Most absurd use of "Most"
(Dan here…Lifted from Robert’s Stochastic Thoughts. Just a comment.)
by Robert Waldmann
Most absurd use of “Most”
Two of the bees in my bonnet are the www.WashingtonPost.com Headline writer(s) and the abuse of the word “most.” In a bit of a shift*, I complain about the www.nytimes.com headline:
“Most Americans Oppose Health Law, Poll Finds”
I clicked the link and read “In the latest poll, 47 percent said they oppose the law while 36 percent approve, with the rest having no opinion. “
OK lets go slow. 47<50 therefore 47%<50% therefore 47% is not most.
I don’t like the word most because it ambiguously means “more than half” and “approximately all.” It is a 4 letter automatic equivocation.
I add that the article has changed since the first time I read it (the New York times has always updated within the day — the newspaper of record becomes the record at midnight). In the older draft (trust me) the 47% = most was in the first paragraph.
Interestingly the new first paragraph notes that two thirds of respondents want the Supreme Court to declare parts of the law (mostly the mandate I guess) unconstitutional. This shows how much the US pubic hates judicial activism. Think of how few must have the view that laws which they don’t like shouldn’t be overturned by unelected courts.
well, the Supreme Court is unelected for a reason. the kind of “democracy” which you appear to favor was considered carefully by the people who wrote the Constitution and rejected because the people are too easily fooled at least in the short run.
as for judicial activism, i’m not sure there is any way to avoid it. every “interpretation” is an active application of “what i think” to “what i think the law means”.
meanwhile, this person at least hopes the Court doesn’t think it can get away with finding “the mandate” Constitutional, however much you think that Obomneycare is the only last best chance for a rational health care system in America.
Most of us… that is, a majority of the people who have an opinion, think that the mandate opens up breathtaking new ground. Not at all justified by the logic: well it’s commerce therefore the congress can pass any law it likes.
Ooooh. Robert and Dan, you’ve hot upon one of own pet peeves. I think it started about a decade ago: Headline writers using “most” to refer to, say, 52%. Apparently it’s now progressed to refer to a plurality. If mainstream journalists want to redefine the word “most,” then they should make it clear in some less subtle way that that’s what they’re doing—and they should find a new word to replace the traditional meaning of “most.”
It’s much shorter than saying “A majority” or “a plurality,” which presumably is why they do it. But it also states a false fact.
I keep thinking that the people complaining about Judicial Activism wrt Obamacare must have been in a coma in late 1999. It was called Bush V. Gore it made all the papers.
Beverly
If a plurality means that the assertion isn’t true. Not a majority. If so, damn lie. NancyO
Make that “hit upon,” not “hot upon.”
Beverly
you and Robert may disagree with me and most of the people who have an opinion about the mandate, but you are being a bit ridiculous when you begin to pontificate on the correct use of language. even i have some “pet peeves” but i know they are idiosyncratic and not something i can expect the rest of the world to adhere to.
trouble is, you are more or less on my side in these matters, whether you know it or not, but when you cast your brain in concrete you lose the flexibility to think creatively.
in your case that means what can we do to get single payer if ACA goes down. i guess in my case it means what can i do if it is upheld.
nancy
not sure what you said here, but the Post did not say “a majority”, it said “most”, using the word the way everyone i know has used it my entire life.
surely there are more substantive things we can worry about.
Few years ago when we werer fighting a big box development, at a planning board hearing it was noted that the town survey found that 54% of the town did not want big box development. The planners response was yes, but 48% said they wanted it and the rest had no opinion. The development went through.
I think the problem is that “most” is ambiguous. It can mean the “greatest in number” – if there was an election with three candidates receiving 100, 80 and 79 votes, I think it’s proper to say that the first candidate got “the most votes,” but I wouldn’t say “most of the votes.” I agree that the headline seems to say that the majority oppose the law, which is incorrect, but I’m not sure that it has to mean that.
Most of us… that is, a majority of the people who have an opinion, think that the mandate opens up breathtaking new ground. Not at all justified by the logic: well it’s commerce therefore the congress can pass any law it likes.
Exactly. Whay a lot of partisan Democrats just cannot seem to grasp is, there’s a strong possibility that the main reason *why* SCOTUS may rule the mandate is unconstitutional is because it *is* in fact unconstitutional.
I’m tired of seeing *anyone*raising any objections about PPACA, even ones grounded in facts, steretyped as Teabagging right-wing idiots. Even if you like other parts of the bill, you can agree –on rational and legal grounds– that the mandate is not Constitutional and should be struck down.
Most of us… that is, a majority of the people who have an opinion, think that the mandate opens up breathtaking new ground. Not at all justified by the logic: well it’s commerce therefore the congress can pass any law it likes.
Exactly. Whay a lot of partisan Democrats just cannot seem to grasp is, there’s a strong possibility that the main reason *why* SCOTUS may rule the mandate is unconstitutional is because it *is* in fact unconstitutional.
I’m tired of seeing *anyone* raising any objections about PPACA, even ones grounded in fact, stereotyped as Teabagging right-wing idiots. Even if you like other parts of the bill, you can agree –on rational and legal grounds– that the mandate is not Constitutional and should be struck down.
mike b
thank you. i am afraid our friends hate the republicans so much they see red even when it is a very marginal question of language use.
i am pretty sure that if you expanded your example to, say, a hundred candidates and one candidate got 20% and another got 4% and the rest less than 1% most folks would say the first candidate got the most votes.
now whether the “the” or the absense of the “the” changes the whole meaning is a wonderful exercise for serious linguists and eighth grade grammarians. but a headline writer is apt to leave out words he knows will be “understood.”
and there are worse things about republicans than their grammar.
bev
of course “hit upon” has a whole other meaning. i’ll leave it up to the language purists to decide if you really meant Robert and Dan were proposing to have sexual relations with your pet peeve.
Coberly,
So a lifted ‘just a comment’ becomes a big idea on the great divide. Hmmm…no. ‘Most’ is a big ambiguity, which is mostly a problem for journalists who have title created by editor and at most creates a bit of confusion and most of the time i used to excite the limbic system in this heated election time slogansneering. But then that is the beauty of of a big ambiguity.
No. Headline editors leave out words they know will make the story not get read. “Some americans oppose health care law” is not an attention grabbing headline. Neither is “Many americans… etc.”
If the headline writer can’t get the stooge (aka customer) to read the “story” he also can’t get the poor guy to notice the lovely cadillac ad next to it. Voila.
It was in late 2000. I complained then too, often screaming my complaints at bemused Italians.
The headline has been corrected. I didn’t save a screen shot. The really deadly thing about the abuse of “most” is that it is also used to mean approximately all.
Your guess about me is incorrect. I believe in judicial review. It is rude to base such a strong accusation as yours on a guess. My comment on judicial restraint is based on the similarity between the fraction who think the Supreme Court should declare the mandate unconstitutional and the fraction in other polls who disapprove of it. Even with sampling error, the numbers imply an alarmingly small number of people don’t approve of the mandate but think it is constitutional. This shows, I think, lack of respect for the constitution.
I didn’t address the question of constitutionality in that post. I note in passing that Charles Fried ( solicitor general in the Reagan administration) said that the argument that it was unconstitutional is ” beneath contempt.”. Judge Silverman ( for whom a huge fraction of Bush admin lawyers clerked) judged the mandate constitutional and firmly rejected the plaintiffs’s arguments. These are very very conservative men.
Robert
it is hard to tell who you are talking to here. and even harder to know where CoRev came in.
Your extreme certainty that you are right and …whoever you are talking to… is beyond the pale does not argue well for your … ability to argue.
I…coberly, not coRev… took exception to your post because it seemed a bit overwrought. I don’t like the ACA because I don’t like the mandate, and frankly I don’t give a damn what “very conservative men” think.
am
back in the day when i used to write headlines the big deal was to get the words to fit the column. sometimes a little wit was tried for. that of course was a long time ago. maybe you and robert are right and the headline was really a right wing plot to dupe americans into thinking a majority was against the ACE when “only two thirds hope the court declares part of it unconstitutional.”
of course these things are in the eye of the beholder, but i think your political enthusiasms have carried away your rationality… that’s your plural, just in case the english language is too ambiguous for those of you who need precision.
for what it’s worth… i think the ACA is a right wing plot. i am way to the left of you and Robert and Beverly. but that’s because i don’t go by the team colors.
Rdan
i actually showed up here just now to delete my earlier comments,knowng they would sow hate and discontent, and i am not so sure myself anymore that “most” doesn’t mean “a majority.” but i never particularly thought it did, having sloppy language habits determined by context and the usage of my not up tight friends.
Robert
my guess about what you appear to favor was based on your comment about an “unelected court.”
to my — possibly no more rational mind than yours — that sounded as if you think the fact that the court is unelected means it should defer to the elected branches. this is rather the opposite of the way American democracy has developed, and entirely consistent with the idea of “balance of powers” which the Framers seemed to think would save America from the excesses of previous democracies in the world. and a few subsequent.
and it is obvious that a horse is substantially a cow. your faith in experts is touching.
I tried to delete my reply above. I decided to read other things you write. As I clearly explained the lonk between Corev and Coberly is just that, at the time I typed that, I was willing to read neither of you two. To make the explicit anfpd obvious more explicit, it has nothing to do with nicknames starting with c. Your totally unnecessary explanatuon that you are not corev is an insult to my intelligence. The fact that you do not understand why I brought up corev shows your limited reading comprehension, based I think on self regard.
The supreme court is, in fact, not elected. I trust that you do not contest my claim of fact. From that uncontestibly true statement you “guess” I am an enemy of the constituition. Well facts are facts and I willnot read people who insult me because I note them.
I will not read anything you wrupite again. This and only this links you and Corev and no other human being (so far).
Therefore, I will not respond to any of your arguments. The factthat I don’t respond shall not imply that I can’t since I shall not read any of your comments again.