EPTpoint is, many people that don't study maths are really average in it and have no idea how to actually solve a problem. IQ is not a good way to measure intelligence, just like these questions. The bias is thinking maths (or anything somewhat scientifically oriented, which involves series, patterns) is the only thing to define intelligence. I'd say your whole studies that enabled you to get accepted at Harvard are a better measure than a stupid question.
Smarter people more prone to cognitive bias - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Toxi78
966 Posts
point is, many people that don't study maths are really average in it and have no idea how to actually solve a problem. IQ is not a good way to measure intelligence, just like these questions. The bias is thinking maths (or anything somewhat scientifically oriented, which involves series, patterns) is the only thing to define intelligence. I'd say your whole studies that enabled you to get accepted at Harvard are a better measure than a stupid question. | ||
|
Lobo2me
Norway1213 Posts
In sample 1, A has a concentration of 2 and a signal of 300. B has a concentration of 3 and a signal of 600. In sample 2, A has a concentration of 4 and a signal of 1200. B has a signal of 1800, what's the concentration? | ||
|
Chilling5pr33
Germany518 Posts
| ||
|
Chilling5pr33
Germany518 Posts
On June 13 2012 21:14 Lobo2me wrote: Here's a little task: In sample 1, A has a concentration of 2 and a signal of 300. B has a concentration of 3 and a signal of 600. In sample 2, A has a concentration of 4 and a signal of 1200. B has a signal of 1800, what's the concentration? 4.5? | ||
|
Lobo2me
Norway1213 Posts
How did you arrive at that answer? | ||
|
NDDseer
Australia204 Posts
| ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
We had a multiple choice test in junior school - 40 or 50 questions with a separate answer sheet of tick-boxes. I blazed through the questions and finished first. Then when we went through the answers I discovered that I'd missed out question 10. Every answer correct, but filled in one row too high up. I think it was half trying to be too clever, and half the fact that I'm left-handed, so my hand obscured the question numbers on the answer sheet as I worked my way down. | ||
|
Chilling5pr33
Germany518 Posts
2-300 3-600 4-1200 so 5-2400 and 1-150 have no clue if it should be something like 4.65 since numbers grow faster as higher you get... (if you know what i mean) | ||
|
ensign_lee
United States1178 Posts
Y = 1 + X ~~~ 1 + X + X = 1.1 1 + 2X = 1.1 2X = .1 X = .05 | ||
|
ioFilip
Romania33 Posts
| ||
|
Shottaz
United Kingdom414 Posts
I have only just come to the conclusion that it is 5 cents. If a bat has to cost a dollar more than the ball. Ball = 0 Bat = 1.00 total 1.00 Ball = 0.05 Bat = 1.05 total 1.10 <------- Correct Ball = 0.10 Bat = 1.10 total 1.20 I'm surprised how long this took me to get this. I must be massively intelligent, however not as intelligent as someone who still think the the ball is 10 cents. | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
It's not a big mystery to me. The questions don't take any kind of advanced brainpower to solve, that's why most people assume they can breeze through them. | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
On June 13 2012 21:13 Toxi78 wrote: it's funny how if you post a retarded question that even 12 years old kids that are somewhat "smart" could answer you get 8 pages of smartasses trying to prove you they are more intelligent than people from the MIT / Princeton / Harvard and making a point to show you they found the correct answer. point is, many people that don't study maths are really average in it and have no idea how to actually solve a problem. IQ is not a good way to measure intelligence, just like these questions. The bias is thinking maths (or anything somewhat scientifically oriented, which involves series, patterns) is the only thing to define intelligence. I'd say your whole studies that enabled you to get accepted at Harvard are a better measure than a stupid question. While you may be right, I wouldn't consider either one of those examples a "math problem". They are just trick questions that make sense to anybody when they stop to think about it. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
| ||
|
Felnarion
442 Posts
I'm unsure of the point of the article/study as well, as it essentially says "Intelligent people are far less likely to doubt themselves and their held knowledge than dumb ones" which is just common sense. Simple, basic, meaningless, math teasers are not stimulating. The bat and ball, the pond, this is not stimulating. The goal of questions such as these is to get the answer and move on. Not to study the problem, roll it around in the mind, focus on specific details, and enjoy the problem solving experience. In problems such as these, I think you would find that those "more intelligent" people perform significantly higher when they're doing something they enjoy and want to do. | ||
|
Cynry
810 Posts
For A to be coherent through both samples, either every unit of concentration adds 300 from concentration 1 = 0, or every unit of concentration doubles the signal, starting from concentration 1 = 150. Both thesis are ok with B being concentration 3 with signal 600, which I find weird considering that it's another sample but I don't really know what you're talking about anyway ^^ First thesis gives concentration 6 for B in sample 2, second thesis gives 4.5 | ||
|
Shottaz
United Kingdom414 Posts
A bat and ball costs..." | ||
|
Zedders
Canada450 Posts
On June 13 2012 13:24 nutgirdle wrote: Lets go with ego. Let me explain: Smart people know they are smart. They also want to answer the question in the least amount of time, and get on with doing things they deem more important. Some might even be lazy, and assume their intuition is powerful enough to get the right answer right away. Therefore, the hop to a reasonably justifiable conclusion using bits and pieces of data to support what they think the answer should be. Yeah but smart people don't recognize where they fall short. | ||
|
GizmoPT
Portugal3040 Posts
| ||
|
Lobo2me
Norway1213 Posts
On June 13 2012 21:29 Chilling5pr33 wrote: 2-300 3-600 4-1200 so 5-2400 and 1-150 have no clue if it should be something like 4.65 since numbers grow faster as higher you get... (if you know what i mean) You did get the right answer, but it was purely through luck. From sample 1 to sample 2, equal concentration would get 2x signal, which is seen with A (2x concentration -> 4x signal). That means when B had a 3x signal increase, it was a 1.5x concentration increase. For example if the signal for B in sample 1 had been 1200, the concentration would be 2.25. | ||
| ||
