Originally posted by ivangriceThis sounds a lot like saying 'Proper spelling is important because
Correct spelling is important because it demonstrates that the writer has read and remembered how the words are spelled. People who mis-spell either haven't read or can't remember how words are spelled.
it demonstrates that one can spell.'
I don't see a 'why' it is important.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivangriceI wouldn't be in a position to 'rate' them at all. Einstein
*Generally* speaking, how would you rate someone intellectually who didn't read and/or couldn't remember simple things?
was a 'poor student' and a 'poor writer,' both by his own
admission and by demonstrable evidence. I would certainly
say that he is intelligent. Whether someone can spell well
is not necessarily an indicator of intelligence, and I will not
pass judgment on a person who spells poorly.
Generally speaking, if someone says 'Correct spelling is an
indication of how well a person can spell,' I don't conclude
that that person is unintelligent, but didn't think out what
they were trying to say well.
I am interested in 'communication.' Spelling properly and
using reasonable grammar aids in communication and, as such
has value to me. However, if I can understand a person who
spells poorly, then I see no reason to make an issue of it. I
think spelling is largely irrelevant, unless 'communication' is
inhibited.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioWhere does one draw the line? If communication *is* inhibited, is that a sign of a lower intellect? Let's be honest here - some people are cleverer than others. It's a fact. Is it unreasonable to expect that there are some observable phenomena of this fact?
I wouldn't be in a position to 'rate' them at all. Einstein
was a 'poor student' and a 'poor writer,' both by his own
admission and by demonstrable evidence. I would certainly
say that he is intelligent. Whether someone can spell well
is not necessarily an indicator of intelligence, and I will not
pass judgment on a person who spells poorly. ...[text shortened]... t. I
think spelling is largely irrelevant, unless 'communication' is
inhibited.
Nemesio
Quoting the single example of Einstein is what is known as anecdotal evidence. It proves nothing. I am sure that you could demonstrate any number of women who are physically stronger than any number of men. It does not negate the *general* rule that, *generally* speaking, men are physically stronger than women.
Originally posted by ivangrice
Where does one draw the line? If communication *is* inhibited, is that a sign of a lower intellect? Let's be honest here - some people are cleverer than others. It's a fact. Is it unreasonable to expect that there are some observable phenomena of this fact?
The inability to communciate does not signify a lower intellect.
For example, if I dropped you in the middle of backwater China
and you couldn't communicate with the locals because you don't
speak some obscure form of Manderin, I wouldn't be able to
conclude that you are unintelligent.
Yes, some people are cleverer than others. Literacy does not
confer cleverness. Spelling ability does not confer cleverness.
Even the ability to communicate does not confer cleverness.
Cleverness and spelling, as far as I can tell, are unrelated.
Quoting the single example of Einstein is what is known as anecdotal evidence. It proves nothing. I am sure that you could demonstrate any number of women who are physically stronger than any number of men. It does not negate the *general* rule that, *generally* speaking, men are physically stronger than women.
Intelligence/intellect is innate. You have it or you don't. Whether
it is developed through proper schooling or not is another matter.
If you meant to say, 'People who do not spell well will generally have
a tougher time communicating,' then I agree.
If you meant to say, 'People who do not spell well will generally have
weaker intellects,' then I disagree.
I can't intuit your claim because, despite your proper spelling, you
haven't communicated effectively yet.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIf I haven't communicated effectively, what are you responding to?
Originally posted by ivangrice
[b]Where does one draw the line? If communication *is* inhibited, is that a sign of a lower intellect? Let's be honest here - some people are cleverer than others. It's a fact. Is it unreasonable to expect that there are some observable phenomena of this fact?
The inability to communciate does not signify a ...[text shortened]... m because, despite your proper spelling, you
haven't communicated effectively yet.
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by ivangriceJust like when I can't understand a person who doesn't
If I haven't communicated effectively, what are you responding to?
spell something well, I take my best guess and strive to
clarify.
I've taken a stab at what I think you might be trying to say.
Either you are irritated at me for not understanding your
claim (which, if you recall, was essentially to "People ought to
spell right because it demonstrates that they can spell" ),
or you are irritated at yourself for not being able to communciate
clearly.
Either way, I suggest you take your own advice: Just as the
poor speller ought to learn to spell to spell better, the poor
communicator ought to learn to communicate to communicate
better.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYou appear to have understood my points clearly. You have not addressed my point about anecdotal evidence, and you haven't answered my question as to what conclusions one should draw about people who don't read and/or can't remember simple things.
Just like when I can't understand a person who doesn't
spell something well, I take my best guess and strive to
clarify.
I've taken a stab at what I think you might be trying to say.
Either you are irritated at me for not understanding your
claim (which, if you recall, was essentially to "People ought to
spell right because it demonstrates that ...[text shortened]... better, the poor
communicator ought to learn to communicate to communicate
better.
Nemesio
Whose communication is at fault here?
Originally posted by ivangriceOriginally posted by ivangrice
You appear to have understood my points clearly. You have not addressed my point about anecdotal evidence, and you haven't answered my question as to what conclusions one should draw about people who don't read and/or can't remember simple things.
Whose communication is at fault here?
Correct spelling is important because it demonstrates that the writer has read and remembered how the words are spelled. People who mis-spell either haven't read or can't remember how words are spelled.
Translation: Correct spelling is valuable because it it means the
writer can spell.
This says nothing. No communication took place.
When asked 'Why' correct spelling is valuable, you responded with
a quesiton:
Originally posted by ivangrice
*Generally* speaking, how would you rate someone intellectually who didn't read and/or couldn't remember simple things?
Translation: Isn't someone who can't spell generally lower on the
intellectual ladder?
I answered that this is not the case. Spelling is an indication of
education, not intelligence. There are many people who are very
intelligent who spell poorly.
Again, you've not explained 'why' spelling is impornant.
Probing what I suspect might be your point, I observe that poor
spelling can (but doesn't necessarily) limit communication.
You respond, again, with questions:
Originally posted by ivangrice
Where does one draw the line? If communication *is* inhibited, is that a sign of a lower intellect? Let's be honest here - some people are cleverer than others. It's a fact. Is it unreasonable to expect that there are some observable phenomena of this fact?
I observe that inhibited communication is not a sign of lower
intelligence and gave an example. Nor is it a sign of being
less clever.
Poor spelling does not equate with low intelligence or a lack
of cleverness. It can, in extreme cases, lead to poor
communication. But, so can many other things.
Your response: Another question:
Originally posted by ivangrice
If I haven't communicated effectively, what are you responding to?
Translation: I must have communicated something relevant, otherwise
you wouldn't post.
This is erroneous. I am trying to figure out what you are saying. My
posts are a testament to that. It seems to me that my position is clear.
1) A poor speller does not necessarily have low intelligence or low cleverness.
2) A poor speller will suffer from being misunderstood from time to time.
These positions are in response to the faulty conclusions that I think that
you are trying to make (implicitly from your questions).
I suggest that you make a few unambiguous claims of your own rather
than asking yet another question.
Instead of saying: Spelling is important because it means you can spell,
perhaps saying something that transmits information might help.
Or, perhaps you can explain why my claims are faulty. This would be
a testament to your clear communication.
Nemesio
Oh come on. It's tiresome that you have to be spoon-fed. But so be it...
I posted "Correct spelling is important because it demonstrates that the writer has read and remembered how the words are spelled. People who mis-spell either haven't read or can't remember how words are spelled."
Your 'rebuttal': "Correct spelling is valuable because it it means the
writer can spell.
"This says nothing. No communication took place."
Let me be very clear - people who mis-spell demonstrate either that they do not read, or that they cannot remember simple things. Both are contra-indicators of intelligence.
My follow-up question of "*Generally* speaking, how would you rate someone intellectually who didn't read and/or couldn't remember simple things?" is an attempt to gently point you to the point I was making (see above if not clear).
You state that poor spelling is not indicative of lower intelligence, but have not given any supporting reasoning, apart from the anecdotal evidence that Einstein was a 'poor writer'.
Obviously I'm biased, but I think I'm not doing too badly in my communication at the moment.
Originally posted by ivangrice
Let me be very clear - people who mis-spell demonstrate either that they do not read, or that they cannot remember simple things. Both are contra-indicators of intelligence.
This is not true. Are you saying illiterate people are unintelligent?
The state of being illiterate only signifies a lack of access to or
interest in education. Education and intelligence are very
much separate. Certainly, you must see that.
Edit: I think a lot of people, who are intelligent, will find great
offense in your claim that spelling is a simple thing. I find playing
the organ a simple thing, but that doesn't make it simple.
Can education help a person express their intellect? Of course it
can. Expression is a form of communication. Education, such as
learning how to spell, can aid in the expression of a person's
intelligent thoughts, if they have them. Being able to spell,
however doesn't mean that the person has any intelligent thoughts
to begin with.
However, education does not confer intelligence. Certainly, many
of my colleagues in high school were not intelligent, but they got
their degrees.
So, I reject your claim that not knowing how to spell is an indication
of lower intelligence, since there are many examples of people who know
how to spell well but have little in the way of intelligence and many
people who can't spell worth a darn that have great intelligence.
One's ability to spell only indicates whether or not they have had
education in spelling, an uninteresting factor of a person's life, as
far as I am concerned.
Additionally, many people struggle with spelling because of learning
disabilities. I believe that it is well established the people with
learning disabilities are, more often than not, intelligent, albeit poor
spellers. Confer: http://www.csusm.edu/Quiocho/sp.students.htm
What sort of examples would satisfy you? Would you agree that
all of the people who graduated with you in high school (presumably
all of whom could spell to at least a reasonable degree) were
intelligent? I wouldn't, for my part.
How many people do you know who are poor spellers? I know quite
a few, and they aren't 'unintelligent.' I can't pick friends of mine as
examples because you don't know who they are. You could claim I
am making them up. I picked Einstein because he is a good example
of what I was trying to say. With him is da Vinci, Henry Ford, Anton
Webern, Mary Shelley, and Thomas Edison. Tolstoy, Darwin, Napolean
and Newton did very poorly in school, to boot.
I have done a thorough search on the internet. I can find no article
relating spelling ability to intelligence, but several claims that they
are unrelated. The only thing that spelling seems to affect is 'verbal
ability,' which I think is rather obvious. Someone who struggles with
spelling will have trouble with written-word-related activities. This
has nothing to do with intelligence, however.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2405/is_1_129/ai_86431655/pg_1
One of the goals of this research was to determine whether there is a relationship between measured spelling ability and cognitive ability. The results of Experiment 1 suggest that such a relationship does exist, although it is a modest one. Verbal ability appears to be more strongly correlated with spelling ability than does intelligence in general. This is a logical finding, given that spelling is a verbal ability.
Since you are making the claim that intelligence and spelling ability
are closely linked, perhaps you would like to back up your claim.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivangriceIs it a mark of a lack of intelligence to fail to capitalize your own name when you write it?
Oh come on. It's tiresome that you have to be spoon-fed. But so be it...
I posted "Correct spelling is important because it demonstrates that the writer has read and remembered how the words are spelled. People who mis-spell eithe ...[text shortened]... think I'm not doing too badly in my communication at the moment.
I think the reason good spelling is helpful is simply that it makes communication easier. I'm more likely to pay attention to what you are trying to say if I don't have to work out what the words actually ARE as well.
With the large number of posts around here, it's very tempting to skip over a lot of them. Ones I can't easily and instantly read will be prime candidates for skipping.
Originally posted by orfeoNaturally. This is the point I made above.
I think the reason good spelling is helpful is simply that it makes communication easier. I'm more likely to pay attention to what you are trying to say if I don't have to work out what the words actually ARE as well.
With the large number of posts around here, it's very tempting to skip over a lot of them. Ones I can't easily and instantly read will be prime candidates for skipping.
I am interested in 'communication.' Spelling properly and
using reasonable grammar aids in communication and, as such
has value to me. However, if I can understand a person who
spells poorly, then I see no reason to make an issue of it. I
think spelling is largely irrelevant, unless 'communication' is
inhibited.
But you wouldn't argue that a poor speller necessarily or
generally has a low intelligence, just poor verbal ability,
right?
Nemesio