Notices by mist (ai@cawfee.club), page 8
-
@victor @cinerion @hidden @coolboymew
it's ok, I failed this question the first time I saw it, too (in some book, which is where I learned the story). I guess all of America failed it, in a sense
-
@victor @cinerion @hidden @coolboymew
That's not the trick.
The trick is that, in the glued solid, some of the (outer) triangles are parallel to each other, not at an angle. So you wouldn't say that those two triangles form two distinct faces, you'd say that it forms one face (a rhombus).
This pic shows it a bit more clearly. There are distinct triangular faces, but they "lie flat" so they are only one big face. At least, that's how a book would define "a face of a solid."
-
@hidden @coolboymew
WHY DOES EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR TEACHERS SUCK
-
@hidden @coolboymew
can't argue against that :'(
-
@cinerion @coolboymew @hidden
Teachers must face the wall immediately!!!!!!!!!
Honestly, wanting to be a teacher is, in itself, a sign that proves that you shouldn't be one
-
@coolboymew @cinerion @hidden
Yeah. The trick (which the test writers themselves didn't realize) is that some of these faces actually merge into one (they are parallel, not at an angle). So there are actually only 5 faces in the solid:
-
@coolboymew @cinerion @hidden
I just said that to clarify that you're gluing the shapes together along the triangle surfaces, not doing something weird like gluing a triangle onto a square.
You basically did what the SAT test writers did (which contains a mistake).
But there's also a language issue: a "square pyramid" looks like the pic, I think you interpreted it as a "cube". So you'd do 3 + 4 = 7.
-
@cinerion @coolboymew @hidden
That is ... a very good point. And I just remembered that, in most countries, when you apply to uni you are applying for a specific major / specialty, so that makes even more sense
-
@hidden @coolboymew
Here's a memory I have from first grade (roughly?). They had these little cubes in a classroom, maybe half the size of a normal dice. I thought "cubicle" meant "small cube" so I told this girl, "look, cubicles!" and then I held one in my mouth and pretended like I was gonna eat it. She got grossed out, but I thought she was impressed, so I continued to do it a few times. Eventually she got the teacher to come and tell me to stop eating the teaching materials.
-
@cinerion @coolboymew @hidden
Actually, there's a funny story about the SAT test writers getting their own question wrong. It was this one:
A regular square pyramid and a regular tetrahedron are glued together along equilateral triangle faces. How many faces does the resulting solid have?"
In the spirit of this thread, I leave it to you all, as an "IQ test" ;)
-
@cinerion @coolboymew @hidden
On the one hand, I'm glad you did well.
On the other hand, this is a retarded choice for a uni exam topic. IQ in general is pretty silly for uni admissions because succeeding in uni requires a lot of crystallized knowledge too. Like, why wouldn't they just test your normal math skills, algebra, geometry, calculus, whatever?
Edited to add: in the US, the SAT and AP standardized tests all have just normal math questions, I think.
-
@hidden @coolboymew
I was actually impressed at question 7, "Which figure fits the given object, in order to make a cube?" I used to be really into shit like this. I attach some pages for amusement:
-
@hidden @coolboymew
the real IQ test was under our noses all along
-
@coolboymew @hidden A couple hundred dollars is a small price to pay to know, for sure, that you are intelligent, mathematically and verbally fluent, on track for a good career, more competent than your peers, have a great personality, a great work ethic, are a valued and well-liked member of every team, and are Carl Gustav Jung.
-
@hidden I SWEAR IF YOU DOXX ME ONE MORE TIME :blobsob:
Then I'm gonna hyde somewhere, consequences will never be the sam
-
@hidden I'm not qualified to comment because I haven't read any "rhetoric" in Chinese, such as high school essays which is what they are talking about.
I'll comment anyways :)
The one Oriental example is from a Korean student (pic 1). The paper notes that the student is able to think abstractly and logically (in the Anglo way), because he's a math major (pic 2). So why does his "definition" not read like one?
What jumps out to *me* is that the student is answering an "ought" instead of an "is". He is trying to explain why college education is "good", why "should" it exist. The Asian tendency to conflate morality with fact has been a bane in my own life. You see the same tendency with hardline conservatives - just ask any poastie to define "transgender."
Another feature is the "grand" scale of the writing. It sounds absurd to our Western ears - for a definition of college education to venture into the origin of mankind, of civilization, of heaven and hell. The paper questions whether the student has any abstraction ability, but I'd say that he has too much (by Western standards)! This is the "inherent spirituality" of Asians which @diceynes talks about.
Often, when talking with Chinese people about technical or philosophical things, I feel like they make a lot more connections than are rigorously justified. I'm not saying they are right or wrong. Disparate ideas seem to "snap together" more easily in a Chinese worldview.
So I disagree with the paper. I don't think a "spiral" or "widening gyre" is typical of Asian thinking. That implies a kind of periodicity which I've never seen in thinking, although it is prominent in religion. The picture that instead comes to mind is the fediverse logo (pic 3).
A related feature of Chinese rhetoric is that allusions to proverbs are extremely common. In contrast, English rhetoric is more self-contained - or think of math, where every proposition must be justified from a limited set of axioms. This feature, drawn to an extreme, is illustrated in the famous star trek episode Darmok.
-
@hidden @diceynes
Note that, in the Korean student's last sentence, he is basically saying "it is an insult to even ask for a definition (or a justification?) of college education." This reminds me of lots of fights I got into with my parents, when I was a snotty little r/atheism euphoric Popper-worshipping Anglo-brained empiricist. They are NOT at all receptive to questions like, "but WHY should I respect my teacher [even if they are stupid]?"
-
@Hyolobrika @hidden @diceynes
I'm being at least a little facetious. I don't think those ideologies are completely worthless. They served a purpose, historically, when the church *was* the totalitarian state and science was just getting started.
My one criticism is that it's depressing to define yourself solely negatively - in opposition to something - rather than positively. I was very depressed for a while, partly because of my worldview.
The point of science cannot merely be falsification. The point of living cannot merely be freedom. The point of thinking cannot merely be skepticism. Those things are important, but (for me) they are not enough.
-
@cinerion
Yeah, iirc IQ tests were originally developed by (French?) educators who wanted to tailor classes to students' abilities
-
@cinerion
If we could truly be passive observers, then things wouldn't be so bad. We quantify and then we game the quantification. We optimize.
That's how we get Goodhart's law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."
It is not enough for us to see; we must also conquer.
mist
I'm not real
- Tags
-
- ActivityPub
- Remote Profile
Statistics
- User ID
- 851
- Member since
- 16 Dec 2022
- Notices
- 231
- Daily average
- 0
mist
All ０７６萌ＳＮＳ content and data are available under the