Teaching Kids to be Dumb Adults

[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.

Owyns 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.

What you just wrote is one of the big reasons that so many teachers (myself included) have an issue with standardized testing in general. There's so many biases to correct for that often aren't, and it gets to a point where you frequently realize the test isn't actually measuring what it's supposed to. Trying to write a test that fully accounts for that is difficult on the level of a single classroom, and pretty much impossible on the level of an entire country. But it doesn't stop people from trying.

Edit: By the way, I think you meant Heronblade's question. I'm the one who was trying to pick it apart, not the one who asked it

 

[Bad Jim]

The earlier question with Joe and Toms age is much better example of critical reasoning, as it has one easy obvious answer

Unfortunately it is not. It is a straight algebra 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?

Let T = Toms' age
and J = Joes' age

From the question we know that:

J-1 = 3(T-1)
J = 2T

Let's simplify that first one

J-1 = 3T-3
or
J = 3T-2

Now we know that

2T = 3T-2
or
2T + 2 = 3T

Therefore

2 = T

Tom is 2.

It is of course a lot easier to just experiment with a few numbers in your head, but the fact is that this can be solved with fairly simple math and no critical thinking whatsoever. There are computer programs that can figure this stuff out.

 

[andago]

The earlier question with Joe and Toms age is much better example of critical reasoning, as it has one easy obvious answer

Unfortunately it is not. It is a straight algebra question.

Heh, I was also wondering if I was the only one to do it this way. Isn't any other way just systematic guessing for a number that fits, and not really critical thinking?

 

[Drathnoxis]

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.

Wut. It's an abstract representation that barely even looks like a bus and the answer is to determine that a door isn't visible?! I say the answer is that the bus isn't moving because there isn't a front or rear window so the driver would not be able drive it without it being considered a suicide attempt.

OT: I'm not sure but as far as I can tell "critical thinking" is a buzzword that people roll out to convince themselves of their own superiority and that their expensive college/university degrees weren't a waste of money.

 

[Reiper]

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.

I thought it was a trick question and that the bus was coming towards me.

Like the shapes were the lights or something

 

[Syzygy23]

Tom is 2 and Joe is 4, last year they were 1 and 3 respectively. To be fair our standards for teachers is hilariously low, and there's very little incentive to teach in the public education system. Teachers with high levels of education and the relevant skills to teach a field really well, tend to be in the higher education system (college) or are teaching for private institutions that charge the kid's parents a tuition. Also, the standards to get a substitute teachers license are also very low. In my state, it only requires a certain number of college credits to be able to test for a substitute teachers license, and the test itself requires no specialized knowledge to pass, not a bad gig though if your an unemployed college grad looking for work while you try and obtain a career in your field of study.

As for the public system itself, a lot of the problem comes with standardization, in an attempt to quantify everything, schools tend to leave kids behind because it adapts poorly to children who are below or above the average. No child left behind is one of the worst things to happen to the American public education system in a long time, and it's one of the Bush Jr. eras worst domestic policies, only really surpassed by the Patriot act.

See, I fucking HATE those kinda of problems. Why 1 and 3? Why not any other pair of numbers equal to that ratio? That's why I always used to get those problems wrong, and still sometimes do. Give me a fucking specific age for at least one of them if they want an answer, a ballpark estimate is never an answer.

 

[Heronblade]

The earlier question with Joe and Toms age is much better example of critical reasoning, as it has one easy obvious answer

Unfortunately it is not. It is a straight algebra question.

Heh, I was also wondering if I was the only one to do it this way. Isn't any other way just systematic guessing for a number that fits, and not really critical thinking?

I solved it by recognizing the pattern involved. There's no other combination that will shift from a 3x to 2x multiplier in exactly one unit. But that isn't critical thinking either. Its on the same level as memorizing the multiplication tables or knowing the answer to 7538/9999 without using a calculator (no, I'm not that good at division in my head, its another pattern). Stuff that you just pick up when working math problems often enough.

See, I fucking HATE those kinda of problems. Why 1 and 3? Why not any other pair of numbers equal to that ratio? That's why I always used to get those problems wrong, and still sometimes do. Give me a fucking specific age for at least one of them if they want an answer, a ballpark estimate is never an answer.

Because there isn't any other pair that works for that particular problem. Now, had it asked for a two year gap rather than one, ages two and six would work fine. But as it is...

In a way it does give you the initial age of the younger kid. The starting point of the lower number in the ratio is always equal to the delta.

 

[EternallyBored]

The earlier question with Joe and Toms age is much better example of critical reasoning, as it has one easy obvious answer

Unfortunately it is not. It is a straight algebra question.

Heh, I was also wondering if I was the only one to do it this way. Isn't any other way just systematic guessing for a number that fits, and not really critical thinking?

I solved it by recognizing the pattern involved. There's no other combination that will shift from a 3x to 2x multiplier in exactly one unit. But that isn't critical thinking either.

See, I fucking HATE those kinda of problems. Why 1 and 3? Why not any other pair of numbers equal to that ratio? That's why I always used to get those problems wrong, and still sometimes do. Give me a fucking specific age for at least one of them if they want an answer, a ballpark estimate is never an answer.

Because there isn't any other pair that works for that particular problem. Now, had it asked for a two year gap rather than one, ages two and six would work fine. But as it is...

Yeah, the numbers question is better than the bus question because it at least has only one answer, and the answer can be derived easily just by reading the question carefully, but your right in that its still a poor determination of a persons critical thinking skills.

What is useful critical thinking to one person is superfluous trivia to another. Adults especially tend to be specialized in their knowledge for their profession or career, so what qualifies as critical thinking for a therapist can be totally different than the type of critical thinking required by an engineer. A therapist needs empathy and the ability to critically think about the social cues and expressions of their clients, those skills are much less valuable to a construction engineer. In the engineers case he needs to think critically about geometry, and know things like how to get the most out of materials strength and room design, skills vital to him, but nearly worthless for a therapist. Anyone that tries to make sweeping generalizations about peoples' critical thinking skills based on a single word problem or brain teaser, is already starting of on the wrong foot in the best case scenario, and at worst is just twisting information to meet their own conclusions.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

They ought to make education compulsory, not indoctrination.

I'm not sure they should make either compulsory. If attendance was voluntary, schools would be forced to meet the low, low standard of actually being worthwhile.

Oh sweet Jesus no. There's enough shitty, lazy parents that don't get their kids to school as it is (any is enough). Now I understand that kids need to learn independence, but a lot of the time kids aren't going to make the best decisions (would 8 year old you have gone to school if it was voluntary?) and need someone to get them to go to school. Parents that just don't care about their child's upbringing aren't going to do that. I understand your point, but it's such a dreadful idea. Speaking as a brit I don't really know, but your schools must be pretty fucking dire if simply not attending without any replacement is just as good.

snip

I've read some of Dewar's other stuff and I liked them. I'm not opposed to the premise of this article, but she did a terrible job making her point, and effectively shot herself in the foot.

Firstly, it fails to support its own argument. How does learning imprecise definitions for diamonds and imperfect Minnie Mouse dialog lead to a loss of critical thinking? The article doesn't say. It just leaps to that conclusion. Maybe children learn the proper definitions for squares and diamonds in geometry, or maybe the word 'square' has a different meaning in geometry discourse from how it's used in regular conversation. Just like nearly every other word in academia.

Secondly, it fails to acknowledge that young children might not be cognitively ready for the specialized jargon of geometry or the subtle nuances of how to economically pack a box. In the case of geometric shapes, people learn the meanings of words by establishing prototypes. When my 1.5 year-old nephew helped my family pick up walnuts that fell from the family's trees one fall, he insisted on calling them balls. Because his vocabulary wasn't ready to accomodate a new word, and because he didn't know enough about the world to know why this small, round object should be regarded any differently from any other small, round object. He didn't know they came from trees or could be prepared to be edible, he just noticed the shape and put them in a category. So it is with geometric shapes. Yes, mathematically speaking a square is a kind of rectangle. But for very young children, differentiating them by assuming rectangle sides aren't all the same length is enough to create the mental category. Later, when children are more mature and able to grasp abstract thought, these definitions can be revisited and refined. Kind of like how we do with every other subject.

As for children's TV, probably the best thing parents can do is not be pedantic nit-picking dweebs. Children enjoy TV, but they tend to enjoy interaction with their parents far, far more. So rather than police their television shows for faulty logic, I'd say it's better to let them watch just a little TV every day and spend the rest of the day interacting with them yourself. They'll pick up far more language and thinking skills than they will sitting in front of the TV, and you'll not have to waste your time writing pointless webpages about Minnie Mouse's imprecise speaking.

I tried it, and yea. After re-reading it once and thinking it over for maybe 3 seconds I had the answer. How the hell can anyone be allowed to teach when they can't even answer such a simple, basic school-grade question?

Well, if they don't teach math, why should they have to?

It's sort of like saying, "How the hell can anyone be allowed to teach if they can't draw a reasonable circle?" or "How the hell can anyone be allowed to teach if they can't play kickball?" or "How the hell can anyone be allowed to teach if they don't know the "'i' before 'e' rule"? Some people aren't good at brain teasers. They don't have to be good at them to be good at teaching. I am allowed to teach- I like to think I'm a damn good teacher, but I couldn't answer your question because I dislike mathematical brain teasers and refused to put any time or energy into figuring it out. What I know about is language, and I get good results in my language classroom. You want to know how I am as a teacher, come observe my class. Don't waste my time with pointless riddles.

I agree a lot with this guy a lot. Admittedly my knowledge on the subject is pretty limited, but a lot of people in this thread seem to be expecting kids to learn like adults, which just isn't going to work properly. With young kids it's more about teaching them how to learn and begin to grasp concepts than teaching them facts.

they outright tell you the motive you ought to have - in this case, marketing and profitability. They often railroad you into a particular mode of thinking.

I'd call that realism rather than indoctrination.

Also, it's not really good, but in some twisted way it's nice to know the US education system is even more fucked than ours (god fucking damn you, Michael Gove).

 

[Hazzaslagga]

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.

Wouldn't the fact that it was a long cable mean that treating it as a point mass be too simplistic e.g. the forces on the lower half of the cable would be much greater than those of the top half. I could be wrong but I would have thought the unusual shape would have consequences for traditional orbital mechanics which deal with point masses or near spherical masses which can often be simplified to the former.

 

[Heronblade]

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.

Wouldn't the fact that it was a long cable mean that treating it as a point mass be too simplistic e.g. the forces on the lower half of the cable would be much greater than those of the top half. I could be wrong but I would have thought the unusual shape would have consequences for traditional orbital mechanics which deal with point masses or near spherical masses which can often be simplified to the former.

In short, yes the description I gave was not technically accurate, but I wanted to get the basic idea across as simply as possible. I got off topic badly enough with this question already. No need to break out the textbooks.

 

[gavinmcinns]

The hoops a person has to jump through to teach in this country are incredible. The standards a teacher has to meet to be considered qualified are more stringent than any other country(even considering that these vary wildly state to state). This is more true in the last decade than in the past and yes, there are bad teachers who slip through the cracks or are simply broken by the system or their students, but the standard to get there is high. Bachelors, EDTPAs, Praxis exams every few years, certifications and cert renewals, keeping up with new content standards, new teaching initiatives and learning theories, the slightest of crimes guaranteeing the end of a career, constant evals and then your wage and 'performance levels' are published in the paper for the entire world to see. I can not think of another career field in America that requires as much from a person.

There is a lot I would like to do to change the education system in America. However, I do remain firm in my belief that, as a whole, it remains one of the world's greatest endeavors of all time.

This is exactly the problem. You have to jump through "hoops" set by some bureaucrat, or a committee of bureaucrats. Arbitrary bullshit. Teachers have gone through the exact same inane, creativity crushing system that everyone is forced through, straight into the grinder and out the other side. I once read that genius is as common as dirt, the challenge is to retain the capacity in the face of the system.

 

[Heronblade]

I once read that genius is as common as dirt, the challenge is to retain the capacity in the face of the system.

Whoever said that is either mistaken to the point of imbecility, lying, or had been lied to. The relative percentage of genius level intellects is highest in developed countries with an organized school system. In addition, while the US seems to be faring a little more poorly than some others in that category, the difference is almost smaller than the estimated error bars.

The only significant factors for raw intelligence seem to be genetics (about 70%), and early age upbringing and nutrition. Now, a poor school curriculum can indeed screw with its student's cognitive skills. But the vast majority of them were never geniuses to begin with, and the geniuses among them tend to be those most likely to make it through the system unphased.

 

[gavinmcinns]

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.

... What?
The point is that it's a stupid question, and the fact is that whoever devised this as a way to judge critical thinking skills spent about 15 minutes thinking this shit up and can be handily disregarded. A truly critical mind would say "obviously you want me to say this, however in reality your question is fucking bullshit and you deserve to get fired".

 

[gavinmcinns]

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.

The fact is, kids learn very quickly. They adapt very quickly. They become molded into whatever system it is they are in. And so a child taught to be rewarded by thinking in small ways will think in small ways. Simple as that. By the time kids are taking this "test", they have already integrated the very basic level of thinking that the system has rewarded them to think inside of (6,7,8). The ones that have consistently been reqarded anyway. We are no different from rats or dogs in this sense. It's pavlovian conditioning

 

[gavinmcinns]

I once read that genius is as common as dirt, the challenge is to retain the capacity in the face of the system.

Whoever said that is either mistaken to the point of imbecility, lying, or had been lied to. The relative percentage of genius level intellects is highest in developed countries with an organized school system. In addition, while the US seems to be faring a little more poorly than some others in that category, the difference is almost smaller than the estimated error bars.

The only significant factors for raw intelligence seem to be genetics (about 70%), and early age upbringing and nutrition. Now, a poor school curriculum can indeed screw with its student's cognitive skills. But the vast majority of them were never geniuses to begin with, and the geniuses among them tend to be those most likely to make it through the system unphased.

You misunderstand, partially because i didn't clarify. But maybe you will disagree anyway.
I believe every human being has the capacity for genius, the challenge is to retain it. Genius stems from curiosity. Curiosity is not impervious to a big stick.

And to clarify further, i am not insisting that zaire or numibia has a more supportive system of education than in the united states...

 

[BytByte]

How about we first try to define "critical thinking". Look at the varying definitions and then realize this thread is hilarious.

 

[Heronblade]

I once read that genius is as common as dirt, the challenge is to retain the capacity in the face of the system.

Whoever said that is either mistaken to the point of imbecility, lying, or had been lied to. The relative percentage of genius level intellects is highest in developed countries with an organized school system. In addition, while the US seems to be faring a little more poorly than some others in that category, the difference is almost smaller than the estimated error bars.

The only significant factors for raw intelligence seem to be genetics (about 70%), and early age upbringing and nutrition. Now, a poor school curriculum can indeed screw with its student's cognitive skills. But the vast majority of them were never geniuses to begin with, and the geniuses among them tend to be those most likely to make it through the system unphased.

You misunderstand, partially because i didn't clarify. But maybe you will disagree anyway.
I believe every human being has the capacity for genius, the challenge is to retain it. Genius stems from curiosity. Curiosity is not impervious to a big stick

Genius as an inquisitive mindset? Ok then, no I won't disagree with the statement in that context. Just be aware that you are straying pretty far from the established definition of the term.