Superman ice palaces. and the singularity of data.

Everyone seems to be putting cool pictures on their blog. This one is from the edge of a glacier near Tierra del Fuego. I think it's in Chile.

Here's another picture. It's from when I made my first Crystal Superman palace, on Lake Baikal, the biggest (holds the most water) lake in the world. Can you guess what country it's in?

These are some of the broken pieces from my first ice palace. It was destroyed by my arch-nemesis. Aahh the memories of lake Baikal... But that was in the good old days before 'Nam.

Anyway, so I'm writing a goals baselines and methods document for the Speech and Hearing Clinic where I pay money to give therapy to clients who pay money to receive therapy, and I'm reviewing the previous semester report, and I see the phrase "Data were taken..." This is the classic English teacher versus Linguist situation... Should it be "Data is/was" or "Data are/were."

The English teacher (and most SLPs, and most other people) will say the word data is plural, and the word Datum is the singular form. Since "data" is (are:) plural, then data are or were taken is the correct form, and data is or was taken would be worthy of a derisive laugh. Or haughty chuckle.

The hardcore linguist (and me) would say "NO!" The reason for this is only understandable based on a series of facts, which will be presented right now!

1st, language is arbitrary. there's nothing about the written letters B-L-U-E or the spoken word "blue" that is inherently related to the color. English speaking society communally teaches and treats the word as a meaningful symbol. It is the fact that English speakers connect the word to the color/concept that makes the written and spoken blue mean the color. If the English speaking world were to use "Shazam" for blue, then it would mean the color/concept, and would be just as valid. For example "I like the shazam ice in your awesome picture Jeff!"

2nd, all languages change over time. Olde English (Ealde Englisce in Olde English) is very different, and almost entirely unintelligible, for English speakers today. The way they spoke then worked just fine for them. The way we speak now works fine for us.

3rd, there can't be a set in stone rule that says what is correct or incorrect in a language. It is arbitrary, and it changes over time. In some other European languages, there is an official body that makes rules to govern the language. This doesn't work of course, because the language changes over time, and the governing bodies invariably mandate that the 'proper' way to use the language is the way that it was used decades ago.

4th, while there can't be a right and wrong, there can be, and there always is, higher status and lower status dialects. This is unfortunate. It's also unfortunate that the 'correct' rules to follow for the language always are, or quickly become, the rules of the higher status dialects.

5th, the purpose of language is to communicate. The purpose of language should not be to determine or enforce status differences among speakers of different dialects of a language.

6th, since no one can say what is objectively right or wrong, the only way to determine what should be used in a given case, is to use what is the most commonly used and commonly understood form. This will be the best way to successfully communicate with the largest number of people. It will change over time, and that's ok.

Finally, to get back to the data issue. I've found that by googling different forms, I can objectively see which are more common, and therefore which should be used. I googled "Data is" in quotation marks and got 70 million hits. I googled "Data are" in quotes and got 35 million hits.

Clearly, "Data is/was" is more common. The dictionaries say "data" is plural, but it is used as a singular case noun. What it is is what it is. The dictionaries are perpetuating the way it was used decades ago, and aren't accepting its newer and most common form. The dictionaries are WRONG!!!

SLPs are in an unusual neutral area between the English teachers that like to prescribe how language should be used, and Linguists that like to simply describe how language is used. The SLP, while educated in many ways similarly to a linguist, makes a job of moving people with abnormal language or speech skills into the normal language or speech skills category. I think that many SLPs naturally revert to 'English teacher prescriptionism' for the English language too much, and forget the basic theoretical principles that are fundamental to the understanding of all languages.

It is unfortunate that the prescriptionists are so well represented in the educational establishment. I think that many people conform to the old rules to avoid being looked down on by others. As an SLP, it would be hard to have my use of language criticized. But I would rather be criticized than follow empty rules. When my supervisor tells me that I should have written "Data were collected" instead of "Data was collected" in my document, I'm just going to... probably write an angry blog about it and do what she says. Come on, she's the great giver of good grades after all. And I need good grades like an American needs bottled water. :) I spent two minutes thinking of that last phrase. I like it.

Peace out y'all!

Why urine rocks!

I was just on www.sciencedaily.com and there is a research article talking about how a simple urine test may be able to diagnose autism in the future. So awesome! My fascination with the properties of urine has increased dramatically over the past four years.

On inpatient rehab, I catheterized hundreds of people. It involves a red rubber catheter tube going up the urethra into the bladder. The sphincters are thus opened, and out comes the urine. But this must be done in a clean fashion, otherwise a urinary tract infection may be caused. Urine is clean you see. Not dirty. Getting dirty stuff in the bladder is bad.

Urine has been used by many peoples to wash their hands. The reason you get diaper rash or whatever with prolonged contact on the skin is because urine is like a cleaning material. Like bleach or something.

It is still best practice, if you're ever have an open wound and no cleaning materials, to urinate on it. This will help clean the wound.

Many years ago there were no good ways to test blood sugar in diabetes patients. So how did the doctors know blood sugar levels to provide treatment? They tasted the patient's urine! It's true!

Urine has been used in gun powder, dyeing clothing, and fertilizer. Urine gets used to diagnose a lot of different diseases and conditions. Urine rocks!

My new blog...

So up until now all posts were copied from my myspace blog. What can I say, I'm following the blogging bandwagon over here. I like connecting to others' blogs, and that they can connect to mine. Maybe that can be done at myspace, but I couldn't easily see how. So here I am.

Nostradamus & 2012

Monday, November 16, 2009

Nostradamus, 2012, and the book of Revelation Current mood:flapable Category: Religion and Philosophy So I saw this show on History channel the other day, called the Nostradamus effect. Being that I'm way interested in history, the farther back the better, I thought it would be cool. Nostradamus lived some hundreds of years ago. But it's not about history. It's about predicting the future, the end of the world, you know, that kind of thing. The reason I really dislike the program is that it makes Nostradamus into some kind of prophet. I can't understand how anyone who has a good command of the facts could believe that. Nostradamus wrote quatrains. Four line segments of poetry. Supposedly, each quatrain is a prophecy of some future event. First of all, as far as I know, there is no chronology at all for his thousands of quatrains. One may deal with 10 years in the future, and the next may deal with 300 years in the future. Nothing in the quatrains, or in their order, helps to know a time period, except for his abstractions "When the bloodied sun setteth, recently unveiled from its blotted path..." The whole thing is full of abstractions and meaningless symbols. If I were to write down thousands of quatrains, using language that is specifically abstract in order to broaden the possible interpretations, and then have people read through the thousands of quatrains after any world event, looking for specific quatrains that could be viewed as predicting the event, I'd probably become famous for it. In the Nostradamus entry on wikipedia it actually goes through the books published recently supporting his 'prophetic power' and lists how each book tries to interpret events just prior to its publication as fulfilled prophesies of Nostradamus. Speaking about a couple of quatrains that supposedly predicted the World Trade Center attacks on September 11th, 2001, a critical commentator says "Where were the guys that knew about this on September 10th? They should be thrown in jail for not doing anything to stop these attacks." His sarcasm is obvious. They weren't doing anything in particular on September 10th, because they had no idea anything was going to happen. Looking at the real quatrains that are claimed to predict the Sept. 11th attacks (there are some fake ones on the internet) it is quite difficult to believe that they predict anything. In any case, even if they were real, there are no cases where anyone has actually been able to predict an unexpected future event with them. It's always ALWAYS always after the event takes place that people say that Nostradamus predicted it. Compare this to the book of Revelation. There are symbols in the book of Revelation, but they are more concrete. It is a dragon with seven heads, ten horns, and seven crowns. Not a shadowy, mystical, could mean anything and is only mentioned once thing. There is a chronology in the book of Revelaton. The next verse usually continues the theme of the previous verse. It is often obvious that they refer to the same thing. Usually what comes in the next verse can be understood to follow chronologically, or take place at the same time, as the previous verse. One may or may not understand the particular symbol in the book of Revelation, but it is clear that each symbol is part of a greater whole. With Nostradamus you don't get any of that. They say Nostradamus predicts the end of the world in 2012. The reason that he predicts the end of the world is because the Mayans predicted the end of the world (the end of a cycle of their calender) in December of 2012, and hey, Wouldn't it be cool if the Mayans, and Nostradamus, and whoever else we can think of, all were predicting the end of the world at the same time? Now lets look through the thousands of quatrains that Nostradamus wrote and find one that we can interpret to predict the end of the world in 2012. And they couldn't even do that. They found some "signs of the end" that were similar to other people's "signs of the end," including those of the book of Revelation, and said, "well, they must be talking about the same times, and since the Mayans say it's 2012, then that must be when the end time is." I realize that those that take Nostradamus seriously are a very tiny minority. It just upsets me that History Channel gives that group a bull horn. And if you do take all the 2012 and Nostradamus stuff seriously, don't tell me. It will be hard for me not to make certain unkind judgments about your intelligence.

Snooty people like me (or such as myself, as it were)

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Snooty people like me Category: Writing and Poetry Honestly, why do we feel the need to criticize others' use of language? I will now criticize others' use of language. Efficacious is just the snooty way to say effective. In most of the dictionaries, they're synonyms. So when the PhD researchers say that efficacious means something that is effective only in a laboratory or research setting where the environment is controlled, whereas the term effective itself is to be used to describe something that is effective in a real world setting, I say... no. In English, no one person or group of experts has the right to redefine words. As Edward Shannon Davis quoted "What it is is what it is." I think I've dealt with how language is learned and the social contract that is involved in a previous blog. Experts have no right to redefine words. The word 'adolescence' has a definition learned by each of us after hearing the word used in context many times throughout our lives. That is what it is. Some expert can't come and say that it's something different. And anyway, as far as I know, effective and efficacious have the same history. They come from the same root word, just through different channels. Middle English and Old French or something like that. I honestly don't think that you'll ever hear someone say "It may be efficacious, but is it effective? You might read in a research article something like "X treatment is efficacious in research studies, but its effectiveness in clinical use has not been validated." The words are always used with context, because most people need the context. And if the words have to include context to be understood by most readers, even graduate level readers, then the difference is imposed rather than accepted through common usage. (I apologize for my simplified punctuation, I'm on strike against colins, semicolins, dashes, and other rare and complex punctuation) There isn't a real need for the word efficacious when the context must be included anyway. So my feeling is that people use efficacious to sound smart. That's what it's for. To separate the brilliant intellectuals from the commoners like ourselves. Why else do we have graduate programs, if not to drop the fact of completion in everyday conversation. Are you still in school? Why yes I am. I'm studying Speech Therapy. Wow. Is that like a Masters degree? Why yes. yes it is. I bet the pay is great. Actually it's terrible, considering the years of hard labor and suffering...

Spanish in the USA

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

A quick note on the Spanish language in the USA Category: Life I just wanted to say a few things about the 'invasion' of the Spanish language in the United States. Just like every wave of non-English speaking immigrants into this country, the people that have come here will not all learn English. Almost all of those that don't will feel badly about it, but some of them are not so young, and it's hard to learn a language later in life. Guess what percentage of their children that go through the US school system will learn English? If anyone has any other numbers than 100 %, I'd like to hear their reasoning. English is not in danger. It has never been more spoken, by number of speakers, or by percentage of the world population that speak it. If every Mexican in Mexico came to the United States, leaving that country with no people left, English would still be the most spoken language in the US. It's not a loss of the English language that we should fear. Across the world, there are somewhere around 6,000 languages. This number is much smaller than the number of languages several hundred years ago. In another 50 years or so, there will be around 3,000 living languages left in the world. Here in the United States, there are around a dozen to two dozen (I think) languages of native peoples that have not been taught to the children for years. These languages will die with the elders of these groups. My experience with the children of native Spanish speakers here in the USA is that the children learn and speak English, and understand but often speak very little Spanish. Many of those that I have met are ashamed of their heritage, because they see the stereotypes as they grow up. They are not a rising and dominant generation wanting to force the Spanish language on others. While native Spanish speakers will always speak to me in Spanish whenever I speak to them in Spanish, their children will reply to my Spanish with English. My children are being raised bilingual. Islena and I speak almost all Spanish to our kids, and already they speak mostly English to us. She is sad to think that they probably won't teach Spanish to their children. It is natural for them to speak English to us, although we speak Spanish to them. Nearly everyone they know understands English, and nearly everyone but us speaks to them in English. My family, TV, local friends, in church, on the street, and in school. It's all English. To raise them bilingual we have to do all Spanish all the time, and we will have to spend some summers in Colombia. I just want to say, to those that are afraid that our English language is in crisis, that there is no reason to fear. There are others, who were raised in other languages, that will sadly not teach these languages to their children. These are the languages that are in crisis. I also think that the people that tell us to be afraid for our language in this country, for the most part, are doing it for other reasons. Some are racists, and want us to hate others, or at least to fear them. Some just want this fear to be another reason to support discriminatory policies. Just like the KKK uses incorrect arguments against African Americans, some others use language as an argument against Latinos. OK. Rant over.

Job Hopping

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Job hopping Category: Jobs, Work, Careers Several weeks ago I was updating my references for work, and there was one reference in particular that I felt good about at the time, but now don't feel so good about. It was a previous supervisor that I had. We got along well, but I really didn't like the job. There was a time when I thought that I'd never get a job (or career, for you uppity types) that I could handle. I had left several jobs because I couldn't really perform. Well, I could perform, but I felt like I wasn't really doing the world any good, and I couldn't keep myself motivated to work hard. I found myself looking for excuses to quit. I felt like maybe I was just the kind that would never have a long-term, fulfilling job. My two most recent jobs have not been like that, and now I recall a third. They are being a nurse's aide, a rehab therapy aide, and before, an English as a Second Language teacher. These have been jobs that I have really enjoyed. I could do them for the rest of my life and be happy. I haven't wanted to quit. I haven't been in any danger due to low performance. In my case, I think that it's really just that I feel like I can make a significant contribution to helping others become better. It makes me feel good. I'm sure that when I'm a speech therapist, it will be the same. And thinking about how, if I'd never found these jobs, and wasn't in school to be a speech therapist, I would probably by extremely depressed, and feel worthless as far as my usefulness. I have judged others, and I think that most of us do, based on their ability to have a successful career. People that have gone from job to job won't have the money, and will be seen as failures to some degree, by others in society. Those that have had success monetarily, or have been steadily employed over long periods, are seen as dependable. I think that some of these people that have not had success, have been like I easily could have been. Maybe it's not really some moral failing, but rather just that they've never found the kind of employment that allows them to feel successful and happy about working. What do you think?

Poverty in the USA

Originally posted by Jeff December 21st, 2008

Poverty In America
Category: News and Politics

Isn't that a great title? Sounds like a news report. Did I rip that off of something else?

I was thinking about poverty, and being poor. I've never considered myself poor, but an average annual income of $ 12,000 over the last seven years is pretty much rock bottom, or even further, for a lot of people.

So I am the face of poverty. But not really. I have never been without a roof over my head, unless I wanted tent flaps instead. I have never been hungry for lack of being able to get food. I have never been without clothes. I've had a car for all but... nope, I've had a functional car since I got my first after my mission eight years ago. I eat out with my family. More than I would like to admit. I have a phone, high speed internet, comcast cable. We see movies. I think there are a lot of people that the government considers poor, that are not really poor, by my definition.

My definition of poverty is someone that goes hungry sometimes. Someone that may not always have a roof over their head. Someone that doesn't have enough clothing to stay warm. There are people like that around us. I think that they legitimately need help! While it is true that many of them are addicted to drugs or alcohol, have significant cognitive impairments, and often have significant difficulties with behavior, I don't think that these are reasons for us not to help them. It is not for us to judge them. I don't think that we should say "he could get help if he really needed it," or "did you know that begging on the corner gets you $80,000 a year?" or "There's all kinds of help out there, he shouldn't be here." One of my favorites is "We shouldn't give them fish, we have to teach them how to fish, and then they can feed themselves." While I agree with this to some extent, Christ didn't teach people how to fish, but he did give them fish. In any case none of us take our own advice and actually 'teach them how to fish.' But this isn't the main them of my blog.

The definition of poverty that I've heard is anyone that is below 2/3 of the average annual income. So if the average income is 36,000 then anyone making under 24,000 is poor. Or if the average income was 900,000 a year, anyone making below 600,000 would be poor. Or if the average income was 6 dollars a year, anyone making under 4 dollars a year would be poor. I don't like this definition of poverty. The effect of this definition is that when the difference between the highest income earners and the lowest income earners increases, there is more poverty. When the difference decreases, there is less poverty. This is regardless of how much the lowest income earners are actually making. They may have gone from 6 dollars an hour to 18 dollars an hour, but if the rich increased by more than triple their annual income, then poverty increased. Or if the very rich start getting much reduced income, but the poor's income stays the same, they may get kicked out of the poverty bracket anyway.

I think that this is why such a majority of the 'poor' consider themselves to be middle class. In reality, the differences between the majority of them and the middle class are not huge. Maybe more debt problems, less healthcare coverage, little or no savings, and (possibly) not owning a home. The lifestyle other than this is pretty much the same. These may be significant, but the difference is nothing compared to the guy on the street begging for a place to stay the night.

Unfortunately, this view that we are considered poor not according to our needs, but according to how well we stack up with others in the community, has been internalized by many in our culture. I knew a guy that was making between 300,000 and 500,000 each year, and someone commented to him about how he was so much richer (for you rich people, read "wealthier") than the rest of us, and he said, "Oh, there are a whole lot of people that make more money than I do! I'm really not that wealthy." Regardless of how much money anyone makes, they can always look at someone else and say that they are not very rich.

My problem with this is that it is very pessimistic. I've read news article about how the poor are getting poorer in the last few decades. That's wrong! So poor we have cell phones, internet, computers, and multiple cars? This country has never been so prosperous! (pretend I wrote this two years ago:)

The other problem is that when we feel like we aren't doing so well as others, we really aren't going to be thinking about the people that are starving to death in other countries. If I consider myself poor, then I'm not going to send money down to needy people in Colombia. I need the money. Thirty bucks a month can feed one child. Is there anyone that can't afford that? On www.feedthechildren.org $10.00 a month can help feed one child. Thirty bucks can feed three.

Juvenile Punishment

From December 2nd, 2008 myspace blog posting

Juvenile Punishment (Copy of my entry in a Psychology of Adolescence online posting)
Category: Goals, Plans, Hopes

I think that these newer findings that the brain is not fully developed in adolescents don't change anything. Everyone has always known that adolescents are less mature. The fact that we can now point out exactly what areas of the brain are later developing only proves that government has been right to treat juvenile delinquents more gently. Maintenance of the status quo is also indicated by the inverse statement. These areas of the brain are partially developed. They know right from wrong. They make many correct decisions. They shouldn't be let off the hook, either.

Having a sentence that is less severe than an adult sentence is not the same as letting them off the hook. This will be their first time in detention. Away from their family and friends. Punished because of what they have done. They're not there laughing it up because they didn't get an adult sentence. I'm sure it is the biggest life crisis they have ever faced. In addition to punishments that are less severe than adults, I think that change is much more likely in the juvenile. They absolutely need rehabilitation, community service, counseling, vocational preparation, therapy, education and GED work, etc. While I think calling them first time offenders is wrong (it's the first time they were caught and successfully prosecuted), I also think that they need to know that there is hope that they can change and choose a better life. We need more of this, both for adolescents and adult "first time offenders." While the rehabilitative aspect is very important, I don't agree with removal of the normal detention punishment. It needs to remain.

Those with a history of offenses are a different issue. Those that are a danger to society fully deserve every year they get. Seeing a child rapist in the news a while ago that was a repeat offender that had been let go made me sick. I'm all for the death penalty for those that deserve it, and prison till death for those that don't. I would hope that the life in prison people would have been through the whole rehabilitative gamut and, having repeated their crimes, I don't think any more money should be spent on them.

Trying to determine all the factors that made the juvenile do what he did, and reducing his punishment according to their number and severity is impossible. You can take any juvenile, or criminal for that matter, and write a laundry list of "causes" for what he or she did. If every criminal has the list, and you think that they should all get reduced sentences because of it, the end result is an across the board shortening of sentences. That doesn't fix anything. Whether they were raised in bad neighborhoods, or had abusive parents, or were addicted to drugs, or whatever, there will always be something.

I also think that having reduced sentences for major offenses and normal sentences for minor offenses is indefensible. You can't be fully responsible for theft and less responsible for murder. It is also impossible to judge how mature a teen was, to affect choice of consequence for the crime. It may be possible to develop a fairly good test to judge this, but it wouldn't be possible to prevent a knowing youth from throwing the score. Actual brain activity scans would also not work for this, as many adult criminals may scan as teens, and my understanding is that the person being scanned is given things to think about while the scan is done to get the correct areas to light up. Again, willing cooperation is needed.

People that are in prison need to work, in my opinion. The government is paying about 50,000 a year for each one. I think they should have at least several options, but I think they need to work. Working can help a person respect themselves. It can keep them out of trouble. It can help them learn the habit of doing honest work for money. It can give them knowledge of a vocation, so they'll have an option when they get out. It would help defray the cost of their confinement. It could give them a little bit of money when they get out so they don't end up sleeping on the streets, and so they have a full stomach as they look for a job when they leave.

I think the purposes of prison need to be looked at more closely. I think that 20 years is not really a greater punishment than 10 years in prison. Once you're beyond the first several years, social ties become less significant. If the person needs to be in prison for the rest of their life, then let's put them in prison for the rest of their life. If we hope to rehabilitate them, I think many years of prison is going to have the opposite effect. They need to be punished, and I think a significant amount of solitary time is good for several reasons. It provides time to think and choose a better course. It reduces the amount of time socializing with other prisoners, and reduces the spread of criminal ideas and prison gangs. If any change is to happen, it won't take 20 years to do it. Do it fast and get them back out into the real world. For prisoners' mental health, the reduction in social time with other prisoners needs to be balanced with an increase in time doing the full range of rehabilitative activities. Let's get them back on the streets with all the tools they need for a successful life.

Too Big to fail

From my myspace blog on November 26, 2008. I'm in the process of moving the 8 or 9 postings over, so all my blog will be here now.

I'm really annoyed by the companies that are too big to fail. I agree that they are too big to fail. They need to be helped, so they don't destroy innocent areas of the economy when the fall. I also think they are too big. Let's cut them in two or three parts, and then next time, we can let them pay for their own mistakes. These companies that are too big to fail are also too big to promote market innovation, and I think there is a lot of evidence that they actually reduce innovation. They are also too big to compete fairly. When you have a large percentage of an entire market, you become a maker of rules, not a follower of rules. And it becomes extremely easy to destroy smaller competitors by making end user costs artificially low in the area of competition until the competitor is out of business, and then jack up the prices to wherever you want. I think there needs to be a percentage number of market share that a business is allowed to have, and when it is surpassed, I think the company needs to be split. I think that, whatever the percentage, when people begin to say that the company is too big to fail, the company is too big!

Of course there are issues with splitting companies. Who has the authority to split an international corporation? No one. But they do have control in their own countries. I think it's something that the UN could handle, and now is the perfect time to do it.

Some of the reasons that there are many that hate the United States in other countries involve us being the source and home of many of these faceless and inhuman corporations. I think it was one of our corporations that decided to stop working with local governments to make water treatment plants in Africa, because it was more lucrative to sell them bottled water. The people in these areas either pay more for bottled water, or they have to risk drinking untreated water. The corporation and its investors get money, the people of Africa get diseases.

God of the Gaps

From my old Myspace blog From November 25th, 2008

About eight years ago I was very interested in how science and religion interact, and I was looking at science critically. I'm not at all critical of science, though obviously some people do use science wrongly to get desired results, or make conclusions from what they can see of science without proper evidence.

I was watching NOVA and they were talking about dark energy. The theory was that the big bang created this rapid expansion, and the laws of nature that we know would dictate that this expansion would slowly decrease in velocity, eventually stopping and falling back inward towards the beginning point. What goes up must come down, after all. The evidence shows that actually there is no sign of a decreasing velocity of expansion, and there is a little bit of evidence of an increase of velocity instead. This is explained by dark energy, which is the unknown force that is causing this. I thought to myself that, call it what you will, this is something that God is doing.

As I learn more, though, I understand that the idea that God's power is manifested in this dark energy is really a misunderstanding about what God does. Things become better understood through science every day. Science is simply a system of learning through evidence what is observed and how it works. Eventually, dark energy will be understood. Just like gravity, light, relativity, DNA, atoms, etc. Would this mean that it was not God after all?

We often think of God as doing everything that we do not understand, and nothing that we do understand. This is the God of the gaps. We know that two dogs mate, and the female is inseminated, and then the puppies are born. We think that, because we understand the process, it is not God's doing. But I think that these things are God's doing. If God created all things, didn't he create the puppies? Below are some verses that have informed my understanding.

D & C 59:21 And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments.

Mosiah 4:9 Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend.

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Moses 6:63 And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.

The GRE

From October 17th 2008

I just took the GRE. It's probably the most common test for people that have finished a Bachelor's degree and are soon to be applying for grad school. It's a glorified ACT or SAT really.

Anyway, I got a 600 on the quantitative section, and a 650 on the verbal section. The Essay results have not come in yet. I was a little bit upset at myself, because I made some pacing errors as I went through the test. On the practice test I was just shy of 1400, so to have 1250 is kind of depressing. It's still above the average, but I'm sure I could have done better. Oh well.

Edit: 12/27/2010 Islena took the GRE and it didn't go very well for her. It seems obvious to me that anyone that learns English as an adult already past their school years is going to have difficulties with English over the long term. Through her result we can see that the GRE is measuring things that don't have bearing on how an individual will do in grad school. Her GPA is around 3.5 or so. She can do grad school just fine. The GRE is made to measure English through checking understanding of extremely difficult vocabulary even for native English speakers. It uses shades of meaning in archaic words that don't get used by anyone except people that want to impress others with their vocabulary. Even the math section is set up, for the most part, in story questions, where a high level of English proficiency is required, and one missed word results in an incorrect answer. It's frustrating to me that a test that doesn't measure what it wants to measure, and has been proven by ETS' own research that it isn't a good indicator of future graduate school success, gets used in about half of US universities as a measure for accepting or rejecting applicants.

This is one way in which those that conform to majority culture in terms of studying in English, growing up in families and communities where intelligence and school are top priorities, and attending schools that are more effective in teaching. There are many famous inventors and scientists from other countries that didn't speak English natively, like Albert Einstein. All of these people that didn't learn English until they were adults would bomb the GRE. All the native English speakers that ace it, would score extremely low if they had to take it in another language. Language has a huge bearing on the GRE results, but has no bearing on a person's intelligence or ability to perform at a job.