@BTM
All of us have accepted that point and have moved on.

How? Spank linked to criticisms of grammar nazis and is criticizing grammar nazis. Spank posted a link of criticisms of grammar nazis. One criticism was that they waste time, among others. Essentially what I said I agreed with when I said I agree with spank.

Yep, we are on the same page.
Correcting other's grammar is a yuge time waste and, again, no signs at all it is very effective at doing anything but wasting time and energy trying to control something beyond any firm grasp of control.

Once again technology is bending the arc towards connection, communication, and understanding. We will need to use the same language or dialect even less to fulfill those goals as the future emerges, IMO.

Not sure enough Brian. Wake up at the right side of the bed tomorrow.

No need for Pinker to make a video about it three years ago then, yet he did. I imagine he did so because he felt other people would learn something that was learned in the 80s. If you've moved on and it isn't news to you, congratulations.

American English is an excellent example of a dialect.

I appreciate the advice. But I'm not sure that I'm interested in seeking a greater audience.

Working in an institution of higher education which has predominantly first generation and ethnic minority students, I'm convinced that you're both wrong. Many students come in with weak language skills because they have not been exposed to academic English and many of them have never been challenged to fully develop their awareness of the language that they use.

Some of them have gaps between their spoken and written work, in the sense that they can speak in reasonably well-constructed sentences (and even full paragraphs of thought), but they struggle with writing it out. (And no, this isn't just a dyslexia sort of thing.)

Trying to frame this in terms of "control" is just silly. If OP doesn't change his grammar, I'm not going to hound him on it. I would suggest that you want to control how I use language more than I want to control how OP (or anyone else) uses language. You imagine that I've made it some sort of ambition of mine to fix grammar on the internet, so you've turned around and made it an ambition of yours to try to shame me into not trying to fix grammar on the internet. The whole framework you're approaching this thing in is absolutely stupid.

One of the primary reasons people tend not to write very well is that they don't take any time or effort to reflect on their writing. They just kind of do whatever they normally do and never give it the attention that it deserves. That time of self-reflection is extremely important to the development of one's writing and the process of "finding your voice."

There is already plenty of research into ethnicity and job applicants getting an interview. We need more research into it like we need more on apples falling out of trees to demonstrate gravity.

I think what you would find in researching employers is that they have no choice but to filter applicants.

Better to actually put in the effort to make the CV presentable and then have a look around at the interview.

It is rarely the case that decent employers are looking for employees who put in extra effort to demonstrate that they have no ****s to give.

It is all learnable. Most kids enter their undergraduate studies as absolutely horrific writers regardless of their background.

Yes. I'm suggesting some similar research into the impact of a few grammatical errors

Yes but the filter I'm referring to is applicants filtering employers.

That as well but I'd rather filter them out before I go to the interview or the 2nd interview etc

That's not how it plays out. When, in the more obvious case, someone doesn't dress overly smartly for interviews it's a case of not making a silly effort rather than making an effort to demonstrate anything. It happens to be a fact that it filters out the employers who judge more on appearance and playing games than on substance.

One of many of which one may have a personal preference.

I'd rather flap my wings to fly, but I've discovered it isn't effective. Unfortunately, I have to purchase a ticket to fly.

Unless you are applying to be under the low-level clerical employee who screens incoming CVs, you won't gain any knowledge. Unfortunately, you have to do the extra work of getting the interview.

Dressing appropriately for the position being hired for communicates some level of social awareness. There are few jobs in which it is better do demonstrate a complete lack of attention to social niceties such as putting on a clean shirt. Generally, there is a minimum that needs to be met and no additional points are gained by exceeding that minimum.

I agree with the first point. There should be no relationship between dress code and how much one cares for the job they are applying to. It's illogical. However, job seekers aren't in the position to filter out employers these days or take gambles on employers sharing the same views.

Richard Branson has gone on record suggesting neckties are symbols of slavery. Not new, probably baseless.

Ben Goertzel, one of the contemporary scientists I admire, dresses like a hippy, always at formal meetings and when giving talks to to other suit wearers. I think it's great.

I feel good in a suit, going for interviews or on special occasions, but everyday, no way.

I'm sticking with the basis that awareness is neither right nor wrong. From awareness comes knowledge. Reviewing the breadth of knowledge available calls into question the strength behind a social prejudice of a language preference. Seems weak, but so are our arms when it comes to tasks such as flying. Sometimes weakness just has to be accepted and worked around. Comes back to awareness.

Well as someone who has experimented a bit I I have a least do have some anecdotal evidence. I assure you it is not like trying to fly and you might be surprised - how surprised depends on how much you are exaggerating your side and how much you think I'm exaggerating mine.

Of course there is a minimum but we are arguing about where the minimum is and the scope for making use of the space above it. Sufficiently clean shirt is required but the insisted upon 'standard' when I was younger was nothing like required despite people saying the same sort of thing you say now.

Bare in mind I'm only talking about potential employees who are in that position. The more the person is struggling to find a job the more they have to play the game but let's not forget that employers find non desperate employees more desirable and they lap up cognitive clues even if they don't realise it - you have to be good though.

and employed a lot of people. I doubt those who turned up less smart at interviews with him in the early days had cause to regret it.

I get you.

When I graduated from college, I went into a job straight away, office setting. The interviewer explicitly told me not to wear a suit, to my pleasure.

When I left that job, a few years later, my self-esteem was high and I went into another interview, wearing jeans and shirt. I joined a queue of applicants all wearing navy suits and brown shows and ties. It was embarrassing. The interviewer has a surprised look on his face when I was called in. It went well I thought, they always seem to. I didn't get the job.

For my next interview, I bought a cheap ass suit and shirt. I felt like a million bucks in it. I got that job.

What's that? This isn't the drunk thread.. I'll show myself out.

What was the "insisted upon 'standard' when you were younger"? I don't think anyone here is taking the position that you need to dress like a 1950s stereotype.

I'm not quite that old It was the 80s and absolutely vital to be very smart with ironed shirt, top button done up, tie straight, polished shoes etc You will have to believe me when I tell you I had the same conversations with people back then like I'm having with you now. Even more so when I started doing business sales calls without a tie.

Hard to remember how loopy people were about this stuff but customer facing bank staff weren't even allowed to take their jackets off in the height of summer (no air conditioning back then in the UK).

I'm don't know how many people giving that type of strict dress code/ultra conservative dress advice these days. I'm sure a few people are still stuck there, but the advice I generally hear has to do with fitting in the culture of the place you're working, as well as something that's also comfortable to you. It's basically trying to be perhaps a step or two above the culture (but not much more). If you're in a stuffy suit and nobody else is even close to that, you're going to be out of place. But if everyone is in a suit and you're not...

Yes that they did then back then and in the same manner. It's that manner that hasn't changed but the standards do because they have minimal importance beyond how important people think they are.

I agree which is the good reason not to fake it too much before you get the job. Unless you really need the job of course.

Americans have a genius for the English language IMO. Perhaps my favourite thing about you FWIW.

The term "American English" seems ridiculous, however. It's English, whether you like it or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_English

Link below to a good read by that Master of American English, H.L. Menchen; I have the forth edition [1936].

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9...rican_Language

Shows conclusively that American English is superior to British English.

Why not go all the way and just call it American? Like Mark Twain.

http://uwch-4.humanities.washington....20Language.htm

I heard an alleged fact recently that teenagers are the greatest influence on new words in language. I also heard one which suggested middle age is prime time for thinking capability. Seems to be a gap in new expressions of concept and the greatest ability to conceptualize based on those assumptions even if they are only half true.