There's no excuse not to know common homonyms and misspellings. A smart person who has trouble with them knows they have trouble with them, knows what they are, and knows to double check himself. If you don't do at least that, you probably aren't that bright.
We'll forgive the less common words like your "grammer".
I'm not an English native speaker. Their/they're/their also stings my eyes when incorrectly used, but I must admit that I often do the lose/loose mistake. But that's fair, whoever uses a grammar that is loose, lose.
This sounds like a social signal, not a cause-and-effect relationship. You are not establishing that some quality of being an idiot causes someone to have poor grammer, you are saying that the ought to know their grammar “just because.”
Your argument reminds me of the argument that someone ought to wear a suit and tie to work: There is no excuse for not knowing that a suit and tie is what people wear to work, and anyone who doesn’t do so is not fit to work here.
Establishing correlation without causation is a minefield, IMO, although each of us may come to different conclusions. Filtering people on the basis of correlation and not the primary attribute is discrimination. I doubt filtering a forum is illegal discrimination, but I’m uneasy about where that might lead me personally if it were my forum.
Giving a ridiculous example, at a certain time in history, correlation might have established that 90% of the people who used AOL to get onto the Internet posted idiotic things. Should all AOL users have been banned from forums? I suspect that many forums would have had a net positive benefit from such a policy, however the 10% false negatives disturb me greatly.
I would morally prefer other mechanisms for filtering the 90% out, preferably mechanisms that directly test user’s propensity to the “post idiotic things.” This is a personal view, and I can accept that others may not agree.
p.s. And then there’s the question of gathering actual data and not anecdotes. The worst way to proceed would be to claim that since we seem to remember that 90% of all idiotic comments contained grammar mistakes, there’s a 90% chance that a comment containing a grammar mistake is idiotic.
Establishing correlation without causation is a minefield, IMO...
Those who miss nuances of thought and logic are often the same folks who miss nuances of grammar. It's a skill one can learn. Using that as a membership filter would be no different than forming a programming group and restricting it to programmers.
Ah, I agree about not banning people, judging the entire group by a few (or even most) members is racism. I'm just saying that correlations are useful, and we shouldn't ignore that.
>There's no excuse not to know common homonyms and misspellings.
Would you consider dyslexia an excuse, or English as a second language? Or even semi-illiteracy? I think it's definitely possible to be very clever and still not a good speller, and not bother to double-check on an Internet forum.
Einstein was notorious as a poor speller, which suggests he didn't double-check himself.
English as a second language is not an explanation for the "your/you're" errors which are generally sheer ignorance.
Ignorance and IQ are certainly different. But IQ is generally measuring "problem solving ability", and when to use a contraction is a problem. If one is very clever, one tends to have that particular problem solved. But, whether the misuse is from inability to solve the problem, or a choice to not solve the problem ("can't be bothered"), either of those is a reasonable predictor of job performance, health, and various other life outcomes.
On "Einstein was notorious as a poor speller" – after moving to the US, Einstein became completely bilingual but could never recall how to spell words correctly in both German and English. This is not the same issue as when to use a contraction, and isn't the same as "not bothering".
The ESL student learns, understands the theory of, and tends to be careful with contractions. ESL errors look and sound quite different than most of these errors encountered online.
The illiterate "I'm too cool for your TL;DR grammar-nazi wall-of-text" types have failed to prime they're Baysian neural networks by reading or doing homework, and generally have no idea their "doing it wrong".
> The illiterate "I'm too cool for your TL;DR grammar-nazi wall-of-text" types have failed to prime they're Baysian neural networks by reading or doing homework, and generally have no idea their "doing it wrong".
Some good points towards using the Captcha, but I'm still not convinced that "there's no excuse not to know common homonyms and misspellings".
As far as using common homonyms and misspellings as predictors of "job performance, health, and various other life outcomes", well, I'm not quite sure that's reasonable. For example, xd's comment below:
has an error in it "Too many people will spill there emotions" but I don't think it's reasonable to predict too much based on that. There's several reasons these errors are common, not just inability or indolence.
There's often a slip between mind and the keyboard - I know I often simply type the wrong thing even when I know full well what the correct thing is. Muscle memory or something.
Edit: 'their "doing it wrong"'. Ah yes, very good :)
We'll forgive the less common words like your "grammer".