Rating: 
Summary: Problems with IQ Tests
Review: Re: The reviewer who posed the following question from the book and the only question that even remotely challenged him/her:A horse merchant goes to a fair to sell his horses. he sells half of his horses to his first client and adds half a horse as a bonus. then he sells half of the horses he has left to the second client and, you got it, adds another half a horse for good measure. to the last client, he sells half of the horses he has left and then adds half a horse. all clients got full horses (nobody had to drag half a carcass away). How many horses did the horse merchant sell that day? The reviewer didn't give the response, but I will. It's 7. To the first client he gives half of his 7 horses, which equals 3.5. To this number the merchant adds a half of a horse giving the first client 4 horses, leaving the merchant with 3 horses. To the next client the same process is repeated, the merchant gives half of his remaining 3 horses, which is 1.5. To this number the merchant adds a half of a horse giving the second client 2 horses, leaving the merchant with 1 horse. To the final client the merchant gives half of his remaining 1 horse, which is .5, and to this number the merchant adds a half of a horse giving the third client 1 horse, leaving the merchant with 0 horses. [In this example, if I were the last client it would be startlingly clear that the merchant is totally insane. However, as long as the bottom line is that I get a complete horse at an agreed upon price I'm satisfied.] Therefore, the total number of horses the merchant had that day was 7 and he sold 7. Easy, right? Or, is the answer 14? (Use a starting number of 15) Or, is the answer 21? (Use a starting number of 23) In fact, there are multiple answers. By increasing the answer by seven each time, e.g., 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, etc. with the beginning number of horses to sell that day increasing by one each time over the previous beginning number, e.g., if the number of horses sold were 7, the beginning number was 7 (7+0). If the number of horses sold were 14, the beginning number is 15 (7+1). If the number of horses sold were 21, the beginning number is 23 (7+2), etc. This is one complaint I have about IQ tests. The language is not precise enough. The question never said that the merchant sold all of his horses nor did it ask for the best response. In the latter case, seven horses would have been the best response. Or, is it? To the merchant the best answer may not be that he sold all of his horses that day but rather an answer that yielded the highest number of horses sold. So, don't get taken in by the catchall phrase, "best response." Frequently I have seen cases where there could be more than one response, and the creator of the question gets off the hook by asking for the best response. In their opinion. This is where the question of societal forces may come into play. But a typical response to this consideration is two-dimensional thinking. That is, an IQ test may get dumbed down by those who create a particular test. The thinking may be that since a particular minorities culture may not have access to the education or resources of say, for example, an upper class white man, then an answer has to be made simpler, or with fewer references to the imagined world at large. However, this is more a reflection of the bias of those creating a test of this sort. Three-dimensional thinking is what is missed in IQ tests. The questions aren't looking for multiple possibilities, the question are attempting to funnel the response to a single answer. Towards this end, the questions frequently include the phrase, "best response" and this is where the problem lies. This is an area where some have noticed that societal differences can enter into the bigger picture. Again, it is not about dumbing down the questions, but thinking at a deeper level. For instance, a logical conclusion to a farmer may be a different from a Wall Street stockbroker. On the other hand, a woman's conclusion may assimilate subtle emotions and/or pull from a completely different set of criteria than a man's. Culture, geography, mechanics, talents, spirit may all enter into it. By now, most have heard of an EQ test, or an emotional quotient test, that acknowledges that there is more to intelligence than previously thought. Here too though, limitations are placed by attempting to quantify. Isn't it interesting that those who may have a remarkable memory for facts or trivia do not necessarily have an IQ that is that different from the norm? It is the case that for a number of these individuals (if driven by their ego) to allow a so-called "fact" to keep them from having to think beyond a shallow consideration. And let's not leave out those emotionally charged individuals that have searing insights into human nature, which seem dead on (while assassinating another's character through gossip). One may buy what these pseudo intellects or emotional zealots are selling, but it's not necessarily correct. Without necessarily realizing it, this three-pound mass we call a brain is an amazing computer that thinks three dimensionally for everyone. In problem solving, balancing one's checkbook, balancing one's life and family's survival an incredible number of processes kick into gear that don't have to stop at one solution. There are a number of bad choices, a number of good choices and even a few excellent possibilities that you would never find on an IQ test.
Rating: 
Summary: Lots of teasers
Review: This book has a lot of brain teasers and a few trivia questions. Though, if you are a trivia buff, you are bound to be disappointed. You'd be much better off buying a book like "Quizzing" which I found had some amazing trivia questions.
| 
