Got them all as well. I didn't see a challenge here. Just general knowledge if you ask me. But then I was schooled before the Dept of Education came about and I actually learned something.
How much of that stuff did you learn in school? I think I knew most of it simply by being a science nerd. It ran in the family--my mother (a chem major) bought me Tom Lehrer's record with "The Elements" which I immediately transcribed, in order, Sb, As, Al, Se, H, O, N, Re, etc. I was maybe 11 years old.
Oh, well, crusty old dino is at least above average. I recall being taught that boiling water thing, but that was so many freaking years ago. Missed a couple of others.
I'm suddenly reminded of of unwashed underwear jokes I heard as a teenager back in the 60s. Such underwear would become so crusty that they'd come alive and run around doing stuff. I know that makes no sense. It was just the way some wacko dude told those nonsense jokes when I was at a military school in Florida.
A few jokes kinda do have a quirky sense to them. A couple of years ago I read that the essence of humor is the unexpected. "Now take my wife--please!" is only funny the first time you hear it combined with the set-up beforehand.
So like you, allosaur, I missed a couple....it's been a while since I had a science class. However, I'm glad that so many in the Gulch did so well on the test. But what I really admire about people in the Gulch is not their ability to ace quizzes but their common sense.
I taught for 5 years in one of those schools. Many of them wouldn't get any, and most would get less than half. They're not being taught. They're being babysat, with no discipline whatsoever.
That is the saddest thing that can be said about the state of today's education. Without reading comprehension, most of them are doomed to a 2nd class life, or worse.
Although I had majors in English and Philosophy, avoiding math led to a minor in Science, thus 12 of 12. The sugar and cavity one had me pondering, but logic and reason led to the correct, or at least expected answer. I always liked essay better than multiple choice, as there are always answers that are not quite perfectly correct in multiple choice.
Got all 12, and I suspect most of the Gulchers did very well.
However, I didn't like the sugar or nuclear power/weapons question. The answers were not clearly correct. 1. The sugar one does not provide adequate data for a conclusion. It is simply a correlation, and not a great R value. 2. The nuclear weapons one asks this of the elements is "required" for both. It is quite possible to make both a nuclear weapon and a nuclear reactor without uranium.
Interesting that "Asian" was left off the ethnicity demographic. Suspect we whiteys would be disappointed in our ethnic superiority here.
Really? I haven't seen that statistic. Usually lump my Hebrew friends in with us non-semantic peeps.
I hadn't seen this book. Looks interesting. Hilarious that it drew such attention, and the people deconstructing the conclusions are doing so with logical/mathematic arguments that only the top two IQ categories are likely to follow. Even more interesting the deconstructing arguments assert the statistics are fallacious, but they are far stronger than the statistics for global warming and many statistics regarding income disparity. Clearly these are made to appeal to ready-made targets. I will have to read this. Thanks.
This simple exam, which I could have done when I was in the 8th grade, is a test of one's abilities in science? Wait, I would have had to guess about cell phones, because I hadn't heard of them back then.
A better test would ask, "Compute, by hand, the Fourier transform of this set of data points." Or "Name at least half the first 94 chemical elements." Or "Illustrate the mean, standard deviation, skew and kurtosis in hand-drawn graphs. Compare these measures to the physics of rotational inertia in simple terms." Or, "Explain, without conducting experiments, why it is a dreadful idea to mix bleach with ammonia or with vinegar. Give some of the possible reactions."
It doesn't claim to test ability, just knowledge. But I agree with your criticism, since testing knowlege is not as useful an indicator of one's intelligence.
Think your view comes from the observations that many people treat economics like astrology or religion, as beliefs, not objective cause-effect studies, developing conclusions from results of experiments (which is what all laws are...social experiments). In this I agree with you, but it need not be that way.
Not exactly... I've recently finished reading three of the Freakonomics books. In their books, the authors have actually tried some experimental methods to try to discover root cause in a useful way, but from all I've seen, the Major People in Economics start with their Beliefs of How Things Should Be and then write column after column in the mainscream media trying to get everyone to agree that if Everyone Did It Their Way, All The Problems Would Be Solved...
That's not experimental, nor imnsho, 'scientific.' Paul Krugman is one of my favorite examples.
Economics tends to be backward-looking, often inferring a driving force that supports the economic philosophies of the economists. I view most Global Warming "consensus" the same way.
Experiments in Economic Theory (scientific-style, that is) are extremely hard to create... partially because unless they're kept totally in the dark, the 'control group' would often object to their circumstances.. :)
Being a fan, I think Milton Friedman's work is quite a bit more scientific than you describe. Perhaps we can agree that economics is immature, like chemistry in the 1600's. The element introducing chaos into these experiments is people (sociology), and beyond the fuzzy statistical nature of people's response, the data is clouded by politics and politician's manipulating the data. I find this quite like the churches manipulation of evidence to maintain power. This complication does not mean the study is impossible or unscientific. It does contribute to complication and unscientific manipulation.
It turns out that my mind seems to work the same way as the Freakonomics guys' do. Frequently their writing and conclusions are incredibly congruent with conclusions I've reached on my own, and often years ago! I'm a fan, too...
I've quoted and defended and proselytized Friedman over the decades, too! Met him in person, once, too. Tried to coax him into making a free-market position comment to a very liberal group and he refused. Pissed me off. Still love him. Remember, Friedman was just a wee bit pre-internet, so The Ways Experiments Can Be Run On People have changed a bit, too... :)
... yep... back in the '80s, I think it was... and HE died way too early for MY taste... i'd wanted his ideas to be promulgated and accepted way more than they were (or are today).
I have a fond memory of a graph he did when writing for what I came to call "ANTI-BusinessWeek" magazine... a graph implying that whenever 'government' does something to change or provoke the economy, the real effects are not noticeable for 12-24 months or so later.
Just what was and is needed in the fruit-fly attention-span typical today in mainscream media and voters.
Oh, well... I turn 70 in two months. Won't have to up up with that shit much longer.... just gonna try to have fun....
oh, it's fun already... several feuds among family and friends about where to have a party, whether to have a party, whom to invite... The joys of being a human... :)
When you see two variables (the axes), with a graph moving up and to the right, that indicates that as one variable increases, the other also increases. So, as sugar consumption increases, so do cavities.
Backwards... the dots represent 'incidence of cavities' versus 'sugar consumption.' Those are the Inputs to the Discussion or Question...
The line is more like a Least-Squares Fit to describe the average correlation between the two... which is the 'answer' or 'indicator' that when one increases, the other tends to increase.
Oh Well, a Dummy among us. I always thought water boils at 212* no matter where I am and I can't hear for shit anyway. 10 of 12 and that is my final answer.
12 for 12. This is pre High School level. But I did go to Ethical Culture Fieldston, Class of 1978- where I took Bio, Chem, Physics (in the same lab as Oppenheimer) and AP Bio... I can't believe how ignorant most people are here in the US. Wonder how many know what glycolysis and oxydative phosphorylation are?
Just general knowledge if you ask me. But then I was schooled before the Dept of Education came about and I actually learned something.
But I kind of question (or resent) the title, because I didn't GUESS at ANY of the questions to come up with (ALL) the Correct Answers.
I recall being taught that boiling water thing, but that was so many freaking years ago.
Missed a couple of others.
We might consider a contest as to who is crustier. Personally I can't stay in one place more than 30 minutes without forming a crust.
Such underwear would become so crusty that they'd come alive and run around doing stuff.
I know that makes no sense.
It was just the way some wacko dude told those nonsense jokes when I was at a military school in Florida.
A couple of years ago I read that the essence of humor is the unexpected.
"Now take my wife--please!" is only funny the first time you hear it combined with the set-up beforehand.
you are taking a shower, they might need a wash job. -- j
.
There's some who don't think my old dino brain has any common sense stuff.
.
:)
this is another world and very few know about its beautiful
intricacies!!! -- j
p.s. how about this history explanation?:::
http://get.smarter.com/qa/science/uni...
.
high-school grads would miss more than 5. -- j
.
BTW, "amplitude or height of a sound wave"? A sound wave has no "height", since it's a compressional wave.
Then, there's the one about the physicist, engineer and mathematician in a hotel that catches fire... :)))
But they were pretty basic and easy.
From the Intro To Business Law class...
The "right answer" is usually "It Depends," followed by your reasons for taking either, any or both sides of the alleged 'argument.'
Still useful in socio-political-economic-religious "discussions."
:))))))
However, I didn't like the sugar or nuclear power/weapons question. The answers were not clearly correct.
1. The sugar one does not provide adequate data for a conclusion. It is simply a correlation, and not a great R value.
2. The nuclear weapons one asks this of the elements is "required" for both. It is quite possible to make both a nuclear weapon and a nuclear reactor without uranium.
Interesting that "Asian" was left off the ethnicity demographic. Suspect we whiteys would be disappointed in our ethnic superiority here.
I hadn't seen this book. Looks interesting. Hilarious that it drew such attention, and the people deconstructing the conclusions are doing so with logical/mathematic arguments that only the top two IQ categories are likely to follow. Even more interesting the deconstructing arguments assert the statistics are fallacious, but they are far stronger than the statistics for global warming and many statistics regarding income disparity. Clearly these are made to appeal to ready-made targets. I will have to read this. Thanks.
A better test would ask, "Compute, by hand, the Fourier transform of this set of data points." Or "Name at least half the first 94 chemical elements." Or "Illustrate the mean, standard deviation, skew and kurtosis in hand-drawn graphs. Compare these measures to the physics of rotational inertia in simple terms." Or, "Explain, without conducting experiments, why it is a dreadful idea to mix bleach with ammonia or with vinegar. Give some of the possible reactions."
.
!
Ah, db... any problem with that kind of information Actually Belonging in Both Studies? :)
In their books, the authors have actually tried some experimental methods to try to discover root cause in a useful way, but from all I've seen, the Major People in Economics start with their Beliefs of How Things Should Be and then write column after column in the mainscream media trying to get everyone to agree that if Everyone Did It Their Way, All The Problems Would Be Solved...
That's not experimental, nor imnsho, 'scientific.'
Paul Krugman is one of my favorite examples.
Economics tends to be backward-looking, often inferring a driving force that supports the economic philosophies of the economists. I view most Global Warming "consensus" the same way.
Experiments in Economic Theory (scientific-style, that is) are extremely hard to create... partially because unless they're kept totally in the dark, the 'control group' would often object to their circumstances.. :)
The element introducing chaos into these experiments is people (sociology), and beyond the fuzzy statistical nature of people's response, the data is clouded by politics and politician's manipulating the data. I find this quite like the churches manipulation of evidence to maintain power. This complication does not mean the study is impossible or unscientific. It does contribute to complication and unscientific manipulation.
I've quoted and defended and proselytized Friedman over the decades, too! Met him in person, once, too. Tried to coax him into making a free-market position comment to a very liberal group and he refused. Pissed me off. Still love him. Remember, Friedman was just a wee bit pre-internet, so The Ways Experiments Can Be Run On People have changed a bit, too... :)
I have a fond memory of a graph he did when writing for what I came to call "ANTI-BusinessWeek" magazine... a graph implying that whenever 'government' does something to change or provoke the economy, the real effects are not noticeable for 12-24 months or so later.
Just what was and is needed in the fruit-fly attention-span typical today in mainscream media and voters.
Oh, well... I turn 70 in two months. Won't have to up up with that shit much longer.... just gonna try to have fun....
You probably deserve a break at 70, and please do have fun.
The joys of being a human... :)
The line is more like a Least-Squares Fit to describe the average correlation between the two... which is the 'answer' or 'indicator' that when one increases, the other tends to increase.
I was surprised. The questions seemed very easy.
This is pre High School level.
But I did go to Ethical Culture Fieldston, Class of 1978- where I took Bio, Chem, Physics (in the same lab as Oppenheimer) and AP Bio... I can't believe how ignorant most people are here in the US. Wonder how many know what glycolysis and oxydative phosphorylation are?
.
Though I wonder....
Load more comments...