Russell McMahon wrote:

> The key was that the test was timed on a per question basis and you did
> each question in order and were not able to go back. Failure to complete
> any question in the relatively short allotted time presumably returned a
> zero score. I did not expect and was unprepared for this approach and by
> the time I had adjusted to it I had irrevocably dropped out of "the top
> of the tail". If I had been subjected unprepared to a similar situation
> in real life I may have failed as badly. This is exactly the sort of
> thing that I (and most of us) try to avoid in real life as life tends to
> be real-time, sequential and the time-arrow usually only points one way
> :-). 

Hm... one of the key skills in life (not only professionally) is IMO to
time things adequately. Such a test obviously doesn't test that type of
intelligence.

In general, the tests put people into an artificial, purposeless situation.
Which for many people is already a problem in itself. They maybe test some
capability of abstraction, but probably not much else. And this capability
may be something good, or not... nobody really knows about /that/ :)

It's this capability that allows us to launch H bombs, for example.

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist