Qualifications for Verbal Discussion

[BicycleTree]

I propose the following self-test to determine whether your reading comprehension is high enough to engage in rational discussion on a message board:

Get a copy of an old verbal SAT (these can be found in one of the books "10 SATs"). Find the passage reading comprehension sections, and do them all, taking as much time as you need, but not a ridiculous amount of time. (be honest with yourself and spend on each section about as long as you'd spend replying to a post of equivalent length). Use a reference text such a dictionary if needed, so long as you would use the same reference when replying to posts. At the end of it, find out how many you got wrong.

The percentage you got wrong is a good predictor of the percentage of things that someone else says in a discussion that you are likely to interpret incorrectly. Pay special attention to any "main idea" questions for the passages or for paragraphs in the passages; if you get any of these wrong, you are probably not qualified for verbal discussion. And in general, if you get more than, say, 10% wrong overall, again you are probably not qualified for verbal discussion.

 

[mattmns]

If that is the case then me no understand anything, and am not qualified for verbal discussion. This is why I try to leave myself out of most serious discussions.

 

[brewnog]

Riiiight, I think I know what this is about...

Although I didn't get involved in that little tiff, I read a good deal of it, and I have a few comments. Firstly, what was encountered was not verbal discussion. While a lot of the discourse on an internet-based message board is conversational in style, the communication is actually done in text, in a kinda "you say, then I say" fashion. While the "Dear Sir/Yours faithfully" formalities are excluded, you are essentially communicating through a series of letters. As a result, it is inevitable that sometimes (especially when there are more than two parties involved) things get confused, some issues are not answered, and it can sometimes escalate into certain people getting a bit annoyed and refusing to back down when it's clear that all meaningful and rational discourse has degenerated into slanging and blind, unfounded argument.

I'm sure that most people on this board (particularly those involved in General Discussion) are more than capable of verbal discussion. However, some are incapable of admitting when their point has been addressed, and then quickly change the subject in a feeble bid to save face.

Having your point proven wrong doesn't make you any less of a man (or, urm, woman). Just look at people like Russ, and hitssquad - two of the most opinionated and argumentative* members on the board. However, they know when they're wrong, and they're the first to admit it. Surely that has got to be a better quality in a conversationalist than being able to get 90% in a SAT or whatever?

Grow up guys. What fun would it be if everyone was right, all the time?

/Rant.



* - for want of a better word! You know what I mean.[/size]

 

[BicycleTree]

You're right, Brewnog--the capacity to admit error is a very important trait, perhaps more important than the reliable ability to understand the other person. But you can't test for it objectively. You would somehow have to find a ratio of the number of times someone admits error in a discussion to the total number of clear errors one makes in the discussion, and calculating the second of those figures accurately requires a quite intelligent and impartial scorer.

You can test for reading comprehension, which is nearly as important. If you misunderstand 1 out of every 10 things someone says, you're not going to be able to carry on a rational discussion with that person. So, passing the self-test I propose would not necessarily mean that you are qualified for discussion, but if you don't pass it, you likely are not qualified. It seems harsh but you have to have standards.

 

[brewnog]

Sorry BicycleTree.

We don't need a test for the capacity to admit error here. When you've been here for a while, it's easy to tell which members have this capacity, and which don't. Members build up reputations, which are recognised, in time.

Any members who aren't able to converse properly are recognised as such by other members, and no amount of blind arguing is able to convince others that they're either right, or capable of holding a sensible discussion.

 

[BicycleTree]

No, that's not true. For example, you believe that Russ has that capacity, whereas I know from personal conversation with him that he sometimes does not admit error even in the simplest and most clear-cut issue of grammatical interpretation. (Why does this always come down to grammatical interpretation? I guess, in a qualitative discussion, that's the clearest-cut thing you often come across)

Now, Russ may admit error in other areas, or he may admit error selectively depending on who he is talking to. But either way, we have talked to this person and have come to two different conclusions.

Personally, I also think that hitssquad is a fairly upstanding figure in discussion. But I am aware of several incidents wherein Evo and others decided that his threads actually needed to be closed because of the manner of discussion. He and those who think like he does has had people yelling at him, misinterpreting him, etc., usually with respect to his ideas about race (not all of which I agree with, but I could see what was going on and it was not because of what he was doing). So judgments vary.


Ultimately, there is only one objective way to determine whether you are likely correctly understanding what other people have to say: find out how well you do on a standardized test of ability.

 

[Evo]

What never ceases to amaze me is that the people that need to improve their discussion skills and be able to admit when they're wrong (or not seeing clearly) and move past it, never realize it's them.

One can only hope that they will catch on. Some do, some don't.

 

[brewnog]

Ultimately, there is only one objective way to determine whether you are likely correctly understanding what other people have to say: find out how well you do on a standardized test of ability.

What's wrong with just letting people decide for themselves who they think is worth having discussions with?! I've made up my mind about most of the regulars in GD, most other people have too. A reputation can be a hard thing to gain, but it's the best thing you can have in earning the respect of others in a discussion.

If you feel you must quantify this objectively, I'm sure starting a poll along the lines of "who's the best/worst person to hold a discussion with" would yield many interesting answers. However, I feel that certain members might be surprised and upset at the outcome. Something to think about.

 

[BicycleTree]

You know, we're pretty much starting a discussion here, so before we continue, why don't both of you try that self-test? It should take you less than an hour once you get the book. Then you'll see how much you're really understanding.

I have passed it.

 

[BicycleTree]

Brewnog, a popularity poll is hardly a measure of discutative acuity. Take the self-test then get back to me.

 

[brewnog]

Brewnog, a popularity poll is hardly a measure of discutative acuity. Take the self-test then get back to me.

No.

Ask yourself why people become popular in an environment where the sole activity is discussion.

 

[BicycleTree]

Ask yourself why people become popular in an environment where the sole activity is discussion.

They form alliances and social networks that have nothing to do with discussion. The environment here is not only discussion, but also casual chat.

 

[brewnog]

They form alliances and social networks that have nothing to do with discussion. The environment here is not only discussion, but also casual chat.

No alliances are ever formed between people who are not capable of communicating effectively with one another, and respecting (if not agreeing with) points of view and opinions raised therein.

 

[Hurkyl]

Doh, brewnog beat me to it. I would say that the ability to communicate effectively is far more important than having an above average ability to figure out what people are trying to say.

This is especially true in an environment such as this when most communication is "one-shot" -- it's often not reviewed and edited by the poster, let alone by an independent source.

 

[BicycleTree]

There is a difference between understanding the amount of material required for social interaction and understanding complex arguments. Even mentally disabled people have friends.

 

[Evo]

Doesn't matter much if you understand what someone is saying if you are incapable of making yourself understood.

 

[BicycleTree]

It's not about whether you're above average or below average, it's whether you're understanding it or not. It's not a matter of percentile score, it's a matter of whether you're actually correct or not, which is a higher standard. Effective communication is impossible if the other party cannot understand what you're saying.

 

[Hurkyl]

Nor if one is unable to communicate what they are saying. If it's not about being "above average", then why are you suggesting one should score very well on a SAT test?

 

[BicycleTree]

Personally, I know that many people have difficulty understanding me. But they also have difficulty understanding clear-cut and simple grammatical situations. e.g., from my most recent discussion, that wikipedia article, and the qualifications for having access to a potential bus stop "without much trouble." Therefore, where lies the error?

 

[BicycleTree]

Hurkyl, it's not about being above average because you probably have to do much better than "above average" before you are capable of reliably understanding another person's argument. 100% is necessary for good discussion, or else the error rate must be so low that upon presentation of the error, it can be quickly resolved by the other party. Maybe 95% (and that's pushing it).

 

[Hurkyl]

Are you sure you're not reading what you meant to say, rather than what you actually said? It's very easy to do, and not just in the context of verbal communication.

 

[BicycleTree]

Aldous Huxley once estimated that only 1% of the population is fit for discussion, and I don't think he was exaggerating things.

 

[Evo]

If you're saying that no one is understanding you, then where might the problem be?

 

[brewnog]

Doesn't matter much if you understand what someone is saying if you are incapable of making yourself understood.

and...

It's not about whether you're above average or below average, it's whether you're understanding it or not.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT!

It's not a matter of percentile score

So why are you asking people to take a test to prove that they're capable of following a conversation?

 

[BicycleTree]

You're right, there is some element of my not always presenting every relevant point, but leaving some steps as implicit. But then when I realize the situation, I present the assumed steps, and still there is no understanding. People don't seem to be able to link one point to another and determine the relevation of one part to the whole. Since most of the people I am talking to would probably fail my proposed test, I don't think the presentation of the argument is the problem.

 

[BicycleTree]

It's not a matter of percentile score

So why are you asking people to take a test to prove that they're capable of following a conversation?

Now, brewnog, here is an example of what I am talking about. You misunderstand the significance of the comment "it's not a matter of percentile score." The point of that comment was that it's a matter of having perfect or near-perfect comprehension, not merely a good percentile.

I predict, on the basis of that current misunderstanding, that you would fail the proposed test.

 

[Evo]

You're right, there is some element of my not always presenting every relevant point, but leaving some steps as implicit. But then when I realize the situation, I present the assumed steps, and still there is no understanding. People don't seem to be able to link one point to another and determine the relevation of one part to the whole. Since most of the people I am talking to would probably fail my proposed test, I don't think the presentation of the argument is the problem.

I don't think anyone in this discussion would fail. I personally excelled in reading comprehension.

The problem, as I see it, is that people point out your error in thinking, then you try to switch gears and keep trying to make the same argument from a different, yet still incorrect perspective.

 

[brewnog]

To be brutally honest, BicycleTree, I think you're fighting a battle on your own here.

I'm not talking about the bus/car argument itself (because many of us share your sentiments there), but in terms of how you went about presenting your case, most people seem to be against you. I can assure you that it's nothing to do with any underground friendship networks or cliques, but because people saw that you were flitting from one statement to another, and refusing to accept overwhelming evidence against your case. If you'd been more receptive to certain peoples' comments, addressed them properly, and accepted it when you were proved wrong, you would have stood a much better chance of having your opinions taken seriously, and would have suffered less of a bruise on your reputation. In addition, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[mattmns]

Seriously what is the point of this thread? How many people are going to seriously take this test, and then if they do not meet your standards, stop discussing things with you, or others? This just seems to be a thread designed to flame a few specific members.

 

[BicycleTree]

Brewnog, why don't you go through the bus/car argument and count up all the times I have admitted error or conceded the value of an opposing point? Thinking just now, I can remember... 1 clear (and important!) admission of error and at least two important concessions to opposing points. Now how many for the others in the discussion?

 

[BicycleTree]

I don't think anyone in this discussion would fail. I personally excelled in reading comprehension.

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.

 

[brewnog]

Now, brewnog, here is an example of what I am talking about. You misunderstand the significance of the comment "it's not a matter of percentile score." The point of that comment was that it's a matter of having perfect or near-perfect comprehension, not merely a good percentile.

I predict, on the basis of that current misunderstanding, that you would fail the proposed test.

Haha, yes, very good, but you only picked up on one out of two deliferate mistales. With your perfect reading comprehension skills, I was expecting you to notice that I was also incorrect to point out the similarities between your post with Evo's (the "we have an agreement!" bit), since they weren't saying the same thing at all. Your current score is 1/2 (50%).

Anyway, that's by-the-by, but I thought it might provide some light relief.

 

[Knavish]

While I agree the passages on the SAT are a great indicator for comprehension (basically the only thing the SAT was good for; everything else could be studied), asking people to open up 10 RS is just too much. It almost seems as if underlying all this is the argument carried over from that bus thread.

And I do agree that there exist "social networks." Especially in general discussion there are a great deal of threads containing just banter (and I'm not saying that's bad), which help build relations.

 

[Evo]

I'm not talking about the bus/car argument itself (because many of us share your sentiments there), but in terms of how you went about presenting your case, most people seem to be against you.

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

Seriously what is the point of this thread? How many people are going to seriously take this test, and then if they do not meet your standards, stop discussing things with you, or others? This just seems to be a thread designed to flame a few specific members.

Yes, good point matt. I think this will closing shortly.

BT, you are a smart guy, but you are too stubborn for your own good. Listen when people talk to you, when "everyone" is "failing to understand you", maybe that's the time you need to stop and think about why that is.

Yes, if everyone took the bus that would be great, I don't remember anyone saying it wouldn't. But realistically that isn't going to happen for a number of reasons.

 

[BicycleTree]

Haha, yes, very good, but you only picked up on one out of two deliferate mistales. With your perfect reading comprehension skills, I was expecting you to notice that I was also incorrect to point out the similarities between your post with Evo's (the "we have an agreement!" bit), since they weren't saying the same thing at all. Your current score is 1/2 (50%).

Anyway, that's by-the-by, but I thought it might provide some light relief.

Well, I wondered about that, but it is also possible to see some agreement. You could have been trying to point to a link between communicating something and having other people understand it. It was unclear, but not necessarily incorrect.

 

[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.