[dissenter]

Funny, I heard a rumor that the only people who got 800s on the verbal section were foreigners. (Read: people who can't speak English.) The explanation was that they were the only ones willing to invest enough time to form-fit the ETS's method of verbal testing.

In my own experience the verbal section of the GRE was entirely nonsensical. The vocabulary was difficult and exactly the type of vocabulary I would use if it was my goal not to be understood, but at least I could see how it might be a useful and reliable differentiator.

Nobody uses these words often enough for them have any statistically meaningful shades of meaning. If the goal of communication is having other people understand you, why would you deal in words that are notable precisely because they are difficult to understand?

The reading comprehension made less sense. I don't think it's possible to select a passage that has an unambiguous meaning and yet will be misunderstood by a statistically meaningful number of ambitious, college-educated people. So the question-making process must necessarily be corrupt.

I recall many questions which wasted much of my time. Several possible responses, none of which are obviously wrong. I know which one I feel is right---or maybe I do. Which one does the GRE feel is right? Even on sample tests, where I could see the supposed answer, I would read and reread the passages, and understand little about what the correctness or incorrectness of the responses had to do with the meaning of the passage.

I don't think you can presume to have an objective and clear-cut A or B answer as you might on the SAT. The granularity of college-level material is simply too fine. The only thing you can measure is how well you have matched yourself to the GRE's way of thinking, and that is not a particularly valuable expenditure of time.

[tempest67]

"If the goal of communication is having other people understand you, why would you deal in words that are notable precisely because they are difficult to understand?"

One important value words have lies in their discriminatory capabilities; the more exact and fine-toothed your toolset is, the more precisely you can express yourself. Sure, it doesn't matter if you're wearing mittens on your vocabulary for most exchanges -- but it sure is nice to be able to take them off once in a while, and say exactly what you mean.

[davi]

"If the goal of communication is having other people understand you, why would you deal in words that are notable precisely because they are difficult to understand?"

Once in a while you meet someone else like yourself and experience pleasure communicating at high baud.

[dissenter]

Really? I take your point to mean that two smart people can communicate better using obscure vocabulary when they are communicating only between themselves. High baud necessarily implies higher average information throughput, so there would have to be a significant number of these words in the communication.

Could you point to some examples of letters between two famous people using this method?

Most notable people seem to prefer simple vocabulary, and in fact, many of them go so far as to recommend it. The people who prefer complex vocabulary (cultural studies journals, intellectuals) do not seem to accomplish anything of value, and indeed they are routinely accused of being obscurantists.

(Ground rule: scientific jargon excepted, since it is not a part of the vocabulary. But, feel free to look at letters by Newton, Einstein, Godel, Hilbert, anyone really.)

[davi]

It has nothing to do with a preference for complex vocabulary.

When I talk to someone I know has a large vocabulary, I am free to use the best word that occurs to me, and if they think I'm up to snuff, they are free to do the same thing. This makes for a more pleasurable conversation. (Assuming we're actually trying to say something to each other. But if the motivation is to show off, or engage in ego jockeying, that's boring.)

I guess it's more accurate to say that baud rate surges transiently when a rare, but exceptionally precise word enters this sort of conversation.

[ChaitanyaSai]

Obscure vocabulary could be divided into two, one containing obscure synonyms of frequent words, and another is the chunking of information, of many words, to give one label. People familiar with the topic may find it easier to anchor their thoughts with these chunked words of phrases.

A lot of philosophy seems really ridiculous to me, and yet there must be a need to chunk concepts and give them labels. When you agree on the basket of concepts tagged with "logical positivism" or "paleo-conservatism" isn't it easier to just use that phrase and not repeatedly invoke all or the topically relevant concepts of that set?

Of course, the problem is when these labels are overburdened and/or so multifaceted that you could be talking about subtly different things and not get anywhere. This is why philosophy should be based not in the fuzzy verbal, but in the concisely mathematical, but that is another topic.

I can't point to any letters to showcase the method, but I'd point to political science as it is a place where verbal philosophy and practicality do coincide.

[jballanc]

Or, more likely, if you are well versed in the vagaries of obscure vocabulary, chances are you'll be better at putting together the less complex words.

[tokenadult]

"I heard a rumor"

I'm a counterexample to the rumor.

[davi]

Me too. Somehow I aced the verbal section, with a moderate amount of study, starting ~6 weeks before the test. I think it might be because I was raised without a TV and so read a lot as a kid. The questions at the end of the test (it's adaptive, computer administered) seemed to focus on the exact nuance of similar words.

[davi]

And the jury's out on any correlation to my success.

[anonyreliant]

99% percentile on verbal. Didn't really study for it though, just read a lot as a kid and had the fortune to have studied Latin.

Worth mentioning that my life doesn't correlate to success in any meaningful way, except that I keep making decisions which make me happy if poor.

[tokenadult]

Agreeing with both replies to me, I think the secret of my success on the GRE verbal section (twice) was reading a lot for fun. And agreeing with them about correlations between GRE success and life success, I still pursue a lot of personal intellectual interests but have not become notably wealthy, although any middle-class American is wealthy in worldwide terms.

[Prrometheus]

I have friends who have done very well on both sections. They didn't practice much. They tend to be polymaths and read a lot.