wrong. I'd add that I haven't even read what anyone else has said about it, and don't know what you're arguing for or against.

Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, commuting to work.

Grammatically, it's ambiguous. Pragmatically, I would suggest it means:

Many Americans no longer live where they work. Instead, they commute.

This is self explanatory.

However, the 'suburbs' bit gives cause for doubt. An American living in a suburb, and commuting to work, does not necessarily work in the CBD. He could work in another suburb, or in the countryside. None of these are stated explicitly or implicitly within this phrase. All that can be assumed is that an American now has to travel some distance to work.

 

[Evo]

Screw what the sentence says. How about you people get some facts? This is how I believe it went: Some time ago, people fled from the deteriorating inner city to suburbs (increasing innovations in transportation facilitated commuting from the city job to the suburb home); nowadays, though, jobs have been moving into the suburbs.

Dang, you just summed up 97,392,732,957 posts.

Seriously, that sums it up.

 

[BicycleTree]

Whenever you have anything that says "many people no longer do x and instead do y," it implies that they were not doing y beforehand or were not doing y beforehand as much as they are now--in other words that they are substituting activity y for activity x.

 

[Knavish]

Oh, and...

It almost seems as if underlying all this is the argument carried over from that bus thread.

I'm pretty sure I was dead right about that.

 

[Evo]

Whenever you have anything that says "many people no longer do x and instead do y," it implies that they were not doing y beforehand or were not doing y beforehand as much as they are now--in other words that they are substituting activity y for activity x.

But it doesn't state what y is, you entered that yourself.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm pretty sure I was dead right about that.

And Brewnog beat you to it in his very first post.

 

[brewnog]

Oh, and...



I'm pretty sure I was dead right about that.

Yes and no. I wasn't even involved in that argument in the bus thread, but have been fairly active in this one...

 

[BicycleTree]

In "Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, commuting to work" you have x = "live where they work" and y = "live in the suburbs." Therefore they are not living in the suburbs beforehand as much as they are now; they are substituting living in the suburbs for living outside of the suburbs (obviously in the city).

 

[Hurkyl]

I think it's a very awkwardly worded sentence. I think BT has the correct strict literal interpretation, but I'm also well over 90% confident that the strict literal interpretation isn't the intent of the sentence.

If I were an editor, I would insist that the sentence be reworded.

 

[brewnog]

Therefore they are not living in the suburbs beforehand as much as they are now; they are substituting living in the suburbs for living outside of the suburbs (obviously in the city).

The contents of your parentheses are the problem. The city/town/CBD was not stated anywhere in the quote, you added that bit yourself.


One thing is certain: We have spent much more time discussing this than the author spent writing it.

 

[Evo]

In "Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, commuting to work" you have x = "live where they work" and y = "live in the suburbs, commuting to work." Therefore they are not living in the suburbs beforehand as much as they are now; they are substituting living outside of the suburbs (obviously in the city) for living in the suburbs.

It never implies where they work. For it to take on the specific meaning you want, it would have to say "Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, commuting into the city". They left it open, you are trying to give it a specific meaning.