←back to thread

256 points hirundo | 1 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 #
worrycue ◴[] No.35520298[source]
I really wonder what do the people in humanities consider “critical thinking”. Mathematics and formal proofs are the epitome of logical thought IMHO - while arguments in the humanities often don’t have the same level of rigor; nor are their p-tests as stringent as in the physical sciences. So what exactly is it that’s they think is missing from STEM?

Edit: Don’t just downvote. Explain. That’s what we are here for.

replies(5): >>35520807 #>>35521055 #>>35525141 #>>35525213 #>>35525360 #
watwut ◴[] No.35525360{4}[source]
I studied CS and it seems to me that it did not taught critical thinking all that much. It taught logical thinking. We have tendency to create simplified model of the world, make logical inferences on it and then ignore actual messy real world evidence when it contradicts our theories.

So, the caricature of a STEM student will make theory in his mind and then ignored pretty much all nuance in the article the theory is based on.

Another example would be bias. The history students are specifically trained to deal with bias in source material and accept that every single historical source is biased by own point of view. The amount of STEM graduates who split world into two neat categories "biased" and "non-biased" is staggering.

All of these are elements of critical thinking.

replies(3): >>35526194 #>>35526959 #>>35575578 #
1. flippinburgers ◴[] No.35575578{5}[source]
I would argue that if you cannot first think logically then the supposed "critical thinking" you are doing is little more than you expressing things in a more or less persuasive way. In this case, persuasion is more hinged on charisma than anything material.

Logical thinking is the precursor to proper critical thinking.