Is bad grammar a sign of low intelligence

[yasmany]

It all depend on the person. Beacuse a person has bad grammar it does not mean that he/she is laking on inellingence, maybe he/she english is there second language. There are times were the person has not progress on their vocabulary. An there could be many other things, but beacuse someone's grammar may not be perfect we should not judge them beacuse every human being is capable of great things.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: pam699 but if on the IQ test was a test to see if you could work out to steel a chicken

How do you steel a chicken? Is that like ironing a shirt?



Seeing how dumb this thread has gotten, I saw no problem with posting that.

[Jack]

An there could be many other things, but beacuse someone's grammar may not be perfect we should not judge them beacuse every human being is capable of great things.

Look back and you'll see we've made allowances for people who have a just cause to use poor English. What we're discussing are those who purposefully use bad grammar and mis-spell without regard for their audience.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Scribbler1 How do you steel a chicken? Is that like ironing a shirt?

Steel Chicken - weren't they the warm-up band for the Iron Butterfly?

[p1drobert]

Quote by: Anna A curious comment is made here. Can we consider that the "SMS type shortened words" is in fact an abuse of the language, or is it part of the normal evolution of the language? If you had existed (and I am certain you likely did) 40 years ago, and people wrote details of experience with terabytes and megabits, suggesting that their bandwidth was insufficent, would you not have thought them crazy, for nothing more than the language they used not being part of what is commonly accepted? We may not like the SMS speak that we see so much of today, but you can bet everything you have got that this kind of "code" will be eventually incorporated into the great lexicons as acceptable English. I note that there is also references aplenty to bad spelling as well as poor grammar being responsible for the consideration of an individual as being of low intelligence. Strange, when numerous studies have proven time and time again that the students with the best ideas and highest intellects, are often the ones with the worst spelling and grammar skills. Why is this so? The theory is that their brains are more focussed on the issue they are dealing with, or reporting on, ensuring that they convey the information that is required, and how it is spelled, or how the sentence is structured is a secondary concern.

The problem with language is that if anyone can create a word and call it proper english we'd all be babbling to each other, and not making sense. English has evolved over a long period of time to maximize communications between humans. SMS has evolved due to the restrictions of mobile phone screens and cost per letter restraints. It is by far a poor replacement for the current english language. As an electronics design engineer I know technology. SMS too will pass with the next big thing. How then do we extract the damage done by it if we allow SMS into mainstream language.

As a young student I was bad at English and social studies, great in physics and maths. I didn't care whether I passed english or not, until it was pointed out to me that if I didn't pass English I wouldn't be allowed to proceed to the next level. Boy did I buckle down then. An intelligent person alters his bahaviour to maximize his survival. Demanding that the rest of the world accept my poor english skills on my terms is an excercise in foolishness.

[RickSp]

Quote by: p1drobert SMS has evolved due to the restrictions of mobile phone screens and cost per letter restraints. It is by far a poor replacement for the current english language. As an electronics design engineer I know technology. SMS too will pass with the next big thing. How then do we extract the damage done by it if we allow SMS into mainstream language.

This is not the first time that technology has directly impacted language styling. Journalism has only relatively recently abandoned the inverted pyramid structure in favor of a more novelistic style.

Birth of the Inverted Pyramid: A Child of Technology, Commerce and History

Before the end of the 19th century, journalist historians agree, stories were almost always told in the traditional, slow-paced (some might say long-winded) way. That all changed with worldwide adoption of the telegraph, invented in 1845 by a portrait painter named Samuel Morse. A new and radically different story formula dubbed the inverted pyramid emerged, a product of new technology and a changing intellectual environment that embraced realism in art, science and literature. The inverted pyramid might not have happened were it not for the invention of the telegraph. The thing to know about the telegraph is that in its day it was as revolutionary as the Internet. In this age of instantaneous communication and “live late-breaking news,” it’s hard to imagine the reality of communications technology 150 years ago when it took two days for a letter to travel from Washington to New York, and a letter to the West Coast took a month by stagecoach or steamer via Panama. But the telegraph had a drawback. It was expensive to use. One of the first charges was a penny a character. Newspapers spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in telegraph costs to report the Civil War. That economic pressure more than anything else influenced a new kind of writing that departed from the flowery language of the 19th century was concise, stripped of opinion and detail. Fueling the shift in writing style was a new type of news organization, named the “wire service” after the technology used to transmit the news.

All of which has nothing to do with someone using intentionally bad spelling or grammar.

[p1drobert]

Quote by: pam699 hey if u ran a nuclear laboratory and a bad grammer einstiEn type submitted that resuume WELL YOU WOULD BE THE LOSER BY NOT GIVING HIM THE JOB

Even though its possible that I'm dealing with another Einstein, its more likely that I'm dealing with another stubborn, and ignorant person who demands the world change for them rather than the other way around. Should I then employ every apparantly low standard applicant on the off chance I'd find an Einstein. I'd go broke in the process.

Incidently, Einstein died stubborningly rejecting quantum theory while working on his "theory of everthing", never accomplished. All those years wasted when he could have been more productive. A true shame.

[RickSp]

Of course, Einstein would never have gotten the job in the Patent Office if he was incapable of expressing himself with proper grammar and correct spelling. The hypothetical that pammo keeps repeating ad-nauseum is clearly idiotic.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: rcne Since you beg the question: yes it does. One aspect of intelligence testing is vocabulary and word comprehension.

IQ tests are worthless, and despite my attrocious spelling, I still do rather well in them.

I also understand the point you failed to make. Or maybe I or RickSp should say that we understand the point you were intending to make, but it was a failure because it was irrelevant.

Or, more accurately, the point is sound and you just don't have a come back to it. The fact of the matter is (and has been demonstrated to be so with such examples) humans are capable of understanding passages, that upon first inspection, appear to be undecipherable and that even the most complicated forms of English you are likely to read are not unassailable.

[p1drobert]

Quote by: yasmany It all depend on the person. Beacuse a person has bad grammar it does not mean that he/she is laking on inellingence, maybe he/she english is there second language. There are times were the person has not progress on their vocabulary. An there could be many other things, but beacuse someone's grammar may not be perfect we should not judge them beacuse every human being is capable of great things.

Clearly, if English is not your first language you can't be expected to have perfect grammer or spelling. In that case you're forgiven. Also those with a speech problem of some sort, or other physical or mental problem that prevents them from spelling correctly, or using proper grammer. Those that have not had the good fortune to get a good education can't be thought of as stupid. Not unless they confirm this by other stupid actions.

Everyone else though has no excuse. Those of us who have had a decent education and speak english as our first language should make the effort of writing with correct spelling and grammer or run the risk of being thought of as lacking intelligence.

[ZNFYRH]

Chris the Chees,

No, your point was irrelevant. Olde English in context is perfectly fine. But going to the corner store and trying to converse with people in Olde English is the more accurate example.

As we already said, we see the point you're trying to make, you just failed to do so correctly. Where you failed is in the context of the speech pattern.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Or, more accurately, the point is sound and you just don't have a come back to it. The fact of the matter is (and has been demonstrated to be so with such examples) humans are capable of understanding passages, that upon first inspection, appear to be undecipherable and that even the most complicated forms of English you are likely to read are not unassailable.

You chose an extremely bad example which failed to make your point. Get over it.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: RickSp You chose an extremely bad example which failed to make your point. Get over it.

Again, my example simply proved the flaw in your argument - get over it. Simply repeating - parrot fashion - that it was a poor point, while being unable to provide any uncontestable (or even salient) reason why it was poor, is not a critique I am not about to take seriously. When, or perhaps more realistically, if you are able to provide a valid reason why it was a poor example, I will take your critique seriously. Unfortunatly, thus far, your rebuttles have been largely irrelevent - a factor I noted several pages ago.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Again, my example simply proved the flaw in your argument - get over it. Simply repeating - parrot fashion - that it was a poor point, while being unable to provide any uncontestable (or even salient) reason why it was poor, is not a critique I am not about to take seriously. When, or perhaps more realistically, if you are able to provide a valid reason why it was a poor example, I will take your critique seriously. Unfortunatly, thus far, your rebuttles have been largely irrelevent - a factor I noted several pages ago.

Yadda, yadda yadda. If you can't figure out why comparing classic Middle English to pam's grammatical gibberish is comparing apples and oranges, that is your issue. The fact that proper Middle English can be deciphered with some effort has nothing to do with the effort required to figure out what a lazy poster butchering modern usage is attempting to say. One might make the same comparison with Esperanto or pidgin English and be equally off topic.

The amusing thing is that I have never found your presentation to be a problem. Your ideas are what need work. Arrogance is such a poor substitute for wit. I will not respond any further to you on this post. I know how you prefer to get the last word.

[Chris the Chees]

I will take your last post as an unwilling admission that you, as I suspected, cannot find a relevant criticism and as such we can dispense with this rather tedious mockery of a 'debate' (which has reduced to the point of your repeating the same charges, but still without substanciation).

Oh, and Rick, I avoid remarking upon your character or making slurs against it, even when I find your arguments truly inane; I would appreciate that you return the same courtesy.

[pam699]

quote
The fact that proper Middle English can be deciphered with some effort has nothing to do with the effort required to figure out what a lazy poster butchering modern usage is attempting to say

then the only differnce between pam and middle english is one is an accepted medium and pam is not
i mean both require work but u will work on midle english solely becuase it is an accepted form of speach but not on pam solely becuase she is not repuptable
both can have the same intelligence but u chose only based upobn notablity and pedigree
that is what you argument boils down to as i said before
if you are famous or can do something for some one they will spend the time working throuigh your so called bad grammer
all this points to is not pams bad grmammer but that peole dont see her of any use to them -THATS THE POINT chriss chees

[pubmanager]

Pam

You may be the most intelligent person in the world but I will never know because I can't read your posts or understand what you are trying to say.

Does bad gramma = intelligence?

Your writing style is a barrier to my understanding your thoughts. You either care or you do not. Your use of non-English only shows that you have little regard as to whether you are understood.

I do not think your use of grammar means you are unintelligent but I do think it shows you are stupid.

[phoenix_fire]

@pam

How arrogant. You are one. And the needs of the many...

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: pubmanager Pam You may be the most intelligent person in the world but I will never know because I can't read your posts or understand what you are trying to say. Does bad gramma = intelligence? Your writing style is a barrier to my understanding your thoughts. You either care or you do not. Your use of non-English only shows that you have little regard as to whether you are understood. I do not think your use of grammar means you are unintelligent but I do think it shows you are stupid.

I would accept that poor use of grammar and spelling make a piece of writing more challenging to read; I do reject that it makes the passage unreabable.

For example: -

iwouldacceptthatpooruseofgrammarandspellingmakeapieceofwritingmorechallengingtoread

Considerably more difficult - not impossible.

There is a significant difference between a task being unachievable and a task left unachieved due to a lack of inclination.

As for poor gammar being the domain of the stupid, I suggest you read the drafts of scholarly works before the editors and publishers get hold of them.

[RULE 1]

In My Honest Opinion, I Think That Low Intelligence Is One Of The Key Facts In Bad Grammar, But I Also Feel That Ebonics Plays A Role In Having Bad Grammar As Well. Some Might Have The Intelligence To Know Bad Grammar When They See It But If They Are accustomed To Speaking Ebonics, It Becomes A Habit And They Begin To Write How They Talk Not Noticing The Effect It Has On Them