IQ Tests By Facebook
I fear pop culture is making us stupid. Nowhere do I see this more than on Facebook. People have these frequently shared posts which tend to imply rather strongly that only smart people will be able to solve something. I'm going to give two examples I've either seen multiple variations of, or have popped up numerous times and explain the problems with the supposed "right" solutions.
The first was one I saw again today. It is a picture with more or less the following text "I'm trying to resolve an argument with my wife, what is the answer to the following; a woman steals a $100 bill from a store and uses it to buy $70 worth of goods (from the same store) and gets $30 in change. How much did the owner lose?".
This one doesn't really pose itself as an intelligence test, and yet it does at the same time. If it is a real debate between 2 people, then we can guess that it is probable that people will be divided at least in two on the results. So we already "know" they aren't going to get a unanimous answer.
Firstly, the "expected answer" is, or should be $100. The $70 purchase is a legitimate transaction regardless of the source of the money. A simple way to "prove" this is to alter the timeline a bit. If the woman bought $70 worth of goods, and then stole a $100 bill, the owner would be in the exact same position. It makes no difference to the owner whether the goods were bought before or after the theft and whether or not the money used was the stolen money. At least, not based on the limited information supplied.
And that last sentence is the crux. The TRUE answer is... we don't know. There isn't enough information. "But wait!" you say, "You just supplied a well justified answer, how can it possibly be wrong?". Well, truthfully, it does matter that the stolen money was used to buy goods at the same store. His TRUE loss is actually dependent upon whether or not the purchase was dependent upon the theft and, if so, the profit margin of the goods purchased. The above answer is only absolutely true if the purchase would have happened any way and/or there was no profit on the goods purchased.
If you steal $100 bucks from me and walk away, I'm out $100. Simple.
But, if you steal $100 from me, but use it to buy $100 dollars worth of stuff with an average of 10% markup which you wouldn't have otherwise purchased, then you are technically giving me back $10 of the money you stole. Alternatively, if the criminal used the $100 to buy things which had been priced under cost to try and promote sales, it is even possible to end up at a loss greater than $100.
But, to figure this all out, we need to know, firstly, whether or not the thief would have purchased the goods even if they hadn't stolen the money. If they would have purchased the goods anyway, it's inclusion in the story is moot and doesn't affect the outcome. In that case, no matter what, the owner is out $100.
But, if the transaction had been dependent upon the theft, then the profit margin matters.
Tactics like using only a portion of the money for the purchase to muddy the question with additional facts that lack substance and mentioning that the stolen money was used to make the purchase make this something other than a math problem. It makes it a brain teaser. But, it goofs it up by mixing in elements which make it impossible to come to a truly correct solution.
The second one is even worse. I'm sure everyone has seen these by now. It shows some pictures where you solve for what a symbol means, like 2 bananas = 6. And it will show a few more examples and leave a final line unsolved and these ones tend to imply that only smart people will get them.
These have very little to do with being smart and a lot more to do with being observant. But even then, it has the exact same problem as the first case. You really can't know the answer. You can follow what they're implying but they make a tragic flaw.
So, firstly, the 2 tricks used here are, in the above pictures they will use groups of pictures, say a cluster of 3 bananas or 2 cocktail glasses in the original calculation. In the final calculation however the graphic changes ever so slightly and it will contain 1 banana.
They also tend to use addition in every single calculation except the very last symbol which is generally a multiplication symbol.
But, what you'll find is that once someone points out the operator and the change in the image, almost everyone gets the same "right" answer. So, it isn't really that the people who got it wrong originally were less intelligent. They simply didn't notice the subtle differences, which were done explicitly to deceive.
And, as with the other type of problem, it is fatally flawed. The problem with symbolic math is that just because 2 bananas = 6, doesn't mean 1 banana = 3. If you're given a totally new set of symbols for your math, you need to solve for EVERY SINGLE UNIQUE symbol. And, this should be obvious. 1 means one, but 11 doesn't mean two, it means eleven. Or perhaps more in line with the Facebook problems; 22 = twenty two, 2 != eleven. In other words, just because we have half as many twos, it doesn't mean it's value is half. At least, not in a base 10 system using the numerals we were all brought up with here in North America.
Yes, I understand you can define a group which uses the same numerals but has different rules. In fact... this is the basis of TRUE math related IQ tests. You're shown the numbers you know but they follow different rules and you have the determine the pattern/rules. This has none of that. It is just basic math, with basic numbers.
What they need to make this work as an actual intelligence test would be show that 1 banana + 1 banana = the cluster of 2 bananas. And they would need to do this for each such symbol. Or they would need to have the same sort of numeric equivalencies they had for the cluster of bananas. Of course, they don't do this because it would defeat the entire purpose which was never intended as a proper intelligence test. They need to intentionally leave out REQUIRED information to DECEIVE you.
Unfortunately, those omissions make the entire thing a farce.
I suppose they work well as social experiments though. I took the time to dig through a few hundred of the 10s of thousands of replies on one of these and while there was maybe 3 people in those hundreds who pointed out some of what I pointed out, they were drowned in the sea of people bickering about their wrong answers.
Which brings me to my final point. Just because a majority of people agree with you on Facebook, it doesn't mean you're smart... or even right.
The first was one I saw again today. It is a picture with more or less the following text "I'm trying to resolve an argument with my wife, what is the answer to the following; a woman steals a $100 bill from a store and uses it to buy $70 worth of goods (from the same store) and gets $30 in change. How much did the owner lose?".
This one doesn't really pose itself as an intelligence test, and yet it does at the same time. If it is a real debate between 2 people, then we can guess that it is probable that people will be divided at least in two on the results. So we already "know" they aren't going to get a unanimous answer.
Firstly, the "expected answer" is, or should be $100. The $70 purchase is a legitimate transaction regardless of the source of the money. A simple way to "prove" this is to alter the timeline a bit. If the woman bought $70 worth of goods, and then stole a $100 bill, the owner would be in the exact same position. It makes no difference to the owner whether the goods were bought before or after the theft and whether or not the money used was the stolen money. At least, not based on the limited information supplied.
And that last sentence is the crux. The TRUE answer is... we don't know. There isn't enough information. "But wait!" you say, "You just supplied a well justified answer, how can it possibly be wrong?". Well, truthfully, it does matter that the stolen money was used to buy goods at the same store. His TRUE loss is actually dependent upon whether or not the purchase was dependent upon the theft and, if so, the profit margin of the goods purchased. The above answer is only absolutely true if the purchase would have happened any way and/or there was no profit on the goods purchased.
If you steal $100 bucks from me and walk away, I'm out $100. Simple.
But, if you steal $100 from me, but use it to buy $100 dollars worth of stuff with an average of 10% markup which you wouldn't have otherwise purchased, then you are technically giving me back $10 of the money you stole. Alternatively, if the criminal used the $100 to buy things which had been priced under cost to try and promote sales, it is even possible to end up at a loss greater than $100.
But, to figure this all out, we need to know, firstly, whether or not the thief would have purchased the goods even if they hadn't stolen the money. If they would have purchased the goods anyway, it's inclusion in the story is moot and doesn't affect the outcome. In that case, no matter what, the owner is out $100.
But, if the transaction had been dependent upon the theft, then the profit margin matters.
Tactics like using only a portion of the money for the purchase to muddy the question with additional facts that lack substance and mentioning that the stolen money was used to make the purchase make this something other than a math problem. It makes it a brain teaser. But, it goofs it up by mixing in elements which make it impossible to come to a truly correct solution.
The second one is even worse. I'm sure everyone has seen these by now. It shows some pictures where you solve for what a symbol means, like 2 bananas = 6. And it will show a few more examples and leave a final line unsolved and these ones tend to imply that only smart people will get them.
These have very little to do with being smart and a lot more to do with being observant. But even then, it has the exact same problem as the first case. You really can't know the answer. You can follow what they're implying but they make a tragic flaw.
So, firstly, the 2 tricks used here are, in the above pictures they will use groups of pictures, say a cluster of 3 bananas or 2 cocktail glasses in the original calculation. In the final calculation however the graphic changes ever so slightly and it will contain 1 banana.
They also tend to use addition in every single calculation except the very last symbol which is generally a multiplication symbol.
But, what you'll find is that once someone points out the operator and the change in the image, almost everyone gets the same "right" answer. So, it isn't really that the people who got it wrong originally were less intelligent. They simply didn't notice the subtle differences, which were done explicitly to deceive.
And, as with the other type of problem, it is fatally flawed. The problem with symbolic math is that just because 2 bananas = 6, doesn't mean 1 banana = 3. If you're given a totally new set of symbols for your math, you need to solve for EVERY SINGLE UNIQUE symbol. And, this should be obvious. 1 means one, but 11 doesn't mean two, it means eleven. Or perhaps more in line with the Facebook problems; 22 = twenty two, 2 != eleven. In other words, just because we have half as many twos, it doesn't mean it's value is half. At least, not in a base 10 system using the numerals we were all brought up with here in North America.
Yes, I understand you can define a group which uses the same numerals but has different rules. In fact... this is the basis of TRUE math related IQ tests. You're shown the numbers you know but they follow different rules and you have the determine the pattern/rules. This has none of that. It is just basic math, with basic numbers.
What they need to make this work as an actual intelligence test would be show that 1 banana + 1 banana = the cluster of 2 bananas. And they would need to do this for each such symbol. Or they would need to have the same sort of numeric equivalencies they had for the cluster of bananas. Of course, they don't do this because it would defeat the entire purpose which was never intended as a proper intelligence test. They need to intentionally leave out REQUIRED information to DECEIVE you.
Unfortunately, those omissions make the entire thing a farce.
I suppose they work well as social experiments though. I took the time to dig through a few hundred of the 10s of thousands of replies on one of these and while there was maybe 3 people in those hundreds who pointed out some of what I pointed out, they were drowned in the sea of people bickering about their wrong answers.
Which brings me to my final point. Just because a majority of people agree with you on Facebook, it doesn't mean you're smart... or even right.
Comments
Post a Comment