Dumb IQ Tests

By -
I was reading a math book in a bookstore a few months ago, and it explained that the typical question on a standardized test, whereby you have to say which number comes next in a sequence, is actually illegitimate. The reason is that you can always find more than one formula to generate the next number, where the different formulas give the same initial numbers (matching the ones in the question). For example:

Choose the number that comes next: 2, 4, 6, ___

(a) 8
(b) 10
(c) 14
(d) none of the above

You're thinking the answer is (a), right? And yes, the formula f(n)=2n would certainly match the first three numbers in the question, and would also make 8 the next number.

But the formula f(n)=2n + (n-1)(n-2)(n-3) also works; the right term is zero for the first three iterations, so it gives the same results as the simpler formula, but after that it gives different results. And if you plug n=4 into this formula, the next number in the sequence is 14, so answer (c) is perfectly reasonable. Indeed, (I think) you could come up with a formula for any desired fourth number in the sequence, by appropriately multiplying the right term by some constant.

So not only are the SATs and GREs racist and sexist, they also discriminate against wise aleck math geniuses! (This is not to suggest that blacks and women can't be math geniuses.)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more