EPTSmarter people more prone to cognitive bias - Page 13
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
andiCR
Costa Rica2273 Posts
| ||
|
Lessthanzero
United States4 Posts
| ||
|
Kyrillion
Russian Federation748 Posts
There are 100 football and basketball players in a room. There is at least one football player for every basketball player. How many basketball players are there? + Show Spoiler + I don't understand at all. Two basketball and 48 football players (edit : I meant 98 obviously) work just as well, actually any number up to 50 works. I googled it and found that phrasing : At a sports banquet there are one hundred athletes. Each one is either a football or basketball player. At least one is a football player. Given any two of the athletes, at least one is a basketball player. How many of the athletes are football players? So are you sure you recounted it correctly ? with that second version there is indeed only one correct answer. Sigh... its a slightly tricky math problem. It's like the question about if a watermelon is 99% water and weights 100 pounds, how much does it weigh after it dries so its only 98% water? Good one, but you should add the percentages are given in weight and not volume. | ||
|
illumiel
United States75 Posts
I really think that while initially higher education teaches how to think in a more broad way, later on overspecialization decreases general problem solving performance. That is just trade off you get for being good at one thing. | ||
|
SwiftSpear
Canada355 Posts
This is why many post grads have difficulty in their job as researchers and professors, because all of a sudden they are expected to be masters of a skill that they very rarely trained in. I honestly think this is one of the biggest problems in science. Even peer reviewed papers are generally terrible at shirking off bias. There are just certain area's they are allowed to sneak bias in. | ||
|
kafkaesque
Germany2006 Posts
| ||
|
RageBot
Israel1530 Posts
On June 14 2012 01:26 Severedevil wrote: Clearly, IQ imperfectly measures a useful set of mental abilities. Clearly, IQ does not even attempt to measure every useful kind of mental ability. Which bits you count as 'intelligence' is just semantics. IQ measures potential for learning. The reason that many intelligent people are bad at hard work and have bad social skills is that they never actually had to develop them, since everything comes so easily. And about social skills, when you're extremely intelligent (145IQ+), you are probably smarter than your teachers and know more than them at second grade, you just have problem relating and communicating with other kids. | ||
|
ShrykLdr
Canada44 Posts
| ||
|
ShrykLdr
Canada44 Posts
| ||
|
wunsun
Canada622 Posts
Basically, just that the 'stupider' person would be more methodical? Is cognitive bias long term? If it is, I am not sure how smarter people are biased? | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On June 14 2012 03:45 ShrykLdr wrote: God damnit, just realized it.... sigh LOL. I like how dejected you sound. I got it wrong too, even though I knew something was up but it said answer as quickly as possible so I just went with it. But I'm happy I figured it out shortly after  | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On June 14 2012 02:49 RageBot wrote: IQ measures potential for learning. The reason that many intelligent people are bad at hard work and have bad social skills is that they never actually had to develop them, since everything comes so easily. And about social skills, when you're extremely intelligent (145IQ+), you are probably smarter than your teachers and know more than them at second grade, you just have problem relating and communicating with other kids. I am going to sound like the arrogant prick that I am: but that's almost the story of my childhood, except that the bad social skills came much later when I just stopped caring  When it came to relating to other kids I learned at around the age of 10 that I should not act intelligent.The real problem is that when success is measured by secondary school grades and you dont even need to show up to lessons to achieve top grades then you believe that you do not need to work to succeed, and that does cause big problems later. I have no idea what my IQ is and I suspect it is significantly lower than that 145, but you really do not need to be intellectually ahead of your peers at a young age. | ||
|
SmokeMonster
Canada72 Posts
| ||
|
Cirqueenflex
499 Posts
On June 14 2012 03:55 wunsun wrote: Theoretically, wouldn't 'smarter' people just read through it quickly and think, oh easy question, snap answer, where else a 'stupider' person would read through it, and say I don't get it, and then re-read it and get it. Basically, just that the 'stupider' person would be more methodical? Is cognitive bias long term? If it is, I am not sure how smarter people are biased? in my opinion, this is wrong. Any 'smart' person will know that this is a trick question based on being told to answer fast and with your gut feeling, and will do it carefully (or actually calculate it). Or be tired of those questions where the one asking them gets the kick out of thinking he outsmarted smart people by showing them how them having learned stuff makes them stupid and not calculate it at all. Because my free will tells me i don't have to if those kind of really stupid questions bore me to death. And they do. For me being smart is trying to learn out of everything you do, finding mistakes by connecting patterns and constantly improving. This is like infinite possibilities and can never be truly measured by any kind of stupid IQ test where you suddenly seem more intelligent if you had the luck to already have heard such a question and its solution already. off topic: + Show Spoiler + Oh and also solving a rubics cube is quite the interesting task, as long as you do not know any of the combinational moves (how to get tile x to position y). Find those out on your own and you are clever (and have either put a lot of time into solving a problem by experimenting or you are good at abstraction and thinking 3D in your head etc). But as soon as you find out about the moves, it just becomes all about repetitiveness and finger memory and has pretty much nothing to do with you being smart or stupid, it becomes just another way of killing time. Hm maybe i should put this side-rant into spoilers since it seems a bit OT | ||
|
rhmiller907
United States118 Posts
| ||
|
Bippzy
United States1466 Posts
On June 13 2012 13:24 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Bat + Ball = 1.1 Bat = Ball + 1 => (Ball +1) + Ball = 1.1 Ball + Ball = .1 2Ball = .1 Ball = .05 Ohhh hmm yet my brain initially screamed "TEN CENTS! But I it's a trap! Better use algebra..." At the same time, while that is a reliable method, it really isn't the proper way to logic out the problem. Or maybe it is. People's brains are weird. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On June 14 2012 04:16 Cirqueenflex wrote: in my opinion, this is wrong. Any 'smart' person will know that this is a trick question based on being told to answer fast and with your gut feeling, and will do it carefully (or actually calculate it). Or be tired of those questions where the one asking them gets the kick out of thinking he outsmarted smart people by showing them how them having learned stuff makes them stupid and not calculate it at all. Because my free will tells me i don't have to if those kind of really stupid questions bore me to death. And they do. For me being smart is trying to learn out of everything you do, finding mistakes by connecting patterns and constantly improving. This is like infinite possibilities and can never be truly measured by any kind of stupid IQ test where you suddenly seem more intelligent if you had the luck to already have heard such a question and its solution already. off topic: + Show Spoiler + Oh and also solving a rubics cube is quite the interesting task, as long as you do not know any of the combinational moves (how to get tile x to position y). Find those out on your own and you are clever (and have either put a lot of time into solving a problem by experimenting or you are good at abstraction and thinking 3D in your head etc). But as soon as you find out about the moves, it just becomes all about repetitiveness and finger memory and has pretty much nothing to do with you being smart or stupid, it becomes just another way of killing time. Hm maybe i should put this side-rant into spoilers since it seems a bit OT Simple questions cannot always be consciously calculated. Take the example in the OP. I knew it was 5 cents within a few hundred milliseconds. To consciously calculate it I would have to decide to slowly check my answer. A lot of the time I would not bother to check such an answer as I assume that I know it and because of that I would occasionally get such a question wrong. I think this is actually more of a philosophical debate than anything else. What is intelligence? I do not care enough to debate it. I can certainly perform well when it comes to simple (logical) problems, and as a younger person I would of arrogantly thought that I was more intelligent than others. But I have gradually come to realise than in practice there are many ways to be intelligent and therefore there are many people more intelligent than I am. + Show Spoiler + I still do not know how to solve rubics' cubes. I have solved them and could solve them again, but it is a slow process. Damn, now I want a rubics cube... | ||
|
Weson
Iceland1032 Posts
| ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
| ||
|
Adonminus
Israel543 Posts
On June 14 2012 04:44 Lightwip wrote: Questionable use of statistics to back up a point. Nothing to see here. Agree. Not only it doesn't prove everything. Also people may be lazy, tired or just bad at logic/math when answering. | ||
| ||
