How big is your vocabulary?

[dtel]

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. []

[djk]

If you select nothing on each page it still scores you as a 20.

[dtel]

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 ? []

[DrWho]

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.

[dtel]

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 [:'(]

[Islander]

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.

[garyrc]

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.

[Groomlakearea51]

38K, but there are a number of words that I have not seen (or used... LOL) for quite some time.

[Chris A]

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?

[merkin]

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.

[garyrc]

. 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.

[sputnik]

I think some rapscallions prevaricate for self aggrandizement.

[oscarsear]

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.

[Daddy Dee]

thanks islander. that was fun.

[garyrc]

... 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

[JJkizak]

Ah jus went to the vocabulatory yesterday. Festus Hagan.

JJK

[Chris A]

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

[LHF63]

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

[gnatnoop]

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.

[merkin]

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.