My vocabulary is not exceptional but it's above-average. I scored 3 out of 10. My feeling (justified or otherwise) was that the quiz tested my vocabulary instead of my ability to clearly concieve the opposite of a concept or action.
Number 9, in particular, is problematic because "oxidize" is not the "most natural" antonym as defined in the instructions. It's the best choice in chemistry, but nowhere else.
Number 10 is trivial. I considered and disregarded your answer immediately because adding a boolean negative as a prefix is not interesting at all. It's pedantic.
The interesting type of question is "what is the opposite of forcing someone?" ("coerce"). That's a hard conceptual question, beyond any vocabulary issues.
My answer for number 4 is interesting because I believe it's "more opposite" than yours. You suggest an actor changing the subject's behavior by pleading ("entreat"). I suggest giving the subject the ability to act ("empower"). Unaffected self-determination is more "opposite" of coercion than affected self-determination.
The quiz was definitely intended more as a vocabulary test and a fun puzzle than as any kind of deep study of antonyms. In particular, number 10 was definitely intended as a trick question. Sorry you didn't enjoy the quiz!
I think your answers were interesting. My wife says she also came up with disintegrate for #10, so I guess that wasn't well thought out. I think "entreat" is a slightly better answer than "empower" because one can imagine both empowering and coercing someone, but I certainly see the logic in your answer. #9 was definitely a game of "what property of the word is being considered", as hinted at in the instructions.
I think your answers of "pedestrian", "empower", "quaint" and "disintegrate" were perfectly acceptable, so I'm scoring you 7/10. Definitely useful to know that some of the questions are ambiguous.
Part of the issue was different goals. You wanted to "test" your quiz and see how you could make it better. I wanted to "win", to guess all the answers you guessed. Those are really different goals, so it's no wonder that our reactions were different.
Another goal for you is discussion of the rules of the game - what's fair to include, what's fair to allow, etc. That's stepping out of the actual gaming experience and discussion how to define the gaming experience.
As an analogy, I just read a funny comment by a Christian intellectual, "If my collegues died and found themselves standing before two doors, one labelled 'Heaven' and another labelled, 'Discussions of the Nature of Heaven', they would take the second door."
To me, the game itself is Heaven, and the discussions of its nature are an interesting (and sometimes helpful) but secondary pleasure.
Your scoring of my answers is very generous. I believe I am guilty of assuming too lofty a purpose for this game. I thought the game had something to do with software you were writing (as alluded in the original post). So I didn't view it a a crossword-puzzle with numerous idioms, tricks and misdirections.
There's a strong reaction for me when I get a score of 3 out of 10. It's not logical (I don't know what score anyone else got) but it affects my desire to play the game again. I'm not suggesting that you dumb-down the game, but I wonder if there's a way to put less emphasis on vocabulary and more emphasis on a precise conceptualization of words and their opposites?
"I thought the game had something to do with software you were writing (as alluded in the original post). So I didn't view it a a crossword-puzzle with numerous idioms, tricks and misdirections."
My bad. The software I was writing was, of course, my stupid Emacs page mode that I posted a bit later—I intended no connection between that and the game. Your characterization of my game in your second sentence is exactly what I was striving for.
My vocabulary is not
My vocabulary is not exceptional but it's above-average. I scored 3 out of 10. My feeling (justified or otherwise) was that the quiz tested my vocabulary instead of my ability to clearly concieve the opposite of a concept or action.
Number 9, in particular, is problematic because "oxidize" is not the "most natural" antonym as defined in the instructions. It's the best choice in chemistry, but nowhere else.
Number 10 is trivial. I considered and disregarded your answer immediately because adding a boolean negative as a prefix is not interesting at all. It's pedantic.
The interesting type of question is "what is the opposite of forcing someone?" ("coerce"). That's a hard conceptual question, beyond any vocabulary issues.
My answers:
1. synonym
2. mundane
3. pedestrian
4. empower
5.
6. assuage
7. quaint
8. staccato
9.
10. disintegrate
My answer for number 4 is interesting because I believe it's "more opposite" than yours. You suggest an actor changing the subject's behavior by pleading ("entreat"). I suggest giving the subject the ability to act ("empower"). Unaffected self-determination is more "opposite" of coercion than affected self-determination.
Vocabulary test, definitely
The quiz was definitely intended more as a vocabulary test and a fun puzzle than as any kind of deep study of antonyms. In particular, number 10 was definitely intended as a trick question. Sorry you didn't enjoy the quiz!
I think your answers were interesting. My wife says she also came up with disintegrate for #10, so I guess that wasn't well thought out. I think "entreat" is a slightly better answer than "empower" because one can imagine both empowering and coercing someone, but I certainly see the logic in your answer. #9 was definitely a game of "what property of the word is being considered", as hinted at in the instructions.
I think your answers of "pedestrian", "empower", "quaint" and "disintegrate" were perfectly acceptable, so I'm scoring you 7/10. Definitely useful to know that some of the questions are ambiguous.
Thanks much for the comments!
Gaming Strategy and Goals
Part of the issue was different goals. You wanted to "test" your quiz and see how you could make it better. I wanted to "win", to guess all the answers you guessed. Those are really different goals, so it's no wonder that our reactions were different.
Another goal for you is discussion of the rules of the game - what's fair to include, what's fair to allow, etc. That's stepping out of the actual gaming experience and discussion how to define the gaming experience.
As an analogy, I just read a funny comment by a Christian intellectual, "If my collegues died and found themselves standing before two doors, one labelled 'Heaven' and another labelled, 'Discussions of the Nature of Heaven', they would take the second door."
To me, the game itself is Heaven, and the discussions of its nature are an interesting (and sometimes helpful) but secondary pleasure.
Your scoring of my answers is very generous. I believe I am guilty of assuming too lofty a purpose for this game. I thought the game had something to do with software you were writing (as alluded in the original post). So I didn't view it a a crossword-puzzle with numerous idioms, tricks and misdirections.
There's a strong reaction for me when I get a score of 3 out of 10. It's not logical (I don't know what score anyone else got) but it affects my desire to play the game again. I'm not suggesting that you dumb-down the game, but I wonder if there's a way to put less emphasis on vocabulary and more emphasis on a precise conceptualization of words and their opposites?
Perhaps not.
Just a dumb crossword-puzzly thing
"I thought the game had something to do with software you were writing (as alluded in the original post). So I didn't view it a a crossword-puzzle with numerous idioms, tricks and misdirections."
My bad. The software I was writing was, of course, my stupid Emacs page mode that I posted a bit later—I intended no connection between that and the game. Your characterization of my game in your second sentence is exactly what I was striving for.
Sorry for the misdirection.
Post new comment