what makes human beings tick

Clocks.

The phrasal verb "make one tick" means the underlying motivations someone has, their own reasons for doing something, or being a certain way, basically it's how they work.

It's a metaphor comparing people to clocks, clocks tick and understanding what makes it tick is to understand the internal mechanisms that drive the clock. So "misunderstanding what makes human beings tick" means to misunderstand how the human mind works.

Thank you

I think you'd have to say "to regard politics as..." or "regarding politics as..." in the second half of the sentence, NOT "regard politics as..."

I agree with you. The scholar from America has made a grammatical mistake.

It's no error, but can seem that way if you've forgotten the first word of the sentence.

Thanks Robert.
So the "but" serves as a connection word as "and"? You know "...cannot be disputed, and regard" is grammatical.

Yes . . . they are both conjunctions.

No, I disagree, with Robert's analysis. He seems to be saying that the sentence is essentially saying "politicians wield enormous power amd regard politics as the decisive influences...". but that is wrong. It's not what politicians regard, but what the the regard of everybody is or should be. The subject of the first half ot the sentence is "That politicians wield enormous power"--it is a nound phrase. The subject of the second half of the sentence should be something like "regarding politics as the decisive influences"--it's not a perception held by politicans he's talking about but a general perception of how society works that he says is wrong.

Well said MontereyJack.
Thanks.

That politicians wield power, sometimes enormous power, cannot be disputed, but regard politics as the decisive influences in setting society's long-term direction betrays a misunderstanding of what makes human beings tick.



I agree with MJ. Either 'regarding' or 'to regard'.

Using "regard" is not incorrect in the sentence, and using "regarding" would be incorrect in the sentence unless you change the meaning of the sentence, but as it stands the grammar is correct. If you simplify the sentence it becomes clearer.

Correct:

That politicians wield power but regard politics as the decisive influences in society betrays a misunderstanding of what makes human beings tick.

Incorrect:

That politicians wield power but regarding politics as the decisive influences in society betrays a misunderstanding of what makes human beings tick.

This is because you don't say "The fact that politicians regarding..." and that is what the initial "That" does to the sentence. Drop that word and yes, you need the gerund. Examples:

Correct:

Politicians wield power but regarding politics as the decisive influences in society betrays a misunderstanding of what makes human beings tick.

Incorrect:

Politicians wield power but regard politics as the decisive influences in society betrays a misunderstanding of what makes human beings tick.


Simplified even further might make it even clearer.

Correct:

Politicians regarding it as decisive betrays a misunderstanding of humans.
That politicians regard it as decisive betrays a misunderstanding of humans.

Incorrect:

Politicians regard it as decisive betrays a misunderstanding of humans.
That politicians regarding it as decisive betrays a misunderstanding of humans.



If that meaning is desired you need to change the sentence, yes, but I'm not commenting on the ideal meaning (and on a side note I'm not sure how one meaning is "right" and the other "wrong" from an English point of view, both are workable sentences), but rather the grammar. The sentence is grammatically correct as is with "regard" attached to politicians.

Robert, the sentence doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you think it's about what politicians think(or regard). Put a period after "disputed." Leave out "but" and use "regarding" to start a second sentence. That is what the author is trying to say, I think. That politics is important but it's not decisive, as a general fact, not something that politicians think. So "regard" does NOT work well.

I understand what you are saying, but in the ESL questions I don't try to fix the logic of the statements, just the grammar. If the author is trying to say that the politicians regarding something is a mistake then the sentence is correct, if the sentence is trying to say that others regarding something is a mistake then, yes, it is incorrect.

The sentence structure is correct with the meaning it currently has but if the meaning is not what is intended then, yes, it needs to change.

That politicians wield power, sometimes enormous power, cannot be disputed, but regard politics as the decisive influences in setting society's long-term direction betrays a misunderstanding of what makes human beings tick.




Robert, you can't simply elide half of the initial sentence. The speaker's idea was expressed by the verb phrase "cannot be disputed". You're the one who has changed the meaning.

First idea: That politicians wield power, sometimes enormous power, cannot be disputed.

Second idea: *But regard politics as the decisive influences in setting society's long-term direction betrays a misunderstanding of what makes human beings tick. *

[* ---* denotes ungrammatical]

Second idea: But to regard/regarding politics as the decisive influences in setting society's long-term direction betrays a misunderstanding of what makes human beings tick.

Now, with either choice, it's grammatical.

Robert's new sentence: That politicians wield power but regard politics as the decisive influences in society betrays a misunderstanding of what makes human beings tick.

The initial sentence doesn't state absolutely that it's politicians who regard "politics as the decisive influences in setting society's long-term direction ..." .

It could easily hold the meaning,

Politicians hold enormous power but for people to regard politics [the policies of politicians] as the decisive influences in society betrays a misunderstanding of what makes human beings tick.

Where did you come across this example, Ori? Was it a speech or was it printed?

In my sentence structure examples I am intentionally simplifying the sentences, and I'm not trying to preserve the original meaning of the full sentence. I'm doing that to illustrate what I said to oristarA about the initial word of the sentence making a difference in the grammar of the sentence.

Anyway, the original sentence structure is correct if the politicians are the ones doing the regarding and the sentence is one compound thought. If it is two separate thoughts and with the politicians not being the ones doing the regarding then yes, it's incorrect. Either way, I don't tend to take the ESL examples at face value instead of trying to decide what better meanings could have been intended.

And that is really all I have to say about this, because it's a pretty straightforward issue. Which word should be used depends on the intended meaning, my point is that the current structure is not grammatically incorrect given that interpretation (of the politicians doing the regarding).

*That politicians wield power, sometimes enormous power, cannot be disputed, but regard politics as the decisive influences in setting society's long-term direction betrays a misunderstanding of what makes human beings tick.*



This is false, Robert. As it stands, with the meaning you suggest it is ungrammatical. To make it grammatical with the meaning you suggest,

That politicians wield power, sometimes enormous power, cannot be disputed, but that they regard politics as the decisive influences in setting society's long-term direction betrays a misunderstanding of what makes human beings tick.

You are right (and prescriptive I might note) and I was wrong to say it is correct as is. Another way of making it correct is to drop "cannot be disputed" which is how I was reading it. Like this:

That politicians wield power, sometimes enormous power, but regard politics as the decisive influences in setting society's long-term direction betrays a misunderstanding of what makes human beings tick.