You are not logged in.
This reference is to syllogisms. You are right tonyMac, it is if they are valid, not due to their content, but the logical way they are presented. This is a tactic used by rhetoriticians in order to prove points. In my mind it is less effective than proofs, but who likes to do proofs? Another aspect of the questions that you pointed out tonyMac was the either/or fallacy, I agree. I think their use of these non-sequiturs is to invoke a response based on the confusion of the content versus the reasoning.
The syllogism reasons from statements of propositions. These propositions are called premises. The reasoning follows course: if [i]a[/i] is true, and [i]b[/i] is true, then [i]c[/i] must be true.
There are six rules to determine if a syllogism is [b]VALID[/b] or [b]INVALID[/b] as tonyMac stated.
1) There must be three terms and only three terms.
2) The middle term must be distributed at least once.
3) No term may be distributed in the conclusion if it was not distributed in the premise.
4) No conclusion may be drawn from two particular (as opposed to universal) premises.
5) No conclusion may be drawn from two negative premises.
6) If one of the premises is negative, the conclusion must be negative.
Here are a couple of examples:
If he has leukemia, he will die.
He has leukemia.
Therefore, he will die. (VALID)
If he has leukemia, he will die.
He will die.
Therefore, he has leukemia. (INVALID)
All Catholics are Protestants.
All Protestants are Baptists.
Therefore, all Catholics are Baptists. (VALID but not may not be true)
Now, had I the time to consider the rules, I may have done better on those types of questions.
I think you are also correct that there are some social biasing here. Since syllogisms were developed by Aristotle way back when, it presupposes that if you know these you are privy to an education better than the average person. I think this is why the test exists in the first place. That and for those who do well at them so they can brag. Is it a tell all be all description of who you are as a person, nope, I don't beleive so.
Sorry, my time is probably 9 hours earlier than your's there (U.S. East coast) bubach.
As for keyboards, my wife had to learn Korean with a Korean keyboard. Their language is a phonetic characterisation. Meaning that several sounds are placed together to create a character. The keyboard/console driver would have to negotiate the different sounds together to form a character, in otherwords updating a character as you go, or waiting for specific key strokes in order to display the character. Most combinations are in threes, but there are some that are six, and some that are only two. It is an interesting thing languuages. Ive been looking for a class on the philosophy of language, but have yet to find one.
Last edited by smiddy (2005-03-04 01:57:42)
I looked up the keyboard layout (google is great), and found the german layout, it's complicated. There are no keys on the US keyboard that require <ctrl> or <alt> to get a character. I'm in the US eastern time zone, also. I found it difficult to catch anyone online unless I get up early.
on keyboards, that would be disconcerting, to have characters updating on the fly as you go. I've heard of this before, with the asian languages because of the sheer mass of characters, but Iwould find it especially difficult, especially not being from asia growing up with such an alphabet. I think I'll keep to the Germanic languages, they have familiar structure, especially when you look at old english. (I used to have some knowledge of Spanish, but that's been forgotten)
I had three years of Spanish...so I can still order a beer and tell a girl she is pretty. But anything technical and I'm a mute.
I agree, especially from a kernel/driver standpoint. It would make you go mad, updating the screen after each keystroke to formulate a character, argh! Speaking of which, all of the languages stemming from Chinese are based (for lack of a better term) on a stroke count. Which is probably why this is the case in the keyboard interface.
I had the opportunity to review some of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) while I was in school. The roots (ancestral background) for most words were of three flavors, Germanic, French, and of course Greek. There were others, but that was the majority.
I must run, breaks over...
Age for that test may be a dicriminator. But I beleive that standard IQ tests are based on your age too. Meaning that if you are say 13, and you know what an 18 year old knows or should know, your score will reflect that, giving you a better than average score. However, if you are 18 and only know what a 13 year old should know, then you would get a substandard score. The median score is supposed to be between 90 - 110.
[b]Descriptive Classifications of Intelligence Quotients:[/b]
IQ Description % of Population 130+ Very superior 2.2% 120-129 Superior 6.7% 110-119 High average 16.1% 90-109 Average 50% 80- 89 Low average 16.1% 70- 79 Borderline 6.7% Below 70 Extremely low 2.2%
[b]Here are the careers for some specific scores:[/b]
140 Top Civil Servants; Professors and Research Scientists. 130 Physicians and Surgeons; Lawyers; Engineers (Civil and Mechanical) 120 School Teachers; Pharmacists; Accountants; Nurses; Stenographers; Managers. 110 Foremen; Clerks; Telephone Operators; Salesmen; Policemen; Electricians. 100+ Machine Operators; Shopkeepers; Butchers; Welders; Sheet Metal Workers. 100- Warehousemen; Carpenters; Cooks and Bakers; Small Farmers; Truck and Van Drivers. 90 Laborers; Gardeners; Upholsterers; Farmhands; Miners; Factory Packers and Sorters.
I suppose given the test, I'm right were I should be, being an engineer. But as tonyMac points out, there is a specific bias to this test too, and it isn't timed, and it allows you to use referents too, so is it a true IQ test? I don't think so, but it was fun none the less.
And I am only one bloody point from being "130+ Very superior 2.2% "
Here are the careers for some specific scores:
Is that really true? That it has such a clear connection to the IQ?
PS nice signature..
I took a blog thing for "soul type" (I was bored), and it gave me back the same personality as the IQ test came up with, the visionary. Then, out of curiosity, I took an "intellect type" test, which also came back with "linguistic intellect", which agrees with the IQ tests summarization of "Word Warrior" I think it's a huge conspiracy.