Moderators dtel Posted February 17, 2012 Moderators Share Posted February 17, 2012 Vocabulary ? [:S] It didn't let me finish, it does not believe I actually went to school at all, it asked me to not waste their time. [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djk Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 If you select nothing on each page it still scores you as a 20. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted February 17, 2012 Moderators Share Posted February 17, 2012 If you select nothing on each page it still scores you as a 20. [] I guess they figure if you can't get past the instructions why bother ? [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I'm curious what study was done to correlate knowledge of this subset of words to knowledge of tens of thousands of words....the only way I know how to do that would be to have people click through the entire dictionary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted February 18, 2012 Moderators Share Posted February 18, 2012 I'm curious what study was done to correlate knowledge of this subset of words to knowledge of tens of thousands of words....the only way I know how to do that would be to have people click through the entire dictionary. Good question, probably just subsets of words they "think" are related to different education levels all thrown together, then just stick a percentage of all the rest of the words to each group for a good shot in the dark survey ? [:|] I would like to bring the people who thought this up to South Louisiana, just to see there expressions as they learn some new words somewhere between French, English, Spanish and Creole with a coonass accent ! To me the real problem is the instructions, there is alot of play here, there are many I think I know, but "exactly sure of" tends to make me question if I would actually use the word as a dictionary would explain it's definition. "(Don't check boxes for words you know you've seen before, but whose meaning you aren't exactly sure of.)" Exactly sure of..[:#]..............I can't take the pressure I give up [:'(] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islander Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 I got 36,000. Some of those words were pretty obscure. I'm not sure where they'd come up in conversation. I liked doing the quiz, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I'm curious what study was done to correlate knowledge of this subset of words to knowledge of tens of thousands of words....the only way I know how to do that would be to have people click through the entire dictionary. I have some background in the field of tests and testing and I can say that if they did it right -- and that's a big "if" -- they did it empirically, and they would be obligated to write-up how it was done in a manual or article. They did do something like that (found in "About" then "Nitty-gritty"), and they think that it is highly probable that it's the equivalent of clicking through the entire dictionary, as Dr. Who put it. I have my doubts. We would have to know a lot more about their dictionary with frequency ranked words. If that dictionary's method of ranking words is not highly defensible, then they are cooked, IMO. Also, social and behavioral scientists are discouraged from using statements like the following, and it is borderline unethical for a psychologist to speak this way: "The site provides accurate results for virtually everyone." Related: In general, the process of validation is extraordinarily expensive, so it is unlikely that any test being offered for free on the Internet was evaluated with good reliability and validity studies, which is one of the very worst things about Internet tests. Even quite a few professionally used tests that contain vocabulary sections don't pass muster in this regard. Mental Measurements Yearbook usually asks 2 to 4 experts of high repute to review each test (tests available for free are not included, partly to whittle down the number, but partly because there is almost no chance of them having being adequately assessed for reliability and validity, due to expense). MMYB reviewers will look the several kinds of reliability and validity coefficients the test's authors have reported, and will evaluate how these figures were obtained. Sometimes a test's authors don't bother to conduct these studies in a proper manner. Here are a couple of near quotes -- as I remember them -- from negative reviews of one of the tests most often used in the schools, particularly private schools in the '80s and '90s, and still used by some: "The method for determining the reliability of this test is known only to the test's creators and God, and even God might have some questions." When the test was revised and re-marketed several years later a MMYB reviewer of the revised version said something like: "The more this test changes, the more it stays the same -- the authors simply have not done their homework." I should point out that some test authors and vendors do do their homework, but the coefficients (essentially correlations) are very rarely as high as I'd like to see them. Creating an adequate test is not easy or cheap. What about tests that are relatively legitimate commercially available ones (sold only to users who meet the appropriate one of the three levels of professional qualifications), that somehow end up being used by unqualified people, or somehow end up on the Internet? 1) Very few of the tests on the Internet fall into this category 2) Anyone in the chain of custody could be sued or conceivably prosecuted, and if a professional, punished for violation of ethics. There was a famous case in about 2005 of an outdated aptitude test that somehow fell into the hands of a football coach (not surprisingly, he was not a qualified user) who was using it to screen players. The test included vocabulary and math. One of the items on the test involved finding a cube root. Granted, it was an easy cube root, but the player, his lawyers, and the press wondered how often it would be necessary to find a cube root in the game of football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groomlakearea51 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 38K, but there are a number of words that I have not seen (or used... LOL) for quite some time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 The point of the test is trivial at best: fully 50% of the words in the English language have been invented since 1950. I'm guessing that most of those added neologisms aren't literary in nature. Who's measuring mastery of those? Note that this test isn't quite measuring memorization at level 1 on Bloom's taxonomy - and many people don''t honestly answer the questions. I don't fault someone here for not knowing classical music canon--even though my mother achieved her masters in Musicology when I was in junior high school, and I was expected to know this information domain well growing up. But the folks constructing these sort of tests (like those constructing the SAT) ARE faulting every high school junior/senior for not knowing archaic literary words not being used today--by the test makers' own admission. Tests such as SAT and even the GRE and LSAT still don't measure mathematical ability as far as calculus, which results in measurement of a distorted reality, unfortunately. Even economics and business majors today must now master higher mathematics than the tests mentioned above plus now an enormous body of science and technical language, subjects which they actually need. Turning again to William F. Buckley, Jr...who was a master at using obscure words to throw folks off the argument. WFB's talents were entertaining especially his use of rhetoric peppered with obscure words in drawing "liberals" freely into debate. Few of the folks involved could resist showing off their ignorance in process of feeding their vanity--on both sides of the debate. But I think the dialogue that ensued during debate was useful--to highlight what they didn't know and that invariably was a lot-- enough to invalidate entire arguments on both sides of the debate. I once saw a video clip of Buckley debating Noam Chomsky. This was an eye opener especially for the person (Chomsky) that basically invented modern language theory foundational to computer science, cryptology, and computational linguistics. But I wouldn't trust either of these guys' world views as far as I could throw them after that high-power debate. Chris P.S. What's the name of the capital of each of the 50 U.S. states? Don't know? You must have a low IQ then, right? But then explain the concept "cloud computing" in 25 words or less. Which knowledge is more important? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkin Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Pretty much BS. Of course BS wan't included in the words. The subset of words that they use doesn't cover range of knowledge or fields of study. Also picking about 100 words and if you happen to know about 30 that are not in normal use for the average person you can predict how many you know total? I find the design of the test very flawed. Too many unknowns and variables. Had my wife take it and I know her vocabulary has to be higher than their average and she fell out of the range. I fell out of the range also. She is a physician that plays lots of word games and reads a ton of fiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 . But the folks constructing these sort of tests (like those constructing the SAT) ARE faulting every high school junior/senior for not knowing archaic literary words not being used today--by the test makers' own admission. I agree that test authors could do a much better job.Some test creators have eliminated some archaic words on the grounds that they are too middle/upper class, or that they are too "white." For instance, the word "homunculus" was taken off the Stanford Binet. One the other hand, one ridiculously infrequent word snuck onto the WISC III (for children), but since that word has been used so often recently in regard to Congress, I'll bet it is not on the new version. Taking IQ tests as an example, contrary to the commonly held belief, the major IQ tests are not exclusively devoted to "problem solving" -- the verbal section usually has items testing general information and a vocabulary test. The sections of an IQ test are intended to measure how much knowledge and what skills -- including skills in problem solving -- the person has "picked up" in living life (including some schooling). There is an assumption of equal exposure. This assumption should eliminate both archaic literary words and calculus. Those two areas can be measured by using other tests. Some tests were created just to show the effect of selection bias, such as The Chitlin Test or the ***** test. [having run into the Klipsch censor, I'll say that the latter is a test of Black Intelligence, and has a word sometimes used to denote a female dog as its title]. They include information items and vocabulary items. African Americans, as a group, score higher on both of these tests than do whites. There are many attempts to eliminate bias, such as the SOMPA battery and the KABC, but we have a ways to go. On the GRE level, for people going into math, physical science ("pure" or applied) and the like, additional testing, such as the ETS area tests perhaps should be required. The trouble with including higher math (for example) in either the general SAT or GRE is there is nothing like equal exposure in the years before the test. I functioned as a TA, tutor, and finally lecturer/instructor in Behavioral and Social Science Statistics, Research Design, and the like, and found that the vast majority of undergraduates in Behavioral/Social Science, Counseling, Nursing, and Public Administration had not had any higher math except first and second year algebra, and a year of geometry. My friends in the Cinema, Music, English and Creative Writing departments had the same experience. Graduate students in Clinical Psychology and Counseling don't have any more math, as a rule (although we had two students from MIT who had had plenty) ... some Clinical Psy.D. and Ph.D. programs require an advanced stat course, and courses in testing and assessment that have a little math, but no calculus and nothing "higher" or more esoteric.. For all of the aforementioned types of students, I confess I wouldn't want to see their more relevant course work displaced in order to get more higher math. I guess online brief courses are available to them if they are interested. It would be great if they could be exposed to a little of the beauty of math without taking courses, but this would be unlikely to be considered equal exposure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sputnik Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I think some rapscallions prevaricate for self aggrandizement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsear Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 What I found interesting here was the qualifying nature of the questions that accompany the word roster. Does it rate a person differently if the same words are chosen but they read less often, or more often, from fiction or non fiction? And linguistically what does volume truly mean anyway? It is the music of how the words are deployed that renders their poetry, emotive or scientific impact. Still some authors are hugely interesting to read. Find the book "Three Wogs" by Theroux for some very entertaining olde english. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy Dee Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 thanks islander. that was fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 ... And linguistically what does volume truly mean anyway? It is the music of how the words are deployed that renders their poetry, emotive or scientific impact... In general, test authors look at vocabulary because: There is a significant correlation between number of words "picked up" as a person develops and success in many academic pursuits It was thought that testing vocabulary was an easy task. It turned out to be a little more difficult than anticipated because .... Selecting the words on a frequency basis is laborious, and the making the word set fair is even harder. The words should be ones that are exposed equally to all of the income and ethnic groups being tested (which is very hard as you get up into the infrequent words), OR there should be several different word sets for different groups (rarely done --what about people who have had significant influences from parents of two different ethnic groups, etc.). It would be great to look at "the music of how the words are deployed," but difficult in a testing situation. There is a strong case to be made for just exposing people to as much good writing as possible, and letting it "rub off," while giving them little hints, like Strunk & White's "Make every word tell." Testing would be demphasized, except for using tests as a diagnostic way to see how to be helpful to individual students. My bias is that the range of academic ability, intelligence and other verbal or mathematical aptitudes is a lot narrower than we think, and if we only pleasantly immersed people in "the music of how words are deployed," the beauty of mathematics, and the awe and wonder that can be generated by deep exposure to virtually any field, we wouldn't need the SAT, the GRE, or any other gate keeping test. Of course then we would have to admit students by lottery, unless the public finally decides that education is a good investment. By the way, Chinese candidates for office in the 13th through about the 18th century had to demonstrate their ability to write poetry and essays. They were shut up in private cells to write -- no speech writers allowed. At various times they also tested for math and technical skills -- as well as the ability to write -- for job placement. The Chinese tradition of testing went back to about one and one-half millennia before the 500 years of screening politicians mentioned above.. A good article is "A Test Dominated Society: China, 1,115 B.C. to 1905 A.D.," by DuBois Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Ah jus went to the vocabulatory yesterday. Festus Hagan. JJK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 By the way, Chinese candidates for office in the 13th through about the 18th century had to demonstrate their ability to write poetry and essays. They were shut up in private cells to write -- no speech writers allowed. At various times they also tested for math and technical skills -- as well as the ability to write -- for job placement. The Chinese tradition of testing went back to about one and one-half millennia before the 500 years of screening politicians mentioned above.. A good article is "A Test Dominated Society: China, 1,115 B.C. to 1905 A.D.," by DuBois This is an appealing idea. [] I'd like a "systems thinking" approach to replace rhetoric and polarized sanguine/cynical biploar political dialogues. Meritocracy is difficult to achieve but it pays off as long as it doesn't deviate into "ideologically aligned meritocracy".Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LHF63 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Meritocracy is difficult to achieve but it pays off as long as it doesn't deviate into "ideologically aligned meritocracy". Correction. Meritocracy is impossible to achieve because all possible criteria are by definition "ideologically aligned". [] Lou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnatnoop Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 How big is my what? Seriously, how many people actually have a vocabulary at home, most of us use the public vocabulary, they're free and now have internet pods in addition to all the books. [] I thought the test was sneakier that it was, i thought it would intentionally misspell some of the words and deduct if you included that in your known universe. I didn't click words i knew but thought were spelled incorrectly. 28,000 words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkin Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 It took me a long time to look up all those words. I had to open another browser and google them all. Then I knew their definitions. A true mark of intelligence is know how to use your resources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.