Teaching Kids to be Dumb Adults

[andago]

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.

But then that's criticising the drawing, which you said you couldn't do. I know tires are approximately rectangular from the back, but given the detail of the drawing I could accept that as a level of abstraction.

i realise complexity isn't an indication of critical thinking, but equally I'm not sure why the ability to ignore complexity demonstrates the ability to think critically. The test can be good for children because they unquestioningly follow the rules and believe in the simplistic representation of a bus that travels in two dimensions forwards. Applying the same test to adults who tend to think in wider terms seems naive, or simply needs to be better defined. I bet, for example, if you asked people which weighed more, a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks, you wouldn't end up with more kids being able to answer correctly.

 

[Heronblade]

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.

Ok then, a long cable is currently falling, its bottom end is currently 2 meters above the ground, the cable is not attached to anything else, nor are its movements being impeded by other objects. In which direction is the cable moving?

 

[Erttheking]

Huh. I personally feel like the education in my state is pretty good. Current classes that I'm taking at my college. A short story class where we read stories, write short papers about our views on them, then spend the entire class talking about them. A creative writing class which is pretty much the same thing but with papers that we wrote ourselves. An essay writing class where I actually am learning new techniques for writing essays that I was struggling with and where we also have some peer review. A German class with a very involved teacher who actually is letting me retake a couple of tests that I was struggling with because she doesn't want us to fail for no reason and has actually offered us some one on one help before class and actually has a get together of students on Wednesdays.

....Maybe education in America is just better in MA. Heck, my history professor even flat out stated that he wanted to keep his class politically and religiously neutral in Freshman year. Same with my politics professor.

 

[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.

But then that's criticising the drawing, which you said you couldn't do. I know tires are approximately rectangular from the back, but given the detail of the drawing I could accept that as a level of abstraction.

i realise complexity isn't an indication of critical thinking, but equally I'm not sure why the ability to ignore complexity demonstrates the ability to think critically. The test can be good for children because they unquestioningly follow the rules and believe in the simplistic representation of a bus that travels in two dimensions forwards. Applying the same test to adults who tend to think in wider terms seems naive, or simply needs to be better defined. I bet, for example, if you asked people which weighed more, a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks, you wouldn't end up with more kids being able to answer correctly.

I'm not criticizing the drawing whatsoever. If anything, I'm criticizing your interpretation of the drawing. But don't take that personally as I didn't intend for it to be taken that way.

No one is ignoring complexity in this situation though. The illustration in question is very simple. As I said, you're the one adding unnecessary complexity to the situation. When it comes to implying that we should give a different question to adults, I dare say we should still give this question to the adults, while coming up with a more defined question to pose to adults and the children.

That way we have a control for the "experiment" if you would so indulge me. You can give them both the same two questions, one complex and well defined question as to which way the bus is going and one that is simple and abstract. Then we can see whether or not the children still come to the correct answer more often than the adults in both respects.

About the ton of feathers or the ton of bricks... I can only loathe the fact that many adults I know would answer "bricks" without even thinking. And I put emphasis on the not thinking part. Also, it would be entirely unfair to pose that question to any children that haven't learned what a ton actually is in academic terms rather than just casual verbal usage. It's fair to assume the kids will have a basic understanding of things moving left or right by the time they're old enough to understand the question. Assuming they know left from right.

 

[Bad Jim]

Ties into the "you shouldn't focus on the implication" part of the study. Kids tend to answer these questions better since they don't have preconceived societal notions that the question is misleading you to follow.

This reminds me of a great question they asked a bunch of kindergartners and adults:

http://www.sadanduseless.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/bus.jpg
Which way is this bus going?

Apparently, 90%+ of the kindergartners got it right, while only 60% of the adults did. Abstract thinking is either something kids do well, or something we beat out of people.

From the lack of a door, we can conclude that it is pointed right (UK) or left (most other countries). But it is equally reasonable to note the lack of a driver or any passengers and conclude that it is not actually moving.

 

[VanQ]

Ok then, a long cable is currently falling, its bottom end is currently 2 meters above the ground, the cable is not attached to anything else, nor are its movements being impeded by other objects. In which direction is the cable moving?

It is moving down.

That's my answer. Let me see how you misconstrue your own question. Go ahead, I dare you to tell me it's falling up, because you can't assume that everything falls down, even though that's generally what the word fall means in this context. Or that you never specified there was ground, or even a mass large enough to apply gravitational force anywhere nearby. Please, tell me how I answered your question incorrectly. Also, please explain to me how this is relevant to abstract or critical thinking.

 

[Heronblade]

Ok then, a long cable is currently falling, its bottom end is currently 2 meters above the ground, the cable is not attached to anything else, nor are its movements being impeded by other objects. In which direction is the cable moving?

It is moving down.

That's my answer. Let me see how you misconstrue your own question. Go ahead, I dare you to tell me it's falling up, because you can't assume that everything falls down, even though that's generally what the word fall means in this context. Or that you never specified there was ground, or even a mass large enough to apply gravitational force anywhere nearby. Please, tell me how I answered your question incorrectly. Also, please explain to me how this is relevant to abstract or critical thinking.

Your answer is incorrect based on the information I did not give.

The assumptions you made concerning the contextual definition of the term fall, and that the ground I mentioned represents the only significant gravitational force acting on the cable are both correct. All laws of physics are working as normal, and I am not using any wierd definitions or frames of reference. If you were to pick up a ball and release it next to the cable the ball would move down. Nevertheless, the cable is not moving down. Try again

Except for the level of knowledge required, and the fact that I did not give you a misleading graphic, this is set up exactly like the problem with the bus. Answering it requires making assumptions about information that you are not given. An answer that is wrong according to the person asking the question can easily be completely correct based on the information given. This is not by your own definition a trick question, nor is it one that cannot be answered without more than a bare bones knowledge of the principles involved, all of which should be known to anyone who got past middle school. It is simply a problem with undefined details that requires unusual thinking to solve.

Give me one more decent guess and I swear I will tell you the answer and explain the point of this.

 

[JaceArveduin]

http://www.sadanduseless.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/bus.jpg
Which way is this bus going?

Apparently, 90%+ of the kindergartners got it right, while only 60% of the adults did. Abstract thinking is either something kids do well, or something we beat out of people.

Looks be be at a rest to me, since it doesn't appear to be moving.

What's the correct answer, anyway?

Left. There's no door visible.

Sure about that? Because there's no stop-sign visible either, which means there should be an octagon there somewhere.

 

[Thedutchjelle]

So much hate for the education system here. I don't know how bad it is in the USA (where the OP seems to come from), but I'm glad we got compulsory schooling here.
We learn to read, write, speak multiple languages, learn mathematics, sciences, economics, politics.. I really don't see any kid doing that voluntarily. How many 8 year olds give a flying fuck about the verbs and how many cookies Tom still has left after he ate one, they much rather run around outside.

The only real problem I see with the USA school system (as an outsider) is the complete focus on US and not enough on the world as a whole (from what I've heard! I don't live there myself, so my perception is based on just a few people) and the slow-but-steady shoehorning of religion into science classes and the desire to politically-correctify everything.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Ok then, a long cable is currently falling, its bottom end is currently 2 meters above the ground, the cable is not attached to anything else, nor are its movements being impeded by other objects. In which direction is the cable moving?

It is moving down.

That's my answer. Let me see how you misconstrue your own question. Go ahead, I dare you to tell me it's falling up, because you can't assume that everything falls down, even though that's generally what the word fall means in this context. Or that you never specified there was ground, or even a mass large enough to apply gravitational force anywhere nearby. Please, tell me how I answered your question incorrectly. Also, please explain to me how this is relevant to abstract or critical thinking.

Your answer is incorrect based on the information I did not give.

The assumptions you made concerning the contextual definition of the term fall, and that the ground I mentioned represents the only significant gravitational force acting on the cable are both correct. All laws of physics are working as normal, and I am not using any wierd definitions or frames of reference. If you were to pick up a ball and release it next to the cable the ball would move down. Nevertheless, the cable is not moving down. Try again

Except for the level of knowledge required, this is set up exactly like the problem with the bus. Answering it requires making assumptions about information that you are not given. An answer that is wrong according to the person asking the question can easily be completely correct based on the information given. This is not by your own definition a trick question, nor is it one that cannot be answered without more than a bare bones knowledge of the principles involved, all of which should be known to anyone who got past middle school. It is simply a problem with undefined details that requires unusual thinking to solve.

Give me one more decent guess and I swear I will tell you the answer and explain the point of this.

If all normal rules of gravity and laws of physics are in place, the only direction anything /can/ fall is down. Seems like you're working with the idea that all objects have gravity, and failing to realize that directions are relative. When something is falling, it's moving down in relation to the source of gravity pulling it most strongly. An astronaut who jumps up on the light side of the moon will actually fall up relative to the earth, but it's down relative to the moon, and down is the relevant direction.

The other option is that it's not moving at all, but then you either worded the question poorly ("no other objects" is more likely to mean "no objects other than the cable itself" than "no objects other than the thing I forgot to mention it's attached to." Plus, you know, you said it was falling, so not moving doesn't make much sense.) Or you're using a weird definition of "ground," such that the "ground" either doesn't have enough gravity to pull the cable downwards, or is itself falling towards another, more massive object at the same rate that the cable is falling towards it. In which case they're both moving downwards, and you got mixed up on relative directions again.

 

[andago]

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.

But then that's criticising the drawing, which you said you couldn't do. I know tires are approximately rectangular from the back, but given the detail of the drawing I could accept that as a level of abstraction.

i realise complexity isn't an indication of critical thinking, but equally I'm not sure why the ability to ignore complexity demonstrates the ability to think critically. The test can be good for children because they unquestioningly follow the rules and believe in the simplistic representation of a bus that travels in two dimensions forwards. Applying the same test to adults who tend to think in wider terms seems naive, or simply needs to be better defined. I bet, for example, if you asked people which weighed more, a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks, you wouldn't end up with more kids being able to answer correctly.

I'm not criticizing the drawing whatsoever. If anything, I'm criticizing your interpretation of the drawing. But don't take that personally as I didn't intend for it to be taken that way.

No one is ignoring complexity in this situation though. The illustration in question is very simple. As I said, you're the one adding unnecessary complexity to the situation. When it comes to implying that we should give a different question to adults, I dare say we should still give this question to the adults, while coming up with a more defined question to pose to adults and the children.

That way we have a control for the "experiment" if you would so indulge me. You can give them both the same two questions, one complex and well defined question as to which way the bus is going and one that is simple and abstract. Then we can see whether or not the children still come to the correct answer more often than the adults in both respects.

About the ton of feathers or the ton of bricks... I can only loathe the fact that many adults I know would answer "bricks" without even thinking. And I put emphasis on the not thinking part. Also, it would be entirely unfair to pose that question to any children that haven't learned what a ton actually is in academic terms rather than just casual verbal usage. It's fair to assume the kids will have a basic understanding of things moving left or right by the time they're old enough to understand the question. Assuming they know left from right.

Ok, now it's getting a little bit fixated on this one problem. My point was that young children think in the same frame of mind as the question is posed. They draw buses like that, and would readily accept that as a drawing of a bus, and as such would instinctively answer the question based on their experience of where the door would be.

Adults, on the other hand, tend to have a more detail focused and 3 dimensional knowledge or at least image of what a bus looks like, so the very step of having to imagine the shape as a bus that is already missing so many basic details means that it's not a huge leap to assume that the door might just have been another detail not included in the drawing.

Children think of things visually and instinctively, so given a familiar picture of a bus they would answer in the way that seems natural and obvious to them, but given the idea of bricks and feathers would automatically jump to thinking the bricks weigh more, whereas adults who have more experience in the more intangible idea of something's weight would, given thought (as you said) override the instinctive reaction to say bricks.

All things aside though, isn't it a bit ironic that in a topic about how education stifles critical thinking in children, a question designed to develop the critical thinking of children in schools is being used to try and demonstrate the opposite?

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

For all who have posted and for those who might post, I invite you to listen to a former educator of 30 years whom has won many awards for teaching. His name is John Taylor Gatto, and he lives close to where I live. Give him a look up on YouTube.

 

[Simple Bluff]

The point of the educational system isn't to educate kids, it's aclimate them to a low-wages work environment (maintaining a set task for a set period of time until the ring of a bell permits you a five minute break...)

If that was the case, then why do we teach kids Shakespeare? Or basic Analysis? Or any form of History? Why do we teach kids Archimedes' Principle, then ask them to verify it through observation in lab sessions? Why would we ever teach them the Measurements of Central Tendency, and how to know which are best to given situation - a skill that requires both keen observation AND critical thinking?

Do we acclimate them to the work force when Art History teachers make them when do an assignment on Romanesque Art, or how it influenced Gothic Architecture? Would it explain why we teach kids foreign languages? Are we acclimating when we do exams on drama, film and poetry?

Does the structure of a workday really indoctrinate us into being glass eyed labourers? Maybe I just lack imagination (seeing as my evil public schooling evidently robbed it from me) but "Taking a break after a few hours of work" is such a broad archetype to basic time management that I don't quite see how it can be seen as a calculated manoeuvre in creating a nation of automatons.

Are you people fucking stupid?

 

[Stu35]

I love that people in this thread are slagging off teachers for failing to teach critical thinking.

I know primary school teachers who teach in schools in pretty deprived areas, not only do they have to somehow get the children they teach to learn all the bullshit standardised stuff that they are required to by the government, but, because the areas are deprived (that is to say, the level of parenting is appalling), they also have to teach really, really basic stuff that parents ought to be fucking well doing - I mean really, REALLY basic stuff. Like what the difference is between feeling Hunger and the emotion of Anxiety (One little girl apparently did not know the difference, because in her home the feeling of anxiety and hunger were so often entwined that she simply associated one with the other, and her reaction to feeling hungry was to hide in a cupboard instead of eating something).

So. Yeah, I blame shit parents, personally.

 

[Heronblade]

If all normal rules of gravity and laws of physics are in place, the only direction anything /can/ fall is down. Seems like you're working with the idea that all objects have gravity, and failing to realize that directions are relative. When something is falling, it's moving down in relation to the source of gravity pulling it most strongly. An astronaut who jumps up on the light side of the moon will actually fall up relative to the earth, but it's down relative to the moon, and down is the relevant direction.

The other option is that it's not moving at all, but then you either worded the question poorly ("no other objects" is more likely to mean "no objects other than the cable itself" than "no objects other than the thing I forgot to mention it's attached to." Plus, you know, you said it was falling, so not moving doesn't make much sense.) Or you're using a weird definition of "ground," such that the "ground" either doesn't have enough gravity to pull the cable downwards, or is itself falling towards another, more massive object at the same rate that the cable is falling towards it. In which case they're both moving downwards, and you got mixed up on relative directions again.

Nothing of the sort actually. I was hoping VanQ would continue, but they don't seem to be answering for the moment. Oh well, might as well get on with it.

From the usual perspective, that is to say the perspective of someone standing on the ground, the cable is not moving at all.

It is a lot longer than most people would assume, more than 70 thousand kilometers in length in fact. Its center of mass is in geostationary orbit. Its rotational speed is equal to that of the earth, and at the same time it is falling with a downwards acceleration due to Earth's gravity. All of this relative motion however adds up to zero in the Earth's frame of reference, leading the cable to appear to hang motionless down from the sky in illusory defiance of gravity.

In any event, VanQ's original answer that it was moving down is perfectly valid based on the information I originally gave (somewhat boring and obvious, but still valid). Assuming that the object had been launched upwards just previously would also have been valid (yes, things can be moving up even while falling down). Assuming a lateral motion of several thousand kilometers per second (making it a very low orbit) would also have been valid . A huge number of logical conclusions could have been made concerning the answer to this poorly defined question. Arbitrarily picking just one of the possible answers out of that mess and declaring it to be the only answer that an abstract thinker should come up with is pretty much the exact opposite of abstract thinking.

 

[Bruenin]

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.

One of the most notable features on a school bus for me is the flashing red stop sign on the opposite side of the door. It's there to indicate to cars behind it to stop moving and to notify when children are boarding and leaving. It's incredibly important and it also happens to be missing from the image. It's overly simplified and it's way too vague to tell what's happening. The bus is missing several distinctive features and you can't just assume that people will pick up on some missing and not others. If I noticed both the door and the stop sign missing what then? The stop sign would also indicate it was moving left because it'd be on the side presented to us, but since that indicator was removed what would stop them from removing the door also? It's not a good test, it's biased and misleading just so it can make a point.

Not everyone works the same and you can't just assume things about someones mental capacity to critically analyze abstract situations without sufficient data to prove it. The study isn't effective enough to extrapolate that the 'loss' of their ability to critically analyze is due to education. The education system has changed a hell of a lot, the whole 'no child left behind thing' wasn't here for my older sister so if you based the study on adults, it wouldn't matter if you were even able to prove how their education effected them it would still tell you nothing about MODERN education. In other words, No evidence gathered from this study would be effective in explaining current education.

I think you have a confirmation bias and are just using the study to argue for your already preconceived beliefs instead of actually founding a conclusion based on the present evidence. (This is not saying your beliefs aren't founded by evidence, just that you didn't use this particular study to draw those conclusions.)

The only conclusion I could think of that would be similar to the one you may be making is that 'Education practices for earlier generations were ineffective at promoting critical thinking and weakened the students ability to do so' but that'd still be a bit of a stretch, and again, you couldn't use it to argue about problems with our education systems today.

**Side note: I inferred from your statements that you believed education reduced peoples ability to critically analyze abstract situations. If i'm incorrect then please accept my apologies and feel free to ignore me because I misread your statements and made an error. I apologize if this is the case. I also made a point to restate and clarify my ideas not to be condescending but mainly because I wanted what I was saying to be presented as clear as I possibly could. I don't mean to talk down to anyone.**

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

If all normal rules of gravity and laws of physics are in place, the only direction anything /can/ fall is down. Seems like you're working with the idea that all objects have gravity, and failing to realize that directions are relative. When something is falling, it's moving down in relation to the source of gravity pulling it most strongly. An astronaut who jumps up on the light side of the moon will actually fall up relative to the earth, but it's down relative to the moon, and down is the relevant direction.

The other option is that it's not moving at all, but then you either worded the question poorly ("no other objects" is more likely to mean "no objects other than the cable itself" than "no objects other than the thing I forgot to mention it's attached to." Plus, you know, you said it was falling, so not moving doesn't make much sense.) Or you're using a weird definition of "ground," such that the "ground" either doesn't have enough gravity to pull the cable downwards, or is itself falling towards another, more massive object at the same rate that the cable is falling towards it. In which case they're both moving downwards, and you got mixed up on relative directions again.

Nothing of the sort actually. I was hoping VanQ would continue, but they don't seem to be answering for the moment. Oh well, might as well get on with it.

From the usual perspective, that is to say the perspective of someone standing on the ground, the cable is not moving at all.

It is a lot longer than most people would assume, more than 70 thousand kilometers in length in fact. Its center of mass is in geostationary orbit. Its rotational speed is equal to that of the earth, and at the same time it is falling with a downwards acceleration due to Earth's gravity. All of this relative motion however adds up to zero in the Earth's frame of reference, leading the cable to appear to hang motionless down from the sky in illusory defiance of gravity.

In any event, VanQ's original answer that it was moving down is perfectly valid based on the information I originally gave. Assuming that the object had been launched upwards just previously would also have been valid (yes, things can be moving up even while falling down). Assuming a lateral motion of several thousand kilometers per second (making it a very low orbit) would also have been valid . A huge number of logical conclusions could have been made concerning the answer to this question. Arbitrarily picking just one answer out of that mess and declaring it to be the only answer that an abstract thinker should come up with is pretty much the exact opposite of abstract thinking.

I see what you're saying, but then actually my last example (falling at the same rate as the ground under it) is almost but not quite totally correct. Orbit works on the same basic principle, but applied in a slightly different manner. At any rate, while the explanation you gave makes sense, it's not the one that is most likely to be correct. The thing about standardized tests is there may be more than one answer that is correct, from the right perspective. The trick is to find the one that is /most/ heavily supported by the information given. Really high level standardized tests, like the Bar exam that lawyers have to take, actually have questions where all the answers are /wrong/ and you have to find the one that is the least wrong, instead of having them all be right and needing to pick out the one that is most right.

And I can't say I have a problem with looking at a lateral thinking problem and counting only the most likely answer as correct. If lateral thinking were just about making a situation increasingly sillier, there wouldn't be a point to it. It has a use in the real world, and that use is finding the best explanation for a limited set of data.

Edit: Or to put it a different way, there is a reason lateral thinking is seen as a useful skill, and the one above is pretty much it. There's plenty point in pointlessness if it's something you enjoy, but it's not the point anyone is driving at when they talk about lateral thinking as a sign of intelligence. At least once they're capable of thinking critically enough for themselves to tell the difference between navel gazing that uses a lot of words to say nothing, and actual critical and lateral thought. If the world of art and poetry is anything to go on, many never get to that stage.

 

[EternallyBored]

If all normal rules of gravity and laws of physics are in place, the only direction anything /can/ fall is down. Seems like you're working with the idea that all objects have gravity, and failing to realize that directions are relative. When something is falling, it's moving down in relation to the source of gravity pulling it most strongly. An astronaut who jumps up on the light side of the moon will actually fall up relative to the earth, but it's down relative to the moon, and down is the relevant direction.

The other option is that it's not moving at all, but then you either worded the question poorly ("no other objects" is more likely to mean "no objects other than the cable itself" than "no objects other than the thing I forgot to mention it's attached to." Plus, you know, you said it was falling, so not moving doesn't make much sense.) Or you're using a weird definition of "ground," such that the "ground" either doesn't have enough gravity to pull the cable downwards, or is itself falling towards another, more massive object at the same rate that the cable is falling towards it. In which case they're both moving downwards, and you got mixed up on relative directions again.

Nothing of the sort actually. I was hoping VanQ would continue, but they don't seem to be answering for the moment. Oh well, might as well get on with it.

From the usual perspective, that is to say the perspective of someone standing on the ground, the cable is not moving at all.

It is a lot longer than most people would assume, more than 70 thousand kilometers in length in fact. Its center of mass is in geostationary orbit. Its rotational speed is equal to that of the earth, and at the same time it is falling with a downwards acceleration due to Earth's gravity. All of this relative motion however adds up to zero in the Earth's frame of reference, leading the cable to appear to hang motionless down from the sky in illusory defiance of gravity.

In any event, VanQ's original answer that it was moving down is perfectly valid based on the information I originally gave. Assuming that the object had been launched upwards just previously would also have been valid (yes, things can be moving up even while falling down). Assuming a lateral motion of several thousand kilometers per second (making it a very low orbit) would also have been valid . A huge number of logical conclusions could have been made concerning the answer to this question. Arbitrarily picking just one answer out of that mess and declaring it to be the only answer that an abstract thinker should come up with is pretty much the exact opposite of abstract thinking.

I see what you're saying, but then actually my last example (falling at the same rate as the ground under it) is almost but not quite totally correct. Orbit works on the same basic principle, but applied in a slightly different manner. At any rate, while the explanation you gave makes sense, it's not the one that is most likely to be correct. The thing about standardized tests is there may be more than one answer that is correct, from the right perspective. The trick is to find the one that is /most/ heavily supported by the information given. Really high level standardized tests, like the Bar exam that lawyers have to take, actually have questions where all the answers are /wrong/ and you have to find the one that is the least wrong, instead of having them all be right and needing to pick out the one that is most right.

And I can't say I have a problem with looking at a lateral thinking problem and counting only the most likely answer as correct. If lateral thinking were just about making a situation increasingly sillier, there wouldn't be a point to it. It has a use in the real world, and that use is finding the best explanation for a limited set of data.

Herons question is silly and is kind of a poor example of what I think he's trying to say. He has a point about this test though, it's too abstract to be a useful test for critical thinking and I question the original point of 90% of kindergarteners getting it right anyway. Out of the small sample of the three young cousins staying in my parent's house, for our family reunion. not a single one hit upon the "right" answer. Of their respective answers, two (ages 5 and 6 respectively) said the bus was moving forward, because the rounded top looks like the top of the rear end of the school buses in our area, so they assumed that the drawing was of the rear of the bus as it moved away from them. The third cousin (8 years old) answered that the bus wasn't moving at all because it had no speed lines, this answer likely influenced by his budding desire to draw and his love of comic books.

There is also the fact that the question is biased towards children, who likely see school buses every day, as well as riding in them, versus adults who may not have even seen or paid more than a passing glance towards a schoolbus in a decade or more. This is a fairly poor example of either a critical thinking or an abstract reasoning test, and these types of questions are often flawed, I've dealt with enough child researchers to know they aren't immune to accidentally or purposefully biasing their questions to get the result they want. The earlier question with Joe and Toms age is much better example of critical reasoning, as it has one easy obvious answer, but tends to trip older people up because they try to think of a complex solution, while children are usually only dealing with simple numbers. Even then, that's not a perfect test, because the test itself is taking advantage of children only really being able to deal with simple low number values at their age. True tests of critical thinking and abstract reasoning are filled with cultural, age, and regional biases, pointing to a test and screaming, "look look kids can totally solve this, but adults can't hahaha" really proves nothing on the surface other than a pithy talking point people can use to point out how dumb they think adults are (of course they can always figure out the test, notice that everyone who posts these already knows the answer but somehow all the other adults in the world miss it), or it's some arbitrary attack on the education system, because an Art teacher more concerned with the simplicity of the bus representation somehow has flawed reasoning because they can look at something on a more abstract level than a 5 year old.

 

[Heronblade]

I see what you're saying, but then actually my last example (falling at the same rate as the ground under it) is almost but not quite totally correct. Orbit works on the same basic principle, but applied in a slightly different manner. At any rate, while the explanation you gave makes sense, it's not the one that is most likely to be correct. The thing about standardized tests is there may be more than one answer that is correct, from the right perspective. The trick is to find the one that is /most/ heavily supported by the information given. Really high level standardized tests, like the Bar exam that lawyers have to take, actually have questions where all the answers are /wrong/ and you have to find the one that is the least wrong, instead of having them all be right and needing to pick out the one that is most right.

And I can't say I have a problem with looking at a lateral thinking problem and counting only the most likely answer as correct. If lateral thinking were just about making a situation increasingly sillier, there wouldn't be a point to it. It has a use in the real world, and that use is finding the best explanation for a limited set of data.

Defining a correct answer based solely on the most likely scenario only works if nearly everyone being tested would be in agreement on that standard.

Take the question I asked for instance, most people would conclude that the most likely scenario is the one VanQ answered with. It is the least complicated and the one that people have the most extensive experience with. For a person like myself however, all of the alternative scenarios I mentioned are things I work with on a conceptual basis with great frequency. Given no data about an object's relative motion, simply assuming that gravity is the only factor involved would be incredibly foolish of me. If not given the opportunity to define the problem further, I might initially guess that the correct answer was down. But that answer would be based on my understanding of how other people would answer. The question is at that point an exercise in psychology or perhaps statistical perspective rather than a test of my own understanding of the question itself.

The question that sparked this argument is even worse. The lack of major details on the drawing leads me to conclude that I cannot trust the lack of a particular detail to provide an answer. The assumption that the tester is most familiar with buses with one door on the front right of the bus leads others to an "incorrect" answer. A missing detail other than a door leads some to a different "incorrect" answer. Overall, using it as a comparison between the abstract thinking skills of two entirely different groups of testers is a very bad idea.