A libertarian leaning, common preference seeking, pro-science, pro-critical rationalism, humanist blog, which is mainly, but by no means exclusively, about home educating in the UK.
You're not serious, are you? I'm starting to worry now.
"You scored 20 / 20.Wow! The sky's the limit, or will it be Skylab's the limit?You have demonstrated a lightening ability to think with razor sharp logic. You should be following up on this.Whatever your stage in life, if you aren't already involved in the sciences, you should be. You have a calling for you ARE the original mad scientist!"LOL! I agree with the mad bit.
There you go, Leo - you're in the wrong profession ;)
I am so pwing David Deutsch. :DWhat did you get?
You scored 18 / 20.You're not a natural born scientist...Not a very scientific experiment I would say.
Whoa...testers are clearly taking a bit of a liberty, I would say Ron! We really enjoyed the test, but it seems very peculiar that after all the logical clarity that was required in the test - in order to draw accurate conclusions from the available information, that the testers then dare to draw what are, in fact, extremely tenuous conclusions from so little evidence....flawed thinking and not nice, but I suppose utterly typical of the erroneous conclusions that are endemically derived from test results.
Well, come on Carlotta, we're waiting... What was your score then? What "erroneous" and "tenuous" conclusions did they draw about *you*? :DI didn't take it because I knew I'd get a really low sc- Erm, I mean, because I had better things to do.
That I have a calling for science!! Whaa...????It is very annoying really - that such a reasonable set of questions could be followed up with such ridiculous conclusionsNot quite in this regard, but very nearly so, was reading only today about how a great number of papers at A level can be scored so variously that the examination should, by rights, be regarded as pretty useless as a gauge of ability. By way of just one example of a problem with the exam, there were some students who were generally considered exceptional, and who wrote over and beyond the examiners tick box and then scored D grades. The schools complained and the papers remarked by the Cambridge entrance examiner who promptly gave them As. Errgh. Makes one almost yearn for a nepotistic system, where at least you had a much better idea of the real qualities of an individual.
Nepotistic systems are not based on the real qualities of individuals, so what are you trying to say?I think this test was never meant to be taken seriously. The result is clear enough by itself and should not be deterministic either way.The interpretation of the result is humourous, is meant to make people laugh. I cannot believe I'm explaining this. :DAnyway, real vocational tests in schools are a worry. Do they do those in England? Imagine a child that has a passion for art and loves to draw, but gets a poor score in a test that requires you to imagine how a flat diagram is in 3D. "Sorry, dear, you just don't have the spacial intelligent. The test clearly says art is a waste in you."I did take these kind of vocational test in schools. Didn't help one bit because I was good in all of them. I remember other kids would be pissed because "I was good at everything so I can choose whatever profession I wanted".Ah, you probably know to be careful with arguments like "I had a poor score, therefor the test is rubish" and vice versa. ;)
The nepotistic systems I was thinking of (and which worked well in some ways) were/are of the kind where one chose from one's extended family and friends the person who was most able to meet the demands of the particular role one were seeking to fill.This system overcomes the problem that this thread now seems to be addressing...which is that exams remain a very poor way to judge someone's real ability. "The interpretation of the result is humourous, is meant to make people laugh. I cannot believe I'm explaining this. :D"Lol...don't worry...you didn't have to...though actually reading back, I can see why you may have thought you did.
Post a Comment