Thank you for the MS. Certainly I have no complaint, no reason to withhold permission.
I do have some comments:
1) IQ Where did you find a group of undergraduates that could compete with an Arthur Kornberg? (Not all the Nobelists in
your group have notably superior intelligence.)
2). Other hypotheses
I am impressed that all of your groups showed [?] lower latencies for "opposite" vs "nonopposite primary"
So I wondered if antonyms are easier to find than synonyms -- the latter being a subset of your primaries.
Certainly this would be the case in French which is notably bereft of synonyms.
[END PAGE ONE]
[BEGIN PAGE TWO]
In the extreme case, a word might have no synonyms but would almost always have an antonym.
Your analysis would be enhanced if you included classification by other criteria, and showed that those failed, in contrast
to the janusian cut.
For example: how about responses that are semantically related (1) regardless of negation vs. others that are part of common
cliches (2) vs others that are linguistically idiosyncratic
[END PAGE TWO]
[BEGIN PAGE THREE]
Surely there is a substantial literature on word association classification.
My theory is that your creative people (most of them) are also verbally facile. A fast opposite may be an elaborated repressive
defense against more stressful associations! If this is correct this group will exhibit a stereotyped technique, e.g. elaboration
P.S. Do you know of any literature on role-swapping as a mode of discourse? Cf enclosure.