Qualifications for Verbal Discussion

[BicycleTree]

Ah, for those two quotes of my post, I edited my post apparently after I was quoted (I had something backwards originally).

 

[brewnog]

Ah, for those two quotes of my post, I edited my post apparently after I was quoted (I had something backwards originally).

Even so, the point remains exactly the same. Sorry.

Edit: I've changed it for you now

 

[Evo]

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.

Agreed, it's badly worded.

 

[BicycleTree]

When they say "and instead live in the suburbs," it means that living in the suburbs is something NEW, something that is in STEAD of living where they work. Replace the instances of living where they work with instances of living in the suburbs, and there you have your meaning.

Look, why would they even mention living "in the suburbs" if they did not mean to say that the people moved to the suburbs from somewhere else? They would have just said "and instead commute to work."

 

[Evo]

Look, why would they even mention living "in the suburbs" if they did not mean to say that the people moved to the suburbs from somewhere else? They would have just said "and instead commute to work."

Implying that they moved to the suburbs from somewhere else doesn't state where they work, they only stated that they now commute, it doesn't imply where they commute, only that they no longer live in an environment that puts them in close proximity to their work. They are stating that the suburban environment is different from the city environment.

 

[BicycleTree]

You know, after reading your last post and looking at the sentence again I see there is a second interpretation that can be assigned to it.

Namely, they 1.) previously lived somewhere else (city or rural area) and 2.) now live in the suburbs and commute to other places in the suburbs. That is _possible_ but it's weird, and sure as hell not the intended meaning, given the context.

It can't mean, as your claim has been, that they lived in the suburbs originally and still live in it and commute to work.

 

[Knavish]

Arr, I don't know why I'm getting so caught up in this. But here goes:


I'm quite positive BT is right here. When I went to Wikipedia, I specifically looked up "suburbanization"; this really means to transfer from the inner city/CBD to the suburbs. And the article reads:

Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, commuting to work. This has set the United States apart from many other countries where the majority of people live in urban areas.

Thus we can see the people are moving away from the "urban areas," or the city. Also, if we were to assume that the Americans initially lived in suburbs, the sentence would, in a sense, read: "Many Americans no longer live in suburbs and instead live in suburbs, commuting to work." Certainly this isn't what the author meant.


Today, however, the suburbs themselves are urbanizing.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It can't mean, as your claim has been, that they lived in the suburbs originally and still live in it and commute to work.

No one is questioning that people originally lived in the city and then moved to the suburbs.

 

[Danger]

Implying that they moved to the suburbs from somewhere else doesn't state where they work, they only stated that they now commute

Sorry, Evo. I told you that I'd stay out of it, but I have to respond to this post, since it sums everything up perfectly. A lot of my friends who used to live on the farms and ranches that they work on now live in the outskirts of Calgary and drive to work.
As for the SAT thing, that's a Yank test that probably has no relevance to Brewnog, Matthmas (whatever; sorry, man, I don't have ready access to how to spell that without losing this and having to type it over), Marlon, Arildno, Soilwork, Monique (Yank, but cosmopolitan?), Icvotria and countless other PF members who don't particularly respect the US government's criteria for intelligence. I mean really, MENSA members think that their **** don't stink because they have to be in the 98th percentile to qualify? I'm dumb as a stump and I can pass their test in my sleep.

 

[BicycleTree]

Yes, Danger, this thread is not about general intelligence.

I think this is a telling point: The sentence also does not state that the people change where they work. It indicates a change in living living location only.

 

[brewnog]

Yes, Danger, this thread is not about general intelligence.

Yeah Danger! Clear off! You're not welcome here! This is a local thread, for loc... ah, never mind.

 

[zoobyshoe]

As for the SAT thing, that's a Yank test that probably has no relevance to Brewnog, Matthmas (whatever; sorry, man, I don't have ready access to how to spell that without losing this and having to type it over), Marlon, Arildno, Soilwork, Monique (Yank, but cosmopolitan?), Icvotria and countless other PF members who don't particularly respect the US government's criteria for intelligence.

SAT stands for "Scholastic Aptitude Test". It isn't an IQ test, but a specific measure of how a person is likely to do in "scholastic" settings.

The reading comprehension part of the test simply consists of paragraphs of prose to read and answer questions about. The questions are simply geared to determining if you understood what the paragraph said. All native English speakers have an equal shot at doing well on one of our SATs. The prose you're tested on is plain and straightforward, and doesn't have any special American bias to speak of. I think Brewnog would score very high with no problem.

 

[Evo]

You know, after reading your last post and looking at the sentence again I see there is a second interpretation that can be assigned to it.

Namely, they 1.) previously lived somewhere else (city or rural area) and 2.) now live in the suburbs and commute to other places in the suburbs. That is _possible_ but it's weird, and sure as hell not the intended meaning, given the context.

It can't mean, as your claim has been, that they lived in the suburbs originally and still live in it and commute to work.

See, you misread my post, I didn't say they didn't move to the suburbs. I said "Implying that they moved to the suburbs from somewhere else doesn't state where they work...only that they no longer live in an environment that puts them in close proximity to their work. What was this about reading comprehension?

 

[zoobyshoe]

There's another difference between how well a person might do on the SAT reading comprehension and their reading comprehension at PF: people's reading comprehension sometimes seems to plummet when they don't like what you've said.

I notice Evo making good point after good point, and BT seeming not to grasp it the better her point becomes.

 

[BicycleTree]

It does not state they change where they work, therefore you assume they continue to work in the same area.

 

[BicycleTree]

Zooby, Evo's points seem good to you because your first reading was the same as hers. The principle whereof you speak is double edged.

 

[Evo]

I think this is a telling point: The sentence also does not state that the people change where they work. It indicates a change in living living location only.

The sentence "Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, commuting to work" is vague and ambiguous. They aren't really stating much of anything. It's not claiming that these people moved to the suburbs from anywhere, it is merely stating that currently many people no longer live where they work as opposed to older times when that was the case. They are simply stating how things are now. You are reading WAY too many details that are not present into this. The preceding sentence gives us a clue to what they mean "Suburbanization is a term used by many to describe the current residential living situation in the United States". Hmmmmm, describing the CURRENT residential living situation. Gee, as in current and not having to do with what they were previously doing? Do you remember something in school about reading things in context?

You made the error of pulling the sentence out of context. That's a no no.

 

[BicycleTree]

Evo, I find that post rather insulting. This is a thread about how to form good discussions.

 

[BicycleTree]

The sentence illustrates the situation now by comparison with the past. It doesn't simply present a flat picture of the present. It highlights changes between the past and the present, and the only change highlighted was living location.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zooby, Evo's points seem good to you because your first reading was the same as hers. The principle whereof you speak is double edged.

Everything's double edged. However, in your case, we get the blunt or sharp edge depending on your purpose. I noticed how Chroot had to repeat a good point four times to you in the other thread.

 

[Evo]

Evo, I find that post rather insulting. This is a thread about how to form good discussions.

Ah, so when you are shown to be wrong, suddenly what you've been discussing becomes off topic? Where's the insult? You were telling people they weren't smart enough to pass a reading comprehension test, that's not insulting?

I was on topic, your OP was about reading comprehension.

 

[Evo]

The sentence illustrates the situation now by comparison with the past. It doesn't simply present a flat picture of the present. It highlights changes between the past and the present, and the only change highlighted was living location.

No, there is nothing in that first paragraph comparing anything to the past. They are only stating current conditions.

 

[Danger]

SAT stands for "Scholastic Aptitude Test". It isn't an IQ test, but a specific measure of how a person is likely to do in "scholastic" settings.

Thanks, Zooby. I knew what the acronym stood for, but misunderstood what its purpose is. I thought that it was similar to someone in grade 12 here taking 'Matriculation', or someone in Ontario, where I took my last schooling, graduating grade 13. ie: first year college equivalency passed through regular schooling or out-of-school testing.
Okay, I just scrolled down and saw that there are a bunch of posts after I started this one. Rather than try to catch up now, I'm going to post this and then come back.

 

[Evo]

BT, the wikipedia article was terribly written, I can see how you came to your conclusion, but it is too vague for anyone conclusion, which is why it can more accurately be anything as opposed to one thing. It's really too trivial to even be discussing, it really doesn't impact anything we were discussing in the car pet peeves thread.

 

[BicycleTree]

No, there is nothing in that first paragraph comparing anything to the past. They are only stating current conditions.

There is something in that sentence comparing the current to the past. "Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead ..." That's the comparison; the sentence in question. With that clarification, back to the point under debate -- "The sentence illustrates the situation now by comparison with the past. It doesn't simply present a flat picture of the present. It highlights changes between the past and the present, and the only change highlighted was living location."

With respect to the perceived insult in your post, I feel that since we are currently questioning whether you correctly interpreted the sentence, my comment with respect to your reading comprehension is suspended. I would like to keep this as courteous as possible at least until resolution is reached.

 

[Evo]

There is something in that sentence comparing the current to the past. "Many Americans no longer live where they work

Did you stop to consider maybe they lived in a rural area, a farm? It doesn't say city, many people used to live in rural areas, small towns and farms which is where they worked.

 

[brewnog]

I would like to keep this as courteous as possible at least until resolution is reached.

That's very noble of you BT.
We wouldn't want this to degenerate into anything involving insults now, would we?


I'll tell you this now, you're not going to get resolution on this. The quote is ambiguous, but we all know what the actual situation is. Even Danger, and he's dumb as a stump...

 

[BicycleTree]

Did you stop to consider maybe they lived in a rural area, a farm? It doesn't say city, many people used to live in rural areas, small towns and farms which is where they worked.

But not the rich; the rich, the people who would go to the suburbs, were originally mostly urban, not rural. But the main point I made is still in the air at the moment--your move.

 

[Moonbear]

OMG! Since I left, this thread has grown to 5 pages long, and half of it going over that wikipedia definition. Here, I'll save you all the trouble. BT left out the very first sentence; the key sentence that provided the actual definition.

Suburbanization is a term used by many to describe the current residential living situation in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburbanization

Additional definitions available support that the first sentence is the key sentence.

It is the process of lower-density residential, commercial, and industrial development beyond the central city. According to Berry and Kasarda it “is the enlargement and spread of a functionally integrated population over an increasingly wider expanse of territory” (1997,180).

http://chesapeake.towson.edu/landscape/urbansprawl/glossary.asp

refers to the movement of middle- and skilled working-class people into residential areas located some distance away from their paid employment.

http://media.pearsoncmg.com/intl/ema/uk/0131217666/student/0131217666_glo.html

The shift in population from living in higher density urban areas to lower density developments on the edge of cities.

http://www.wasd.k12.pa.us/district/curriculum/geography/geography_glossary.htm

Main Entry: sub·ur·ban·ize
Pronunciation: s&-'b&r-b&-"nIz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
: to make suburban : give a suburban character to
- sub·ur·ban·i·za·tion /-"b&r-b&-n&-'zA-sh&n/ noun

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=suburbanization

The definition of suburbanization is as varied as the ways of measuring it. A common understanding of suburbs often refers to the white flight out of the inner cities during the 1960s and 70s. While geographers and sociologist have been interested in the variety of ways urban sprawl takes place, as a social problem, they have also been interested in the impact of urban sprawl on the environment. The effect of living in suburban areas has increased the tendency to build larger single dwelling homes as well as longer commutes to and from the central city has increased the use of raw materials, such as air quality and rural areas (Kahn 2000). Ironically, what makes suburban dwellers a concern for social scientist makes them a target for marketing and sales.

Measures of Suburban Growth

Jordon, et. al. (1998) in their paper entitled “U.S. Suburbanization in the 1980s” defined suburban or suburbanization as “the decentralization of population from the center of the urban place as measured by and exponential population density function. Suburbanization does not necessarily imply moving out of the political jurisdiction of the city; rather it is simply a movement away from the center of the city.” Viewing suburbanization as a gradient of density simplifies the measurement of suburbanization. They found that density gradients decreased as you moved away from the central city and proved to be a less cumbersome means of measurement than struggling with the location of political boundaries.

http://remotesensing.utoledo.edu/Student_website/Websites/Verls_site/A Marketing Problem 1.htm

Quite simply, suburbanization only means people are moving away from cities and into suburbs. Regardless of which interpretation one wants to use for that wikipedia article's second sentence, the first sentence is the important one. Historically, yes, suburbanization began with people moving out of cities and commuting to work in cities, and many still do. That was never a point of contention. The point of contention is that "many" is a vague term. Beyond that, even if you want to argue that "many" means "most" in that context, which it may or may not, what BT had been ignoring is that the rest work someplace else other than in the urban areas. It also does not necessarily indicate that people are working in the city closest to their suburb. Consider the household with two working professionals who live in a suburb of NYC. One of them commutes to NYC, and the other to Philadelphia; or one to NYC, and the other to Trenton, NJ, or to Newark, NJ. There are many cities that one can commute to from a suburb.

 

[BicycleTree]

Moonbear, the question is over the interpretation of the particular second sentence of the Wikipedia article because it reflects the ability of Evo and myself with respect to verbal comprehension. Jumping into the discussion at this late stage, you have missed this point.

 

[Evo]

But not the rich; the rich, the people who would go to the suburbs, were originally mostly urban, not rural. But the main point I made is still in the air at the moment--your move.

Many rich owned farms and ran small towns. Where are the rich mentioned? I love how you keep interjecting these completely irrelevant topics.

Not to mention, as I have previously stated, the article has no impact on the other thread.

BT, did you read that DOT study I posted? Or the other link Moonbear posted? Those both had relevant studies and statistics and proposals and plans that addressed busing. Did you bother to read them?

 

[Evo]

Moonbear, the question is over the interpretation of the particular second sentence of the Wikipedia article because it reflects the ability of Evo and myself with respect to verbal comprehension. Jumping into the discussion at this late stage, you have missed this point.

No, because she pointed out exactly what I did, you pulled it out of context. The first sentence is very important. Remember paragraph construction and topic from school?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Everything's double edged. However, in your case, we get the blunt or sharp edge depending on your purpose. I noticed how Chroot had to repeat a good point four times to you in the other thread.

No comment BT?

 

[Moonbear]

Moonbear, the question is over the interpretation of the particular second sentence of the Wikipedia article because it reflects the ability of Evo and myself with respect to verbal comprehension. Jumping into the discussion at this late stage, you have missed this point.

Nope, I actually sat here and read this entire discussion before jumping in. You want to challenge the interpretation of the second sentence, but you are doing so out of context of the first sentence. Interpreting the meaning of a sentence out of context is poor reading comprehension.

Did you miss this last part of my post, where I directly address the second sentence - the one you've been harping on for nearly 3 pages?

even if you want to argue that "many" means "most" in that context, which it may or may not, what BT had been ignoring is that the rest work someplace else other than in the urban areas. It also does not necessarily indicate that people are working in the city closest to their suburb. Consider the household with two working professionals who live in a suburb of NYC. One of them commutes to NYC, and the other to Philadelphia; or one to NYC, and the other to Trenton, NJ, or to Newark, NJ. There are many cities that one can commute to from a suburb.

Most is not synonymous with "all" as you were trying to use it.

 

[BicycleTree]

Quote from Wikipedia: "Those who lived in the city were increasingly poor, as the wealthy, who had lived there not too long ago, moved to these suburbs."

Before suburbanization, the rich were city-dwellers. In those countries where suburbanization has not yet happened, such as Egypt, the rich are still city-dwellers. I'm sure other articles can confirm this.

But this is a relatively minor point and it's off topic. (the other thread is also not the topic of debate) The main point which I have made, which is still in the air, is:

There is something in that sentence comparing the current to the past. "Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead ..." That's the comparison; the sentence in question. With that clarification, back to the point under debate -- "The sentence illustrates the situation now by comparison with the past. It doesn't simply present a flat picture of the present. It highlights changes between the past and the present, and the only change highlighted was living location."