Teaching Kids to be Dumb Adults

[lacktheknack]

I wish you'd stated that it was an American test in the first place. We drive on the left in my country, thus, I would've said it was going right due to the lack of visible door.

Then you're correct.

As for the others camplaining that it's a stupid test due to poor drawing: I'm not sure if this says good or bad things about your abstract thinking.

 

[VanQ]

Part of the problem is the educators.

My brother came to me, stating that most of his colleagues couldn't answer this question.

Last year, Joe was three times the age of his little brother Tom. This year, he is only twice as old as Tom. How old is Tom?

My brother is a substitute teacher. Has colleagues are actual teachers who couldn't figure this shit out. No fucking idea at all. Meanwhile, (God I hope) you can pick that answer out in seconds.

Are you kidding me? I more or less had the question figured out before I finished reading it. Yes, I made an assumption on what the second sentence would be but even if I hadn't I would have figured it out instantly.

I weep for the children being taught by those people. They deserve better.

That's a beyond stupid test though. Show me an actual school bus I could of gotten it, otherwise it looks barely anything like a bus so why would I assume it had door at all? Hell the wheels aren't attached to the fucking thing, so it ain't going any where.

Likewise, you can't see a driver. You can't see the door through what I guess are windows either.

Not seeing the value of this test.

The test's value comes in judging your ability to think in abstract ways to solve a problem. An important skill for any individual to have, if you ask me, but not one that many have at all.

 

[andago]

I wish you'd stated that it was an American test in the first place. We drive on the left in my country, thus, I would've said it was going right due to the lack of visible door.

Then you're correct.

As for the others camplaining that it's a stupid test due to poor drawing: I'm not sure if this says good or bad things about your abstract thinking.

Really? Then why can't the correct answer be that the bus is heading into the page? Maybe it's been dropped from a height and is heading directly downwards? Maybe the bus is reversing, so no matter which way is forwards, it could be heading the opposite direction? In my opinion, the very fact that some people are arguing there can only be one correct answer for a question based around a very crudely drawn representation of what I only know is meant to be a bus because I was told, shows a lack of 'abstract thinking'.

It is indeed of a short-sighted test, because the level of abstraction of the actual drawing could lead you to believe that the reason you can't see any doors is not because the bus is heading one way or the other, but because the level of the drawing just hasn't included doors.

I also question the existence of a thread suggesting education destroys any modicum of critical or abstract thinking, filled with people that must have been through one sort of education system or another. Surely the fact that so many people know the answer to the maths question shows that in some way their mathematical education was a success?

As to education in general, what about countries that include apprenticeship schemes alongside of school. How about the inclusion of sport and physical education? School isn't just about learning facts by rote, those good in english would learn to think about the context rather than just the content of text, those good at maths were encouraged to solve more imaginative problems using learned skills, people good at design and art encouraged to develop technically and thematically with their work, people good at sports encouraged to develop at higher levels of competition. Outside of the subjects it provides opportunities simply to socialise in a group environment, and develop outside interests through clubs, vital skills throughout life.

Sure, there are good and bad schools in every country, and there are probably ways of improving the already existing system, but to suggest that public education is fundamentally stifling or indoctrinate seems ridiculously paranoid to me.

 

[Heronblade]

That's a beyond stupid test though. Show me an actual school bus I could of gotten it, otherwise it looks barely anything like a bus so why would I assume it had door at all? Hell the wheels aren't attached to the fucking thing, so it ain't going any where.

Likewise, you can't see a driver. You can't see the door through what I guess are windows either.

Not seeing the value of this test.

The test's value comes in judging your ability to think in abstract ways to solve a problem. An important skill for any individual to have, if you ask me, but not one that many have at all.

In which case almost any answer would be valid. Frankly, I'd be disappointed in my kid if he or she based their answer on the absence of a door in that particular image. There are too many things wrong with it to expect any kind of real world consistency. Even if it was true that all school buses have their doors on the right hand side.

Even if all such assumptions could be made, how do you know the bus is not moving backwards based on the information given? Hell, the ground isn't depicted either, not to mention the shock system and axles connecting the wheels to the vehicle, so why not "its falling down"?

 

[Thaluikhain]

In which case almost any answer would be valid. Frankly, I'd be disappointed in my kid if he or she based their answer on the absence of a door in that particular image. There are too many things wrong with it to expect any kind of real world consistency. Even if it was true that all school buses have their doors on the right hand side.

Hell, the ground isn't depicted either, not to mention the shock system and axles connecting the wheels to the vehicle, so why not "its falling down"?

Pft, obviously it's a chalk outline of a bus used to represent where a bus was murdered. The bus is en route to the morgue, but not traveling under its own power.

 

[Zepherus14]

A real "diamond" is actually a parallelogram, not a square.

So I mean, maybe it told her the diamond fish wasn't a square fish because they aren't the same shape?

That sir, is a rhombus, not a parallelogram.

 

[Thaluikhain]

A real "diamond" is actually a parallelogram, not a square.

So I mean, maybe it told her the diamond fish wasn't a square fish because they aren't the same shape?

That sir, is a rhombus, not a parallelogram.

Er, is not a rhombus a particular form of parallelogram?

 

[Heronblade]

A real "diamond" is actually a parallelogram, not a square.

So I mean, maybe it told her the diamond fish wasn't a square fish because they aren't the same shape?

That sir, is a rhombus, not a parallelogram.

a rhombus is a parallelogram with four equal sides.

Your post is basically the same as claiming that a square is not a rectangle, or that a dog is not a mammal.

Of course, speaking of thinking in abstract terms, it may not be either. You could consider it to be a 2d image of a square in 3d space that has been rotated around an axis so that it only appears to have angles other than 90 degrees...

 

[Zepherus14]

A real "diamond" is actually a parallelogram, not a square.

So I mean, maybe it told her the diamond fish wasn't a square fish because they aren't the same shape?

That sir, is a rhombus, not a parallelogram.

Er, is not a rhombus a particular form of parallelogram?

It's the same as calling a square a rectangle, which I'm pretty sure doesn't work. But really in the grand scheme of things doesn't really mean that much.

@Heronblade: Interesting you would mention that while I was typing this out.

 

[Heronblade]

A real "diamond" is actually a parallelogram, not a square.

So I mean, maybe it told her the diamond fish wasn't a square fish because they aren't the same shape?

That sir, is a rhombus, not a parallelogram.

Er, is not a rhombus a particular form of parallelogram?

It's the same as calling a square a rectangle, which I'm pretty sure doesn't work. But really in the grand scheme of things doesn't really mean that much.

Calling a square a rectangle is accurate. The fact that it is not the most precise term available is largely irrelevant unless the additional details are required.

Hell, calling a square a rhombus is also accurate, though potentially misleading.

 

[VanQ]

In which case almost any answer would be valid. Frankly, I'd be disappointed in my kid if he or she based their answer on the absence of a door in that particular image. There are too many things wrong with it to expect any kind of real world consistency. Even if it was true that all school buses have their doors on the right hand side.

Even if all such assumptions could be made, how do you know the bus is not moving backwards based on the information given? Hell, the ground isn't depicted either, not to mention the shock system and axles connecting the wheels to the vehicle, so why not "its falling down"?

This is why the children end up giving the most logical, reasonable answer possible though. They see a group of shapes that vaguely represent a bus and are told it's a bus and are told that it's moving, then are asked which direction they think it's moving. Off that small amount of information they are able to envision a bus, notice the distinct lack of the door on this side and make an assumption that it's moving forwards since they have very likely never seen a bus in reverse. I don't think I've ever seen a bus reverse, for that matter.

The children process the information they're given, no matter how abstract and come to a logical conclusion. You however, did not come to the same conclusion that you were told was the correct one and try to think of ways to undermine the validity because the image didn't give YOU enough detail to come to the same conclusion that 90% of the children could. There would be no point if they gave you a HD photograph of a bus, on the road, clearly moving forward and asked you the same question.

The children are thinking in a way that allowed them to take an abstract question and come to a logical conclusion. You're thinking in an abstract manner and coming to an abstract conclusion.

Whether or not the children or you are wrong might as well be irrelevant. It's quite clear that you have difficulty thinking critically when presented with an abstract situation. I think the picture of the bus has served its purpose.

On a more personal note... I seriously can't believe you're worried about the illustration being not a 100% accurate depiction of the real thing. Lack of shock absorbers and axles... for the love of... way to miss the point entirely.

 

[Saltyk]

Part of the problem is the educators.

My brother came to me, stating that most of his colleagues couldn't answer this question.

Last year, Joe was three times the age of his little brother Tom. This year, he is only twice as old as Tom. How old is Tom?

My brother is a substitute teacher. Has colleagues are actual teachers who couldn't figure this shit out. No fucking idea at all. Meanwhile, (God I hope) you can pick that answer out in seconds.

When I read your post, I was about to defend the people. I was going to say, "That's not fair. That's not such a simple question. I could see-"
But as I was literally thinking that to myself the answer hit me. So, yeah, maybe they should have been able to answer it since I figured it out while trying to defend those who couldn't...

Though, as someone else said, if the people were distracted or busy, I can't fault them. But if they actually were trying, that's not really defensible.

 

[Zepherus14]

A real "diamond" is actually a parallelogram, not a square.

So I mean, maybe it told her the diamond fish wasn't a square fish because they aren't the same shape?

That sir, is a rhombus, not a parallelogram.

Er, is not a rhombus a particular form of parallelogram?

It's the same as calling a square a rectangle, which I'm pretty sure doesn't work. But really in the grand scheme of things doesn't really mean that much.

Calling a square a rectangle is accurate. The fact that it is not the most precise term available is largely irrelevant unless the additional details are required.

Hell, calling a square a rhombus is also accurate, though potentially misleading.

Aww... now how am I supposed to argue when you change the situation to something other than what was originally the problem... That's not very fair. If you're going to start going the angles route then you could go one step further with saying that a origami swan is also a square, it's just folded up.

@BeerTent: The answer is Joe is 3 and Tom is 1, and then Joe is 4 and Tom is 2.

 

[andago]

In which case almost any answer would be valid. Frankly, I'd be disappointed in my kid if he or she based their answer on the absence of a door in that particular image. There are too many things wrong with it to expect any kind of real world consistency. Even if it was true that all school buses have their doors on the right hand side.

Even if all such assumptions could be made, how do you know the bus is not moving backwards based on the information given? Hell, the ground isn't depicted either, not to mention the shock system and axles connecting the wheels to the vehicle, so why not "its falling down"?

This is why the children end up giving the most logical, reasonable answer possible though. They see a group of shapes that vaguely represent a bus and are told it's a bus and are told that it's moving, then are asked which direction they think it's moving. Off that small amount of information they are able to envision a bus, notice the distinct lack of the door on this side and make an assumption that it's moving forwards since they have very likely never seen a bus in reverse. I don't think I've ever seen a bus reverse, for that matter.

My problem is I saw the bus and assumed from the symmetrical way it was drawn that it was a trick question and that it was the back of the bus, so it was either moving towards or away from the screen. Equally the ability to say that there can be no right answer because, whether you have seen one or not, buses definitely do have a reverse gear, is a perfectly logical conclusion to draw from the abstract idea that the drawing represents a bus.

It seems to me that all this test serves to point out is that children tend to trust fully in the rules laid down by someone setting the test, whereas adults have the scope to complicate the issue by imagining abstract situations outside of its remit, which doesn't really serve the idea that we are stifled critically by our education.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I'd like to chime in as a recent graduate with an education degree. I majored in Secondary Social Science ed, and minored in history, and the truth is they don't teach the teachers to think critically, at least not in this state. Far from it, in fact -- that program expects its students to take 50 year old studies, many of which have been debunked or at the very least misinterpreted, and accept them as the gospel truth. Why? Because they make teachers feel good. When applied the way we're expected to, they say nice things about students, intelligence, and learning. Problem is way too much of it falls apart on closer inspection. Not that we read the actual studies, mind you -- or even necessarily commentaries from people who had. Instead it was the kind of third hand explanation of what a scientist had studied that you'd expect to find in a high school textbook, and a lower level one at that.

The history minor, on the other hand, was the complete opposite. We were expected to question the primary sources[footnote]Who wrote it? Why? What might their biases be? Do they actually have enough knowledge of the subject to give us a complete picture? Could they be lying through their teeth for some reason?[/footnote], we were expected to question the secondary sources[footnote]All the same as the above, plus questions of whether they accepted the biases in the primary source uncritically, compounding their own bias[/footnote], and tertiary sources were just not to be used at all because of how unreliable they were[footnote]In the sense that they're adding a third layer to the bias stew I wrote about in the other footnotes. Each step removed from the source has more room for completely accidental factual errors, too, and a whole host of other potential problems.[/footnote]. I'm a teacher who understands how to think critically, but that's despite what they tried to teach me in the education program, not because of it.

 

[Heronblade]

In which case almost any answer would be valid. Frankly, I'd be disappointed in my kid if he or she based their answer on the absence of a door in that particular image. There are too many things wrong with it to expect any kind of real world consistency. Even if it was true that all school buses have their doors on the right hand side.

Even if all such assumptions could be made, how do you know the bus is not moving backwards based on the information given? Hell, the ground isn't depicted either, not to mention the shock system and axles connecting the wheels to the vehicle, so why not "its falling down"?

This is why the children end up giving the most logical, reasonable answer possible though. They see a group of shapes that vaguely represent a bus and are told it's a bus and are told that it's moving, then are asked which direction they think it's moving. Off that small amount of information they are able to envision a bus, notice the distinct lack of the door on this side and make an assumption that it's moving forwards since they have very likely never seen a bus in reverse. I don't think I've ever seen a bus reverse, for that matter.

The children process the information they're given, no matter how abstract and come to a logical conclusion. You however, did not come to the same conclusion that you were told was the correct one and try to think of ways to undermine the validity because the image didn't give YOU enough detail to come to the same conclusion that 90% of the children could. There would be no point if they gave you a HD photograph of a bus, on the road, clearly moving forward and asked you the same question.

The children are thinking in a way that allowed them to take an abstract question and come to a logical conclusion. You're thinking in an abstract manner and coming to an abstract conclusion.

Whether or not the children or you are wrong might as well be irrelevant. It's quite clear that you have difficulty thinking critically when presented with an abstract situation. I think the picture of the bus has served its purpose.

On a more personal note... I seriously can't believe you're worried about the illustration being not a 100% accurate depiction of the real thing. Lack of shock absorbers and axles... for the love of... way to miss the point entirely.

I'm not asking for a 100% accurate image, I'm pointing out the inconsistency in expecting someone to define an answer based on details that are missing from an image that is also missing all other details that one would expect to see. Even if one assumed that we are talking about the kind of bus with a door only on the right hand side, the front of the bus could still just as easily have been to the right of the image, with the door not having been depicted at all.

I heavily encourage abstract thinking, along with making reasonable assumptions to fill in gaps in the available information. I use both in my job on a daily basis. Far more so than most expect from a technical field. But this? Defining this problem as having one single "right" answer just encourages kids to make weak assumptions based on faulty data and preconceived notions that are by and large inaccurate.

 

[VanQ]

My problem is I saw the bus and assumed from the symmetrical way it was drawn that it was a trick question and that it was the back of the bus, so it was either moving towards or away from the screen. Equally the ability to say that there can be no right answer because, whether you have seen one or not, buses definitely do have a reverse gear, is a perfectly logical conclusion to draw from the abstract idea that the drawing represents a bus.

It seems to me that all this test serves to point out is that children tend to trust fully in the rules laid down by someone setting the test, whereas adults have the scope to complicate the issue by imagining abstract situations outside of its remit, which doesn't really serve the idea that we are stifled critically by our education.

To be fair, tires are not spherical. If you really were viewing the bus from behind or in front, I'd expect them to have drawn them as rectangles, because I doubt it was intended as a trick question.

About your second point, I can see why you think that way. But one's ability to think critically isn't about thinking outside the box. It's the ability to take the information presented to you and come to a logical conclusion from that information. Complexity is not necessary to display critical thinking. Adding complexity where it is not needed shows a distinct lack of ability to think critically.

That is, working through a complex problem is a good thing, making a simple problem more complex in order to reach a conclusion is a bad thing. This is coming from someone that's done a lot of programming in his time and you learn quickly that you won't survive for long by adding extra layers of complexity where it isn't needed.

 

[Commissar Sae]

I'd like to chime in as a recent graduate with an education degree. I majored in Secondary Social Science ed, and minored in history, and the truth is they don't teach the teachers to think critically, at least not in this state. Far from it, in fact -- that program expects its students to take 50 year old studies, many of which have been debunked or at the very least misinterpreted, and accept them as the gospel truth. Why? Because they make teachers feel good. When applied the way we're expected to, they say nice things about students, intelligence, and learning. Problem is way too much of it falls apart on closer inspection.

The history minor, on the other hand, was the complete opposite. We were expected to question the primary sources[footnote]Who wrote it? Why? What might their biases be? Do they actually have enough knowledge of the subject to give us a complete picture? Could they be lying through their teeth for some reason?[/footnote], we were expected to question the secondary sources[footnote]All the same as the above, plus questions of whether they accepted the biases in the primary source uncritically, compounding their own bias[/footnote], and tertiary sources were just not to be used at all because of how unreliable they were[footnote]In the sense that they're adding a third layer to the bias stew I wrote about in the other footnotes. Each step removed from the source has more room for completely accidental factual errors, too, and a whole host of other potential problems.[/footnote]. I'm a teacher who understands how to think critically, but that's despite what they tried to teach me in the education program, not because of it.

Yeah I'm kind of in the same boat, though I am actually finishing my second degree in education with my first as a major in history with a minor in political science. The education programs are basically rubbish pretty much everywhere and they create cookie cutter teachers who only have a vague understanding of the subjects they are supposed to teach. I did some fieldwork as part of my studies and was rather depressed to find out that maybe 80% of the history teachers in high schools here aren't in any way trained in history as a subject. Some of them even flat out hated history but taught it because the position was open. How can a teacher be expected to teach critical thinking about a subject when they don't have any experience in the subject is beyond me.

I also want to say that for a lot of people, critical thinking is pretty difficult. We can blame the system all we want, but I look at a lot of my students and most of them would much rather take the easy way out than challenge themselves and actually think about the subject matter. How much of this is the fault of the system I'm still not sure, but it is very easy to say the education system is the problem and not look at the variety of other social factors that influence students.

 

[Heronblade]

A real "diamond" is actually a parallelogram, not a square.

So I mean, maybe it told her the diamond fish wasn't a square fish because they aren't the same shape?

That sir, is a rhombus, not a parallelogram.

Er, is not a rhombus a particular form of parallelogram?

It's the same as calling a square a rectangle, which I'm pretty sure doesn't work. But really in the grand scheme of things doesn't really mean that much.

Calling a square a rectangle is accurate. The fact that it is not the most precise term available is largely irrelevant unless the additional details are required.

Hell, calling a square a rhombus is also accurate, though potentially misleading.

Aww... now how am I supposed to argue when you change the situation to something other than what was originally the problem... That's not very fair. If you're going to start going the angles route then you could go one step further with saying that a origami swan is also a square, it's just folded up.

No, its pretty much the same situation. It is a matter of categorical definition.

All squares are also rectangles, all squares are also rhombuses, all rectangles are also parallelograms, all rhombuses are also parallelograms. These relationships do not work in reverse, you can claim that a parallelogram is not a rhombus, but claiming that a rhombus is not a parallelogram as you did earlier is not correct.

Also, unless you are using a weird frame of reference with more than the standard four dimensions, your swan can not in its present form be considered a square.