←back to thread

256 points hirundo | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
JoeAltmaier ◴[] No.35518164[source]
When IQ tests were invented folks didn't know about tests, at least in the US. They were rural immigrants who could maybe read. So when asked logic questions, they would answer pragmatically and be 'wrong'. That had some impact on perceived early low results.

As folks became better-read and educated they began to understand that IQ test questions were a sort of puzzle, not a real honest question. The answer was expected to solve the puzzle, not be right in any way.

E.g. There are no Elephants in Germany. Munich is in Germany. How many elephants are there in Munich? A) 0 B) 1 C)2

Folks back then might answer B or C, because they figure hey there's probably a zoo in Munich, bet they have an elephant or two there. And be marked wrong.

replies(8): >>35518406 #>>35518599 #>>35518661 #>>35519064 #>>35519319 #>>35520774 #>>35521627 #>>35522433 #
pseudo0 ◴[] No.35518406[source]
That theory could be plausible, except Flynn used results from Raven's Progressive Matrices, which is just pattern recognition. There are no questions about elephants or text-based questions that could introduce cultural bias. It's simply picking the shape that matches the pattern presented in a grid.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven's_Progressive_Matrices

replies(2): >>35518518 #>>35519847 #
WalterBright ◴[] No.35518518[source]
I've often heard from humanities academics that STEM majors do not confer critical thinking skills.
replies(9): >>35518564 #>>35518590 #>>35519179 #>>35519561 #>>35520094 #>>35520298 #>>35520427 #>>35520477 #>>35525385 #
snapplebobapple ◴[] No.35519561{3}[source]
As a humanities graduate i can confirm there is almost no critical thinking going on in that department outside economics. I wouldn't put too much stock in anything a contemporary humanities academic says.
replies(1): >>35520288 #
zen_1 ◴[] No.35520288{4}[source]
Maybe they're confusing critical thinking with critical theory? That's an unfortunate near collision of names if there ever was one
replies(1): >>35525566 #
1. watwut ◴[] No.35525566{5}[source]
To make it worst, the majority of people who complain about critical theory have no idea what it is and never studied legal theory. They just react to moral panic they see around them.
replies(1): >>35526542 #
2. snapplebobapple ◴[] No.35526542[source]
I think the more accurate description is that the people pushing critical theory purposefully make it as obtuse and confusing as possible because if they say plainly that a critical theory is distinguished from a regular theory by being activist in nature seeking emancipation from some poorly defined slavery/injustice people will point out that activism by definition has a result in mind and is inherently not rational in the face of observation, as the conclusion has already been decided so it is, at best, an abuse of words to call this crap a theory. The collision of names is likely on purpose because there is no validity to the "solutions" proposed by the "theory" (although there is some validity to some of the observations of injustice, as with any good lie there is a kernel of truth)

This isn't made any better by the two semi distinct historical roots of the modern schools of this crap bringing in either marxism by way of the frankfurt school or postmodernism (or increasingly some combination of the two). In general it becomes pretty obvious that it is a self contradicting mess that has no place in society, let alone at institutions of higher learning.