Recently while reading a book about assessment, I was struck by manner in which dichotomous terms used to describe tests. Tests characterized as either normor criterion-referenced, informal or formal, group or individual, speed or power, subjective or objective, and so on. As I considered these terms, I began to think in a more general sense about prevalence of dichotomous terminology in our language, beginning with simple antonyms we use to teach meaning to young children, for example, big little, up down, and so forth, and expanding to common references to almost every aspect of our existence including manner in which we refer to people. If I remember correctly, William James, psychologist (I always confuse him with his brother Henry who writes like a psychologist), dichotomized people as tough-minded and tender-minded. Carl Jung wrote about introverts and extroverts and Marquis de Sade about sadists and masochists (if he didn't coin these terms he certainly gave them meaning). Lesser known authors held forth about yeasayers and nay-sayers, haves and have-nots, in-crowds and out-crowds, solid citizens and punks. Possibly, our semantic set toward dichotomous terms is reason we but two major political parties. Indeed, our tendency to classify people into one of two categories is so extensive that one worthy person, whose name I don't remember and can't find in Bartlett's, said that there two types of people in world, those who think there two types of people and those who don't! Basically, I understand linguistic convenience afforded by use of dichotomous terminology. I am particularly tolerant of antonyms. I recognize practical benefits of categorizing lemonade as a cold drink and coffee as a hot drink even though I personally like iced coffee and hot lemonade (laced with an additive). It also is reassuring to know that when I am in my house, I'm not out of it (only tender-minded people will find this humorous). What concerns me about dichotomous references in general is that semantics of our language influences our thinking (or vice versa I'll leave that issue to Sapir and his critics). In any event, we tend to regard dimensions of dichotomy as mutually exclusive, that is, characteristics of one dimension seen as entirely different from characteristics of other. Further, dichotomous references influence us away from thinking of continuums of behavior. For example, people typically regard hot and cold as mutually exclusive categories tending to forget that both refer to temperature and often ignoring condition called warm. When considering effect of dichotomous thinking upon those of us interested in study of disabilities, we find that we consistently refer to the disabled as opposed to the non-learning Note that individuals in first category do not have a disability, they are disabled. The difference in language is significant. It is far less encompassing to something than to be it. It is easy to think of having something on a temporary basis (like beauty), having something along with something else (like beauty and brains), or having a little bit of something (like me). By contrast, being something implies permanence, exclusiveness and completeness. As we all know, what you are. Applying this to disabilities, children who learning disabled in LD NLD dichotomy precluded by semantics from having characteristics that typical of those in NLD category or from having a little bit of qualities that typify a disability. To take matter one step further, characteristics usually investigated in relationship to disabilities also often voiced in dichotomous terms: high achiever-low achiever, attentive-inattentive, task-oriented-task-avoidant, socially appropriate-socially inept, gracefulawkward, popular-unpopular, cooperative-uncooperative, leader-follower, and so forth. The