Philosophy Now Forum

Only reason I ask is that, in the various tests I've taken for various rites of passage, the greatest challenge seemed to be guessing what the examiner wanted. So, if you think in the same way that the test-designer thinks, you'll score higher. That was why middle-class kids from the city always appeared more intelligent than ghetto kids or country kids: they had the same cultural and material background as the professors who compiled the test. I'm sure adjustments have since been made to accommodate such bias, but I'm not sure that a man or woman can make adjustments to their own habitual style of thought. Maybe a computer can, if it was programmed by an inclusive team.

Skip wrote:Only reason I ask is that, in the various tests I've taken for various rites of passage, the greatest challenge seemed to be guessing what the examiner wanted. So, if you think in the same way that the test-designer thinks, you'll score higher. That was why middle-class kids from the city always appeared more intelligent than ghetto kids or country kids: they had the same cultural and material background as the professors who compiled the test. I'm sure adjustments have since been made to accommodate such bias, but I'm not sure that a man or woman can make adjustments to their own habitual style of thought. Maybe a computer can, if it was programmed by an inclusive team.

Which is the odd one out?

A lump of wood: A saw: A chisel: A screwdriver?

For a literate person the category "tool" will immediately suggest itself, and the answer will be lump of wood.
For an illiterate person who knows what these things are for, will say screwdriver, because the other three can be used together.

Literacy is not supposedly an indicator of intelligence.

IQ tests can also be seriously compromised by practice. When my youngest son finished high school he applied for a scholarship for financial assistance in pursuit of his goal which was in training as a paramedic. He discovered that one of the tests he'd be required to pass was an IQ test and he'd never done such a test before. I spoke to him about these tests and suggested he get online and track down as many sample tests as he could and practice on them. I also went through the tests with him afterwards and we discussed various strategies for solving different questions quickly, speed being as relevant a factor as accuracy in such tests. He was already a bright young man to begin with but after spending a few days playing with these tests he "increased his IQ" by over 30 points and catapulted himself into the top 0.1 percentile of people. Needless to say he aced his scholarship but this was 15 years ago and I suspect his score will have gone back by now to the normal level of a clever well-educated man.

If anybody doubts this story I suggest they try it for themselves. It is very easy to teach yourself how to be good at IQ tests.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Skip wrote:Only reason I ask is that, in the various tests I've taken for various rites of passage, the greatest challenge seemed to be guessing what the examiner wanted. So, if you think in the same way that the test-designer thinks, you'll score higher. That was why middle-class kids from the city always appeared more intelligent than ghetto kids or country kids: they had the same cultural and material background as the professors who compiled the test. I'm sure adjustments have since been made to accommodate such bias, but I'm not sure that a man or woman can make adjustments to their own habitual style of thought. Maybe a computer can, if it was programmed by an inclusive team.

Which is the odd one out?

A lump of wood: A saw: A chisel: A screwdriver?

For a literate person the category "tool" will immediately suggest itself, and the answer will be lump of wood.
For an illiterate person who knows what these things are for, will say screwdriver, because the other three can be used together.

Literacy is not supposedly an indicator of intelligence.

I love this example because there is absolutely no logical reason why one answer is more "correct" than the other. The secret of all tests is not in what you know but in the expectations of the examiner of this knowledge. I made excellent use of this fact in my own tertiary education when I only ever bothered to learn the answers to the questions which I knew would be asked in the exams and then I would scrupulously express the opinions of my teachers rather than my own. I couldn't see much point in learning the rest of the shit if nobody was going to ask me about it and this freed up a lot of my time for sex, drugs and rock'n'roll.

Sometimes I use this example when I teach.
What does not belong?
Cow, Shark, Whale?
Most say Cow for obvious reasons.
However, I will accept Shark, if the person gives the right reason.
However, that does not mean that catagories are meaningless. Only that they are contextual.

Obvious Leo - IQ tests can also be seriously compromised by practice.

That can backfire, too. Having done a number of aptitude tests in the last year of high-school, I became adept at the things. When I was given one at my first job interview, I completed it in half the allotted time and scored high.... and didn't get the entry-level job, because "You're too smart. We spend the summer training you and you'll get bored and go back to school in the fall. "
Except I couldn't afford to. So they lost out on a bright recruit. The place that did hire me encouraged junior staff to take evening courses and upgrade their skills.

ETA - Re. Categories. Three items are rarely enough to establish the intended context.

raw_thought wrote:Sometimes I use this example when I teach.
What does not belong?
Cow, Shark, Whale?
Most say Cow for obvious reasons.
However, I will accept Shark, if the person gives the right reason.
However, that does not mean that catagories are meaningless. Only that they are contextual.

Good example.

In terms of IQ the test fails as it relies on knowledge. If you don't know what a whale is, this might have nothing to do with intelligence, but the fact that you've lived your life in the middle of the Amazon. You might be the most intelligent human on the planet. Similarly with the categories "fish" and "mammal".

This is all very well when the flaws in the test are obvious, but when you get to the more esoteric, even heretic examples in the visio-spatial puzzles, who knows what you might be missing?

There was an episode of "Cheers" that took the idea I expressed to an absurd and therefore hilarious level.
Cliff Clavin was on Jepordy.
His question was, "Lincoln, Eisenhower, Nixon and Johnson"
He answered, "men who have never been in my kitchen "!
He was right! They all had that in common.

raw_thought wrote:There was an episode of "Cheers" that took the idea I expressed to an absurd and therefore hilarious level.
Cliff Clavin was on Jepordy.
His question was, "Lincoln, Eisenhower, Nixon and Johnson"
He answered, "men who have never been in my kitchen "!
He was right! They all had that in common.

Nice.

Or humans without breasts.
How about humans who have not cunts, but have been called cunts?
The possibilities are endless.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

raw_thought wrote:There was an episode of "Cheers" that took the idea I expressed to an absurd and therefore hilarious level.
Cliff Clavin was on Jepordy.
His question was, "Lincoln, Eisenhower, Nixon and Johnson"
He answered, "men who have never been in my kitchen "!
He was right! They all had that in common.

Nice.

Or humans without breasts.
How about humans who have not cunts, but have been called cunts?
The possibilities are endless.

**** Hmm, just testing. I don't know how you managed to get that word through the 'naughty' filter.

Cunts? Elementary. The plural isn't filtered. That's how.

And notice how it took a man's rational mind to figure out something so simple, that you couldnt? Prime example for this thread.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

raw_thought wrote:There was an episode of "Cheers" that took the idea I expressed to an absurd and therefore hilarious level.
Cliff Clavin was on Jepordy.
His question was, "Lincoln, Eisenhower, Nixon and Johnson"
He answered, "men who have never been in my kitchen "!
He was right! They all had that in common.

Nice.

Or humans without breasts.
How about humans who have not cunts, but have been called cunts?
The possibilities are endless.

**** Hmm, just testing. I don't know how you managed to get that word through the 'naughty' filter.

Me too. SInce you can't get pr1ck through. What about shit? (sh1t)?

I just told you. Plurals are unfiltered, and so is singular shit. Cunts. Pricks. Shit, or shits.

Oy, no one ever bothers reading here. Are my sentences overly long or something?

Dalek Prime wrote:I just told you. Plurals are unfiltered, and so is singular shit. Cunts. Pricks. Shit, or shits.

Oy, no one ever bothers reading here. Are my sentences overly long or something?

It ought not to have escaped your notice, but I was not responding to you yet.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:I just told you. Plurals are unfiltered, and so is singular shit. Cunts. Pricks. Shit, or shits.

Oy, no one ever bothers reading here. Are my sentences overly long or something?

It ought not to have escaped your notice, but I was not responding to you yet.

No. You weren't responding to me. But you carried on in the same vein, after I explained it. Rather pointless.