Utopian voters полностью

The tricky subtlety underlying it is one the fool can’t spot; it depends on the resolving power of the mind, not on how much is in the mind. A fool can be a learned man—the Mr. Memory type, for instance, who can recite endlessly, and quote a quotation any time. But while he can quote these words—he can’t use them properly. He will, typically, use the word "funny" excessively, almost never say "peculiar," and never use the word "odd" at all. And note carefully that it isn’t a matter of "big words"; "odd" is the smallest of the three above, and yet the rarest in modern usage.

It doesn’t do you any good to be able to quote definitions in a use-vocabulary test; you have to perceive the fine distinctions implied by the similar, nonsynonymous words. Take the group thief, robber, crook, bandit, et cetera, as an example; there is a definite distinction in their meanings. Or feminine, womanly, effeminate.

And this ability to distinguish between concepts is not a matter of linguistics or education; the individuals who have the ability, develop and use it automatically, no matter where they may start. A German coming to the United States, or an American going to Germany will, if he has a high-resolution mind, learn the local precise-definition terms because he needs them and knows he needs them. The early scientists insisted that Science could be carried on only in Latin and/or Greek—not in English, French, or any of the then-living languages. Why? Very simply because the then-living languages simply did not have the rich, and subtly differentiated terms needed for precision thinking.

Now, of course, we have more terms in modern languages than the Romans or Greeks ever had—but it took massive borrowing, and a lot of word-inventions to do it.

Because it depends on the innate resolving power of the mind of the individual, no matter how much formal education he may be given, he will not learn a large use-vocabulary, if he does not have that ability. It does you no good to stare at a book, if your eyes have such low resolving power they cannot distinguish the letters—and it does you no good to look at words, if your mind lacks the resolving power necessary to distinguish the concepts those words symbolize.

Psychological testing groups have found, again and again, that the one measurable quantity that correlates at near unity level with practical success in the real world is use-vocabulary. The president of a firm may not have graduated from grammar school, while his second assistant secretary has a Ph.D. in English Literature— but the use-vocabulary of the president somehow turns out to be about 175,000 words, while the secretary’s use-vocabulary seems to be about 22,000. Oh, the secretary can recognize, and quote passages, with 70,000 words... but he can’t apply those words himself ...

Every indication is that a man who has the high-resolution mind will learn the vocabulary he needs, whether he ever gets formal schooling or not. And that no amount of coaching can make a man learn the meanings of words when his mind can’t perceive the difference in concepts.

In other words, the vocabulary test is not:

1. Culturally based.

2. A matter of formal education.

3. A linguistic test—save for the first year or two.

4. A test of family background

and the vocabulary test is:

1. A test of that specific individual’s personal mental resolving power.

2. That correlates very highly with pragmatic success in the real-world.

3. And looks to any fool like a snap that anybody can pass by just studying the words.

It is, in other words, a real test of real competence that would almost 100% eliminate the effects of cultural, educational and family background—would pass any competent individual, no matter what his previous history—yet which will reject the mentally ill-equipped. And looks so easy that the unshakably self-assured fool would be willing to vote for it!

The reason the use-vocabulary test is of real importance is quite readily understandable; anyone with a high-resolution mind automatically does a job of semantic analysis on propaganda, and on viewpoint-statements, that the low-resolution mind neither can, nor ever does. For instance, consider the statement "Russia is a highly aggressive nation," and recognize that the usual usage of the statement is intended to imply that "aggressive" and "belligerent" are the same thing. To the low-resolution mind they are; he can’t distinguish between an aggressive salesman and a belligerent salesman, either, probably.