Sarah Palin's Emails Written At 8th Grade Level -- Better Than Some CEOs

First off this test is really garbage. Language is kinetic, not standard. We like to pretend that English is scared, or at least those of us with college degrees. This is simply not true though. Language is always changing so in this case I give the benefit of the doubt to Palin. Normally I speak against her but in this case I will defend her. She is able to get a clear and concise message out. This is the key, you can understand her. Context is the most important thing, some users here could take a lesson in this. (Oh, you know who I mean don't you good buddy?)

The constant knock on Palin is not her ability to speak though. It is often when quick thinking is needed (also known as a "gotcha" question) she gets caught up. She is unable to react quickly enough with her words to formulate a correct response when the pressure is on. Then to further complicate this problem she pretends that she is correct even when wrong.

This is not really that big of a deal and I have no doubt she has the capacity for intelligence. I just feel she is far too often wrong and relies on tag lines a little much. Everything about her seems packaged.

Originally posted by neo96
same old leftist tune.

they get hung up on syntax and grammar and not the content of what she said.

anything to marginalize people they dont agree with attack and marginalize right out of saul alinksys playbook.

i find it hilarious when people attack palins intelligence all i have to say is two words: nancy "we have to pass the bill before we know whats in it" pelosi.

for crying outloud the same old leftist" i'm smarter than you" crap when they arent.

Right, a representative should never worry about these things...I guess the Paul Revere history re-write will be chock full of 8th grade syntax and grammar.

reply to post by LexiconRiot

The constant knock on Palin is not her ability to speak though. It is often when quick thinking is needed (also known as a "gotcha" question) she gets caught up. She is unable to react quickly enough with her words to formulate a correct response when the pressure is on. Then to further complicate this problem she pretends that she is correct even when wrong.

Yes, but how important is that, really? Give me an instance where being able to fire off a snappy retort means anything other than for the entertainment value. This isn't a game of Jeopardy, after all.

Major decisions in office are never the result of a snap judgement. They are always the product of careful thought and analysis -- at least we hope they are.

This is not really that big of a deal and I have no doubt she has the capacity for intelligence. I just feel she is far too often wrong and relies on tag lines a little much. Everything about her seems packaged.

Yes, I agree. She is quite the package.

Star for your well-reasoned post.

Seeing how it took her going to 5 schools to complete a journalism degree tells me that she's clearly not one of the brightest bulb in the bunch.

I speak here usually with like an 11th grade level as her comprehension and intellects isn't that high to begin with and she'd be lucky to have an iq of 130.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

Seeing how it took her going to 5 schools to complete a journalism degree tells me that she's clearly not one of the brightest bulb in the bunch.

To me, it shows tenacity, resolve, and perseverance. And she didn't have the advantage of Affirmative Action,like those two idiots currently in the WH.

I speak here usually with like an 11th grade level

Coulda fooled me.

as her comprehension and intellects isn't that high to begin with and she'd be lucky to have an iq of 130.

What are your qualifications to judge her?

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

Seeing how it took her going to 5 schools to complete a journalism degree tells me that she's clearly not one of the brightest bulb in the bunch.

To me, it shows tenacity, resolve, and perseverance. And she didn't have the advantage of Affirmative Action,like those two idiots currently in the WH.

I speak here usually with like an 11th grade level

Coulda fooled me.

as her comprehension and intellects isn't that high to begin with and she'd be lucky to have an iq of 130.

What are your qualifications to judge her?

edit on 18-6-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)

An iq of that that is far superior to her's of an estimated 170. I usually speak with on an 11th grade level and will only speak on a collegiate level if it is absolutely nessecary.

reply to post by mishigas


Well you took my meaning a little different from what my intent was. That is ok though, I know the blinded by pretty lady crowd can not see anything wrong with Palin.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

An iq of that that is far superior to her's of an estimated 170. I usually speak with on an 11th grade level and will only speak on a collegiate level if it is absolutely nessecary.

You should take some of that iq and spend it on English lessons, such as spelling and grammar.

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

An iq of that that is far superior to her's of an estimated 170. I usually speak with on an 11th grade level and will only speak on a collegiate level if it is absolutely nessecary.

You should take some of that iq and spend it on English lessons, such as spelling and grammar.

I do use correct grammar and spelling and it is you who is using any sorry arsed excuse to defend Queen Sarah. Instead of griping to me how about you gripe and flood her email inbox to complain about donations being used to finance her recent "family vacation" and until you do I may take you seriously but until then no way!

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

I do use correct grammar and spelling and it is you who is using any sorry arsed excuse to defend Queen Sarah.

She is a queen, isn't she?

Instead of griping to me how about you gripe and flood her email inbox to complain about donations being used to finance her recent "family vacation" and until you do I may take you seriously but until then no way!

Flood her email inbox with nastigrams! Now I know She terrifies you!

Btw, what does "nessecary" mean?

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

I do use correct grammar and spelling and it is you who is using any sorry arsed excuse to defend Queen Sarah.

She is a queen, isn't she?

Instead of griping to me how about you gripe and flood her email inbox to complain about donations being used to finance her recent "family vacation" and until you do I may take you seriously but until then no way!

Flood her email inbox with nastigrams! Now I know She terrifies you!

Btw, what does "nessecary" mean?

This is not sadly trolling. This is, in part, why people "hate" Palin. You call anything but utter adherence to he cause "fear". Then you taunt those who stand up for themselves. The stand up because no one likes to be painted the coward. Truth is accusing people of fear for no reason really makes you look like the one who is scared. Maybe you are scared you hitched your wagon to the wrong pony but, its too late to abandon ship now?

You see, I voted for Obama. Although at the time it wasn't a failure on my part. I can see now that I like most others would of been better served by a third party vote. I wish I could go back and we could all change it but we can't. Maybe if the two parties had produced better candidates this wouldn't be an issue. Give the 08 vote again, while being forced between R or D, I would still vote Obama. McCain was a poor candidate that couldn't capture my imagination. McCain's case wasn't helped by Palin's chronic foot in mouth issues either though.

reply to post by mishigas


You need serious psychological help because you cannot see past her looks and as someone who can't you clearly do not have the proficiency nor competency to absolutely comprehend nor understand politics.

Originally posted by mishigas
Now I know She terrifies you!

She does terrify me, because she showed me there’s truly no one incompetent and unqualified enough to a significant portion of the American people.

I thought US politics was in trouble before Sarah Palin showed up on the scene but seeing how many people, like you, honestly think she is presidential material for basically being the Paris Hilton of politics, is scary indeed.

reply to post by aptness

Originally posted by mishigas
Now I know She terrifies you!

She does terrify me, because she showed me there’s truly no one incompetent and unqualified enough to a significant portion of the American people.

And that fool you elected in '08 doesn't scare you?

I thought US politics was in trouble before Sarah Palin showed up on the scene but seeing how many people, like you, honestly think she is presidential material for basically being the Paris Hilton of politics, is scary indeed.

I've made my position clear many times. Even though I don't think she should run (I think she could be much more effective in other roles), she outqualifies the Boy Blunder Obama by a mile.

The fact that people like you spend so much time attacking her shows your fear of her.

Originally posted by mishigas
The fact that people like you spend so much time attacking her shows your fear of her.

It's not fear to point out she's not qualified to run for POTUS. It's common sense. Defense of her though shows limited thinking.

When did writing at an 8th grade level become something positive for an adult?

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Seeing how it took her going to 5 schools to complete a journalism degree tells me that she's clearly not one of the brightest bulb in the bunch.

I speak here usually with like an 11th grade level as her comprehension and intellects isn't that high to begin with and she'd be lucky to have an iq of 130.

An IQ of 130 would put her two standard deviations above the mean, which means her IQ is higher than about 97.5% of the population. I would bet that she exceeds that. She worked her way through college. That hardly means she is not a "bright bulb." It just means her education wasn't handed to her on a silver platter. Your average PhD or MD has an IQ of about 125.

As to your own claim of a 170 IQ? Give me a break. You are certainly not showing it. Your grammar is atrocious, to begin with, and your "score," such that it is, is 10.0. The Stanford Binet IQ test does not even go above 170, which is about 4.5 standard deviations above the mean, so you're telling us you're the smartest guy on the planet.

Originally posted by intrepid
[I don't understand the feverish support she gets from some. She's 8th Grade equivalent? That's hardly news or a ringing endorsement. My youngest(15) can communicate better than that. Is she considered for the highest office in the west(maybe world)?

Good for you. Your score is 6.0. You are writing at a sixth grade level here.

If you stand up Palin and Obama side by side and watch them give a speech, what do you see? First of all, you see a teleprompter--for Obama. The only time Palin ever used a teleprompter in a speech was at the Republican National Convention. It broke half way through the speech, and she winged it. Obama without a teleprompter is a bungling, inept speaker at best, with plenty of "uh," "duh," and similar moments. He's lost without it.

I don't think that makes Obama stupid, but this hysterical claim that he's brilliant while Palin is stupid is pure hogwash. She is every bit Obama's intellectual equal.

The whole issue is really a side-show. Readability formulas vary widely. If you took the trouble to apply seven or eight formulas to the same piece of work, you'd get a wide range of scores. The better ones are more difficult to apply, and they also give a wide range. They's say, for example, 9-10, meaning the grade level covers a two year range. When you see a readability score of 6.25, for example, you know that's also hogwash because it is attempting to pin "level" down to a couple of days within the school year. (How do I know? I wrote the first program mentioned here for Apple and MS-DOS. It's no longer sold today, but I made enough money off it to buy a new car.)

And, for the record, a readability index score does NOT equate to intelligence. It may equate to education, but as we've seen here, that's not always the case here. Add the fact that we're talking dashed-off quickie emails rather than carefully edited essays and the whole idea becomes laughable.

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by intrepid
[I don't understand the feverish support she gets from some. She's 8th Grade equivalent? That's hardly news or a ringing endorsement. My youngest(15) can communicate better than that. Is she considered for the highest office in the west(maybe world)?

Good for you. Your score is 6.0. You are writing at a sixth grade level here.

Hardly. This English major disagrees. But if all you have to back up Palin is incorrect insults, go for it. I'll stand by my words. Will you?

Originally posted by mishigas
And that fool you elected in '08 doesn't scare you?

What do you mean by ‘you’? Do you mean the American people? You are not American?

And what do you mean exactly by Obama scaring me? You mean policy-wise? We were talking about qualifications.

Even though I don't think she should run (I think she could be much more effective in other roles), she outqualifies the Boy Blunder Obama by a mile.

In what does she ‘outqualifies’ Obama? I’m honestly curious.

The fact that people like you spend so much time attacking her shows your fear of her.

“Spend so much time attacking” Sarah Palin? I must’ve commented twice on a Sarah Palin thread and this is my second.

You can drop this tactic. People aren’t buying it.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by intrepid
[I don't understand the feverish support she gets from some. She's 8th Grade equivalent? That's hardly news or a ringing endorsement. My youngest(15) can communicate better than that. Is she considered for the highest office in the west(maybe world)?

Good for you. Your score is 6.0. You are writing at a sixth grade level here.

Hardly. This English major disagrees. But if all you have to back up Palin is incorrect insults, go for it. I'll stand by my words. Will you?

Easily. Disagree if you want, but you don't have the facts to support your contention. Applying the Flesch Kincaid formula to the snippet of yours (which is really too short to test) I cited yields a score of 6.0 (rounded). Try it for yourself. That's hardly an insult. It's a fact. According to the Flesch-Kincaid formula, you ARE writing at a sixth grade level, B.A. in English notwithstanding. My overall point, as you should well know, is that readability scores don't mean that much, vary widely, are not correlated with intelligence, and are inappropriately applied to emails (and probably forum posts, for that matter.) This whole thread is based on the idea that you can make those distinctions. I'm saying that's invalid and I'm also claiming that I have the background to assert that. Not only have I actually written the computer programs to make the calculations (which means I have an intimate knowledge of how these formulas work), I've also published academically on the subject in the (refereed) "Journal of Reading" concerning these issues. So, yeah, I am standing by my words. The criticism of Palin is the "incorrect insult" here; it's completely invalid.

The Flesch-Kincaid formula is this: Divide the total number of words by the total number of sentences and multiply by .39. Divide the total number of syllables by the total number of words and multiply that by 11.8. Take the result and subtract by 15.59. That's your so-called "grade level." So what are they doing here? Basically the formula asserts that longer sentences and words with more syllables can equate to a higher grade level. Rounding the score really hides the incorrect specificity of the score which, when you think about it, should make you instantly suspicious.

THIS formula is particularly well-suited to computer calculation. Microsoft Word has it built-in, for example. The more valid readability formulas are more complex. The Dale-Chall, for example, has a list of 3,000 words that a sample is compared against. If you use words not on this list, the score goes up. My "readability" computer program (cited above) automated that formula, along with eight others, so that the user could see the range of scores given by the different formulas and (hopefully) come away with a better understanding of what readability scores can really do for you. If you are writing to a broad audience, you might want to simplify your writing a bit. That's all these formulas really do.

My score for this snippet? 9.0.