Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Re: Site Review Request

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Site Review Request

 
 
Helpful person
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2014
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:23:39 PM UTC-5, dorayme wrote:
>
> The irony of IQ tests is that the smarter you are the more likely you
> are to see a pattern that was not intended, you fail not because you
> are not awfully clever but because you see more possibilities than the
> committee that set the question and much more than the less
> intelligent who see very few possibilities and not the one intended.
>
> dorayme


Very true. Most answers here have overthought (or underthought) the problem. I often got into trouble at school when I insisted that the next number in a sequence could be any number I wanted to put down. One can define a rule for any answer.

That said, a cleverly deigned IQ test (and my IQ is too low to figure out how) could take all this into account.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2014
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Helpful person <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:23:39 PM UTC-5, dorayme wrote:
> >
> > The irony of IQ tests is that the smarter you are the more likely you
> > are to see a pattern that was not intended, you fail not because you
> > are not awfully clever but because you see more possibilities than the
> > committee that set the question and much more than the less
> > intelligent who see very few possibilities and not the one intended.
> >
> > dorayme

>
> Very true. Most answers here have overthought (or underthought) the problem.
> I often got into trouble at school when I insisted that the next number in a
> sequence could be any number I wanted to put down. One can define a rule for
> any answer.
>


While it is true that one can define a rule for any answer, there is
the question of 'seeing' a rule beforehand. If the approach is to put
any old number down and then to make up a rule to cover the answer,
that might with some justification be thought too far away from the
spirit of the test. There is a big difference between a person who
actually follows some rule he 'sees' and one who who sees no rule in
particular but who knows he can retrofit one to cover his answer.


> That said, a cleverly deigned IQ test (and my IQ is too low to figure out
> how) could take all this into account.


Perhaps you are right. Logical intelligence could be supplemented with
actual knowledge and feel for what is likely. In other words, instead
of the question, what is the next number after 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... you
can ask what is the most likely number most other people will say is
the next number.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Helpful person
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2014
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:41:36 PM UTC-5, dorayme wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Helpful person wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:23:39 PM UTC-5, dorayme wrote:

>
> > > The irony of IQ tests is that the smarter you are the more likely you
> > > are to see a pattern that was not intended, you fail not because you
> > > are not awfully clever but because you see more possibilities than the
> > > committee that set the question and much more than the less
> > > intelligent who see very few possibilities and not the one intended.

>
> > > dorayme

>
> > Very true. Most answers here have overthought (or underthought) the problem.
> > I often got into trouble at school when I insisted that the next number in a
> > sequence could be any number I wanted to put down. One can define a rule for
> > any answer.

>
> While it is true that one can define a rule for any answer, there is
> the question of 'seeing' a rule beforehand. If the approach is to put
> any old number down and then to make up a rule to cover the answer,
> that might with some justification be thought too far away from the
> spirit of the test. There is a big difference between a person who
> actually follows some rule he 'sees' and one who who sees no rule in
> particular but who knows he can retrofit one to cover his answer.
>
> > That said, a cleverly deigned IQ test (and my IQ is too low to figure out
> > how) could take all this into account.

>
> Perhaps you are right. Logical intelligence could be supplemented with
> actual knowledge and feel for what is likely. In other words, instead
> of the question, what is the next number after 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... you
> can ask what is the most likely number most other people will say is
> the next number.
>
> dorayme


That's not quite what I meant, although it is an
interesting approach. I envisaged a test that was
"smart" enough to detect (over many questions) that
the testee was applying unusual rules in determining
the next in a series. However, even if this is
possible, the test would need to be very long.

http://www.richardfisher.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gene Wirchenko
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2014
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:41:36 +1100, dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

[snip]

>Perhaps you are right. Logical intelligence could be supplemented with
>actual knowledge and feel for what is likely. In other words, instead
>of the question, what is the next number after 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... you
>can ask what is the most likely number most other people will say is
>the next number.


Too indefinite. Which other people? Different groups can have
different ideas.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2014
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Helpful person <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:41:36 PM UTC-5, dorayme wrote:
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > Helpful person wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:23:39 PM UTC-5, dorayme wrote:

> >
> > > > The irony of IQ tests is that the smarter you are the more likely you
> > > > are to see a pattern that was not intended, you fail not because you
> > > > are not awfully clever but because you see more possibilities than the
> > > > committee that set the question and much more than the less
> > > > intelligent who see very few possibilities and not the one intended.

> >
> > > > dorayme

> >
> > > Very true. Most answers here have overthought (or underthought) the
> > > problem.
> > > I often got into trouble at school when I insisted that the next number
> > > in a
> > > sequence could be any number I wanted to put down. One can define a rule
> > > for
> > > any answer.

> >
> > While it is true that one can define a rule for any answer, there is
> > the question of 'seeing' a rule beforehand. If the approach is to put
> > any old number down and then to make up a rule to cover the answer,
> > that might with some justification be thought too far away from the
> > spirit of the test. There is a big difference between a person who
> > actually follows some rule he 'sees' and one who who sees no rule in
> > particular but who knows he can retrofit one to cover his answer.
> >
> > > That said, a cleverly deigned IQ test (and my IQ is too low to figure out
> > > how) could take all this into account.

> >
> > Perhaps you are right. Logical intelligence could be supplemented with
> > actual knowledge and feel for what is likely. In other words, instead
> > of the question, what is the next number after 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... you
> > can ask what is the most likely number most other people will say is
> > the next number.
> >
> > dorayme

>
> That's not quite what I meant, although it is an
> interesting approach. I envisaged a test that was
> "smart" enough to detect (over many questions) that
> the testee was applying unusual rules in determining
> the next in a series. However, even if this is
> possible, the test would need to be very long.
>


That would be easy in one way but difficult in another. Easy because
answers different to the one (or small group of possible ones)
intended by those setting the exam are clearly defined. Difficult
because this does not distinguish a surprising answer (that follows an
intelligent rule in the examinees head) from a smart person from a
clueless one by someone not too smart.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2014
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Gene Wirchenko <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:41:36 +1100, dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Perhaps you are right. Logical intelligence could be supplemented with
> >actual knowledge and feel for what is likely. In other words, instead
> >of the question, what is the next number after 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... you
> >can ask what is the most likely number most other people will say is
> >the next number.

>
> Too indefinite. Which other people? Different groups can have
> different ideas.


One's mother, father, and Roger Rabbit.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
List of free web site design, web site backgrounds, web site layoutsresources cyber XML 1 12-25-2007 11:48 PM
Free web site design, web site backgrounds, web site layoutsresources cyber HTML 0 12-24-2007 04:26 PM
List of free web site design, web site backgrounds, web site layoutsresources cyber HTML 0 12-21-2007 03:47 PM
List of free web site design, web site backgrounds, web site layoutsweb sites cyber HTML 1 12-19-2007 09:07 AM
Re: Accessing Request.InputStream / Request.BinaryRead *as the request is occuring*: How??? Brian Birtle ASP .Net 2 10-16-2003 02:11 PM



Advertisments