In Part One, I examined Michelle Obama's college thesis. I found that she appears to have been an angry, irrational and possibly dangerous person. I also found that it's hard to believe she would've had the intelligence level required to graduate from law school, much less get accepted into law school.
While reviewing the logic behind her thesis' arguments, I began to mark her grammar and punctuation. It was my intention to publish her grammatical errors at the conclusion of my review.
However, her grammatical errors are so numerous that I've decided it's not worthwhile to record and correct them all. The list of errors that I have compiled is very numerous, considering they were made on a short space of only five pages (pages 12 to 16).
Just imagine how many errors Michelle has likely made on pages 17 to 243! It would be a lengthy task to record and correct her errors!
Just imagine how many errors Michelle has likely made on pages 17 to 243! It would be a lengthy task to record and correct her errors!
Now, I realize that people, including myself, don't always use proper grammar in everyday speech and writing. However, when it comes to college writing assignments, especially a thesis, it is fair to assume that her grammar was very likely being marked!
So, let's see what I found!
GRAMMATICAL AND OTHER ERRORS
1) About the alumni respondents, Michelle writes:
"...the extent to which they are motivated to benefit the Black community in comparison to other entities such as themselves, their families, God, etc...."
This sentence is not well written. Michelle's intent could be either of the following:
"...the extent to which they are motivated to benefit the Black community in comparison to other entities such as themselves, their families, God, etc...."
This sentence is not well written. Michelle's intent could be either of the following:
a) The extent to which the alumni are motivated to benefit the Black community vs the extent to which other entities are motivated to benefit the Black community.
b) The extent to which the alumni are motivated to benefit the Black community vs the extent to which the alumni are motivated to benefit other entities.
Grammatically, Michelle's sentence is horrible. It's likely Michelle's intent was b). Sentence a) wouldn't have made sense given her use of the word "themselves". However, that doesn't negate her grammatical error.
2) About the alumni respondents, Michelle writes:
"...and feelings they have toward the Black lower class such as a feeling of obligation that they should help improve the lives of this particular group of Blacks"
"...and feelings they have toward the Black lower class such as a feeling of obligation that they should help improve the lives of this particular group of Blacks"
There should be a comma after "class". Although this error is not serious enough to eliminate the obviousness of her sentence's intent, the absence of the comma results in the sentence being far too wordy to be devoid of a break.
3) "...as more Blacks begin attending predominantly White universities it will be helpful to know how their experiences in these universities affect their future attitudes".
This should read "As greater numbers of Blacks..."
"More blacks" is an incorrect term. "More" can refer to greater volume or mass, not just greater numbers. Here's an example: "There was more water spilled on the table".
4) "In years to come if their attitudes do change, is it possible..."
One improvement would be to place a comma after "come".
However, the best improvement would be to change the sentence to appear as:
"If their attitudes do change in years to come, is it possible..."
However, the best improvement would be to change the sentence to appear as:
"If their attitudes do change in years to come, is it possible..."
5) "If there is a change in their attitudes to what might it be attributed?"
One improvement would be to place a comma after "attitudes".
However, the best improvement would be to change the sentence to appear as:
"To what might we attribute a change in their attitudes?"
However, the best improvement would be to change the sentence to appear as:
"To what might we attribute a change in their attitudes?"
6) "Will they feel any obligation as a member of the Black community to help other Blacks in particular who are less fortunate than themselves?"
This sentence contains multiple errors. It should appear as:
"As a member of the Black community, will they feel any obligation to help other Blacks who are less fortunate than themselves?"
There is no need to use "in particular", since less fortunate blacks are already being singled out! If you take "in particular" out of the sentence, it doesn't detract from the understanding of the sentence at all!
"As a member of the Black community, will they feel any obligation to help other Blacks who are less fortunate than themselves?"
There is no need to use "in particular", since less fortunate blacks are already being singled out! If you take "in particular" out of the sentence, it doesn't detract from the understanding of the sentence at all!
7) "I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded..."
This should appear as:
"At Princeton, I have found that no matter how liberal and open-minded..."
"At Princeton, I have found that no matter how liberal and open-minded..."
8) "Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with Whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be Black first and a student second".
This should appear as:
"Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with Whites at Princeton, it often seems as if they will always consider me to be Black first and a student second".
"Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with Whites at Princeton, it often seems as if they will always consider me to be Black first and a student second".
9) "These experiences have made it apparent to me that the path I have chosen to follow by attending Princeton will likely lead to my further integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society..."
There are multiple errors in the sentence, and it is far too long of a sentence to be devoid of a break. This should appear as:
"These experiences have made it apparent to me that my choice to attend Princeton will likely lead to my further integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure; one that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society..."
10) "This realization has presently, made my goals to actively utilize my resources to benefit the Black community more desirable. "
This should appear as:
"This realization has increased the desirability of my goal: to actively utilize my resources to benefit the Black community".
There is no need to use the word "presently". After all, isn't it assumed that her beliefs are her present beliefs, unless otherwise stated?
Also, she incorrectly uses the plural of "goal".
That sums it up for the grammatical errors found among pages 12 to 16 (well, the start of page 16). If I become motivated enough someday, perhaps I'll document the errors among pages 16 to 243!
Does Michelle Obama seem like a person intelligent enough to gain entrance to, and graduate from, law school?
"These experiences have made it apparent to me that my choice to attend Princeton will likely lead to my further integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure; one that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society..."
10) "This realization has presently, made my goals to actively utilize my resources to benefit the Black community more desirable. "
This should appear as:
"This realization has increased the desirability of my goal: to actively utilize my resources to benefit the Black community".
There is no need to use the word "presently". After all, isn't it assumed that her beliefs are her present beliefs, unless otherwise stated?
Also, she incorrectly uses the plural of "goal".
That sums it up for the grammatical errors found among pages 12 to 16 (well, the start of page 16). If I become motivated enough someday, perhaps I'll document the errors among pages 16 to 243!
Does Michelle Obama seem like a person intelligent enough to gain entrance to, and graduate from, law school?
Listen, the reason I stopped arguing with you on "Liberal 'logic'" is that I was really unimpressed by you. You organization is terrible (paragraphs should be more than a sentence); you frequently write unnecessary information ("Your final paragraph seems to be a summary with no new information or questions for me, so I don't need to address that"); and your writing, frankly, is really bad. And I find it unbelievably bizarre that you would criticize another's grammar and style, not only because your's sucks, but because you explicitly rule it out as a test of intelligence on your contest rules page.
ReplyDeleteAnd your list doesn't contain terrible errors (certainly, Obama's writing is better than some of the stuff you've written on here). In fact, items 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 contain NO grammar errors; the "fixes" you suggest merely rewrite the same thing - or in the case of number 3 - make the sentence more awkward. The rest of this list it is nitpicky. Honestly, you're hung up on "presently"? I mean, you completely missed the real problem: she uses way too much passive voice.
Theses are often filled with errors. They're a student's first publication, and they're usually hacked apart, redacted, and changed dramatically so many times that easy errors, like a misplaced comma, are missed even after successive proofing. Nobody really cares about those errors, certainly not the defense committee, who are far more interested in the content of her work and coherence of her argument. Maybe you should contact her advisor if you have a real problem.
But in the meantime, you might consider correcting these awkward sentences:
"So, when I hear these contradictory arguments coming from the same groups of people, I tend to think that they actually don't believe what they are saying, because they tend to contradict themselves!"
Better: I tend to think people who contradict themselves don't believe what they are saying.
"Looking at both examples I gave, what's a common denominator that could account for why they contradict themselves?"
Your examples contradict themselves?
"That can cause frustration and aggression, and also, when you tempt someone like that, someone who may be a virgin, and tell them they may finally get women in heaven, there's the incentive for a terrorists."
Run-on.
"For you to claim that I am agreeing that your argument is logical, you'd have to limit the argument being examined instead to arguments that were less broad than the arguments I actually WAS referring to."
What?
I'm not trying to be mean - seriously - but it's unclear that you even understand the difference between grammar, style, and mechanics. I would normally let this go, but you ought to be held the same standards you hold others. You too went to a good university (or so you claim), so your bad writing should be inexcusable by your standard. Go correct your contest rules. Then read The Elements of Style.
Reader 105,
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"You organization is terrible (paragraphs should be more than a sentence)"
Did you ever think that perhaps I wrote a short paragraph in order to emphasis something? My articles are about getting my point across, grammar and rules are not nearly the most important consideration of mine.
You write:
"And I find it unbelievably bizarre that you would criticize another's grammar and style, not only because your's sucks, but because you explicitly rule it out as a test of intelligence on your contest rules page. "
Why would you find that bizarre? I'm not being marked on grammar, so why would I put as much of an emphasis on it as Michelle with her thesis?
And what's bizarre about ruling out grammatical errors during the contest? The whole idea of the contest is the idea of challenging oneself to outsmart me. Marking grammar would be very tedious, and grammatical ability certainly isn't as good of a measure of intelligence as logical ability is. In fact, some countries don't even teach grammar within their curriculum.
You write:
"you frequently write unnecessary information ("Your final paragraph seems to be a summary with no new information or questions for me, so I don't need to address that"); "
Perhaps you don't have the intelligence required to realize why the information actually IS useful. Regarding the example you provided, I had good reason to explain why I wasn't going to respond to your paragraph: b/c I respond to all, or almost all points made by readers; by avoiding a response to one paragraph, it could imply that I had no good answer I could make.
As I mentioned in my article, I do make grammatical errors myself.
I have the ability to locate and correct these errors, yet I don't have enough of an incentive to always do so.
I think that my ability should be clear to you, given the numerous faults I was able to discern within the thesis.
I am not being paid for writing these articles. That's a disincentive to be grammatically accurate.
Most importantly, I'm grammatically accurate enough to the point that readers are able to understand my point. There is no need to go beyond that.
If I was writing a thesis and being marked on it, there WOULD be an incentive to correct my grammar.
Grammar refers to the structural rules governing a sentence. People often refer to punctuation when discussing grammar, regardless of whether punctuation is literally considered an aspect of grammar.
You claim that you don't understand the following sentence of mine:
"For you to claim that I am agreeing that your argument is logical, you'd have to limit the argument being examined instead to arguments that were less broad than the arguments I actually WAS referring to."
Yes, the sentence is complex. Perhaps you aren't intelligent enough to understand it.
I will deal with your bad English in a later post, but you said stuff that needs to be met head-on.
ReplyDelete1. Specifically, this:
"Marking grammar would be very tedious, and grammatical ability certainly isn't as good of a measure of intelligence as logical ability is. In fact, some countries don't even teach grammar within their curriculum."
doesn't agree with this,
"Does Michelle Obama seem like a person intelligent enough to gain entrance to, and graduate from, law school?"
nor this,
"I also found that it's hard to believe she would've had the intelligence level required to graduate from law school, much less get accepted into law school."
2. When you consider your first quote, WHAT THE HELL was the point of this blog post?
You got some 'splain'n to do!
ps. Not that I really care, but there's no way that "some countries don't even teach grammar within their curriculum" is true. Please, which countries do this?
Jordan,
ReplyDeleteyour arguments are bizarre.
I didn't say that intelligence wasn't related to grammatical ability. I simply said that grammatical ability isn't AS GOOD OF a measure of intelligence as logical ability. Therefore, everything else being equal, one's grammatical ability DOES tend to be reflective of one's intelligence. People don't always bother to demonstrate their grammatical ability, but when it comes to work that is being marked on grammar, the liklihood is that they WOULD tend to attempt to improve their grammar.
I know some Canadians. They have confirmed to me that they were never taught grammar in school (it was not part of the English curriculum).
btw, it's "poor grammar", not "bad grammar". How can grammar be bad? It's not evil or good-it's neutral. lol
You might be a troll.
ReplyDeleteBut if not: Both "bad grammar" and "poor grammar" are correct. You could have easily looked that up before posting.
Your Canadian friends are wrong. Although you (and most other Americans) definitely exhibit BAD grammar, you can't learn to speak a language without necessarily learning some grammar. Also, how do you go from a few friends telling you that they did not learn grammar to "some countries don't even teach grammar within their curriculum"? Do your friends represent the entire country of Canada? I won't find ONE public school in Canada that includes grammar in its curriculum? And "some countries" means more than one - name the other countries, please.
The only reason you said that logic ability is a better test than grammar ability is because someone turned the criticism on you. The end of this blog post makes clear that you were mounting an argument against Obama specifically using what you perceived as her bad writing.
This isn't really hard to follow, so open your brain for a second: If your contest doesn't consider pointing out grammar errors as a means to prove the unintelligence of an opponent, what about this post makes it suddenly admissible? Why aren't you a hypocrite? Furthermore, don't you think her advisor and theses board might agree with you somewhat -- that they're more interested in discussing her argument than highlighting mechanical errors? (Like I said earlier, the reason those "errors" weren't marked is because they were either not serious or NOT ERRORS.)
Finally, your incentive to use good grammar is that you claim to be hyper-intelligent and, apparently, to be expert enough to criticize the grammar of others. Good writing allows you to articulate your points more clearly. This, for example, is gobbledygook:
"For you to claim that I am agreeing that your argument is logical, you'd have to limit the argument being examined instead to arguments that were less broad than the arguments I actually WAS referring to."
You were saying: "I agree that a component of your argument is logical."
But you said it in the worse way possible. Sure, after rereading some passages a few times, your grammar is good enough to understand. But most five year olds have good enough English skills to understand. The point is that good writing skills aren't something you entirely switch-off (when not paid) anymore than good logic skills. I find it hard to believe that you exhibit bad grammar only because you are disincentivized. A better explanation is that having a high IQ doesn't immediately make you a good writer; it's a skill, and that you "don't always bother to demonstrate your ability" is because you require practice.
Jordan,
ReplyDeleteyou keep avoiding the aspects of my argument you can't counter. Yet, I keep responding to all of your points!
You write:
"Both "bad grammar" and "poor grammar" are correct."
Really? Prove it to me. I've already givena plausuble explanation of the problem with using "bad".
I will go even further. By you saying "bad grammar", that's like saying "less people". People aren't something you can measure in terms of volume! The correct term is "fewer people"!
You write:
"Your Canadian friends are wrong."
How dare you make such a statement with no evidence! They were in Canadian schools and they did not specifically have grammar as part of the curriculum. Sure, you'd learn a bit of grammar if the teacher HAPPENED to use good grammar (debatable) in her sentences, but there was nothing taught to them about how to use grammar properly. Period. I'm sure this will be supported by evidence if you choose to research this.
As for Canada as a whole...perhaps not all Canadian regions had the same curriculum, but my original point was simply that not all regions teach grammar, in order to counter your lie:
"You too went to a good university (or so you claim), so your bad writing should be inexcusable by your standard."
You made a claim not even knowing whether grammar was an aspect of the curriculum! That's the sign of a simple mind, you aren't able to think of possible explanations other than yours.
As for whether there are any other countries that don't teach grammar. I don't know. I was incorrect to use the plural of countries. Big deal. My point remained correct: that NOT ALL countries teach grammar, whether that be one or more countries.
You write:
"The only reason you said that logic ability is a better test than grammar ability is because someone turned the criticism on you. The end of this blog post makes clear that you were mounting an argument against Obama specifically using what you perceived as her bad writing. "
What do you have to prove that I made that claim for only that reason? Nothing. WHat I DO have in support of my argument is common sense: Logical ability IS a better test because logic involve more aspects of G, which scientists describe as the best measure of intelligence. Grammar CANNOT, by definition, be as good of a measure of intelligence because it's not even taught everywhere, and therefore people can't be compared based on something they don't have equal exposure to!
The end of my blog post related grammatical ability and intelligence because 1) it's taught in the USA, where Obama studied and 2)where it IS studied, someone more intelligent will tend to have better grammatical ability!
You write:
"If your contest doesn't consider pointing out grammar errors as a means to prove the unintelligence of an opponent, what about this post makes it suddenly admissible? "
Are you a complete moron? Why would I mark grammatical errors in the contest, considering that some respondents were educated in places that don't teach grammar?
Why would I mark it, considering it's too time consuming to do so, and time consuming for one to use good grammar? Logical ability is much better. Even if it wasn't, I can chose whatever criteria I want. The criteria was to "outsmart me". That's logical ability, not so much grammar. Also, I don't think as many people would have bothered to respond had they had to worry about grammar! THINK! It's a contest, i want people to RESPOND!
You write:
ReplyDelete"Furthermore, don't you think her advisor and theses board might agree with you somewhat -- that they're more interested in discussing her argument than highlighting mechanical errors?"
I never disagreed that they might be more interested in her argument! However, that doesn't mean they wouldn't mark her grammar! It doesn't mean she wouldn't have any incentive at all to use proper grammar!
In order to show that she may not be that intelligent, I don't need to show that grammatical ability was the MAIN factor regarding her marks...i just need to show that it was a RELEVANT factor. Intelligence involves memory, and that alone would mean that a more intelligent person is more likely to remember how to use proper grammar.
You write:
"Finally, your incentive to use good grammar is that you claim to be hyper-intelligent and, apparently, to be expert enough to criticize the grammar of others."
I never said that an incentive to use good grammar was hyper intelligence! How bizarre. Where did I say that?
You write:
"'"For you to claim that I am agreeing that your argument is logical, you'd have to limit the argument being examined instead to arguments that were less broad than the arguments I actually WAS referring to.'
You were saying: 'I agree that a component of your argument is logical.'"
"I agree?"
OMG! Are you a moron? I was writing about SOMEONE ELSE's claim about someone elses' arguments! Not MY claim about someone's argument!
You are a complete fool!
This is basically what my comment meant:
"I don't agree that someone elses' argument is logical, UNLESS one more narrowly defines my broad definitions."
That is completely different from your bizarre interpretation:
"I agree that a component of your argument is logical."
LOL
First, I never used the word "agree" at all.
Second, I never said that a "component" of the other person's argument was logical at all!
I said their argument was NOT LOGICAL AT ALL, and IT COULD CHANGE TO BECOME LOGICAL by changing the definitions entirely from broad to narrow ones!
I never said anything about components!
If you say "dogs are smart" and then say "rottweilers are smart", there are NOT the same arguemnt! One is NOT a component of the other! They are two different arguments!
You write:
"A better explanation is that having a high IQ doesn't immediately make you a good writer; it's a skill..."
Did I ever disagree with this? No. So why do you make the claim? But the greater one's IQ, the greater the likelihood one will use proper grammar!
Jordan, if you continue to avoid responding to my points directly and refuse to quote each of my points before replying, I will ban your posts.
If you respond to each of my points by quoting them first, then I will allow you to respond.
I suspect you are avoiding quotation of each of my points because their inclusion will result in their contrast with your points, a contrast that will show you to be foolish, as I do above!