5 Types of Human Grad Student

By -
Martin Joos, Head of the Dept. of Germanic L & L, UW, Madison, WI, freaked out his entering graduate students by administering little tests upon meeting them for the first time; he was not so much interested in their smarts as their problem-solving personality type (in his typology). Example: he would write down the first few odd numbers, "1  3  5  7  9  ..." Then he would reckon out loud, "1 plus 3 is 4, plus 5 is 9, plus 7 is 16... What is the sum of the first 60 odd numbers?" His typology, based on the response:

Type I. Defense, anger, refusal.

Type II. Collapse.

Type III. "Oh, yeah, we had a formula for this in school..." (Needless to say, he didn't care if they could remember a formula or come up with an answer.)

Type IV ("Engineers"). They'd think a few seconds and then answer, "3600."

Type V ("Mathematicians"). They'd answer instantly, "360."

Comments

  1. Anonymous1:33 AM

    I'm probably in either the Type II or Type III category, though with a little time and effort (but not under duress), I can be Type IV.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous1:41 AM

    Just a word on the Type I: While I know that I am not the smartest man, I am also not one to give up. If I am posed a challenge, I will do whatever I can to find the answer. If I don't know the answer or am simply incapable of providing an answer, then I will eventually admit defeat. So I must revise my answer, I would fall either under Type II or Type IV, but not Type III.

    I did fall under Type III in your last experiment, but only temporarily. I eventually realized that I am a Type II in that experiment (I was clearly out of my element).

    ReplyDelete
  3. John Goes3:54 AM

    You're an order of magnitude off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wabulon11:12 PM

      John, to whom are you replying? I hope it isn't to the "Mathematicians", because that was the whole point.

      Delete
  4. Current4:42 PM

    That description is too kind to Engineers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andy9:36 AM

      I'm an engineer, and you're right. It took me nearly thirty seconds.

      Delete
    2. Current8:34 PM

      It took me a lot longer.

      Delete
  5. PH4:06 PM

    What about the non-human grad students?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wabulon11:10 PM

      They must be further subdivided into language-speaking and non-language-speaking, also into finger-possessing and non-finger-possessing.

      Delete

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