Prev: Ferrites: L changes with current change.
Next: Need: NEMA 4 Cabinet
From: Ken S. Tucker on 21 Dec 2009 14:47
On Dec 21, 11:12 am, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> wrote:
> Martin Brown wrote:
> > Joerg wrote:
> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >>> On Dec 18, 7:52 pm, ehsjr <eh...(a)nospamverizon.net> wrote:
> >>>> Friends are home-schooling their son.
>
> >>>> I get to teach him 4th grade science: static electricity,
> >>>> magnetism, complete circuits, that sort of thing. There is
> >>>> a very general state provided syllabus, which I regard as
> >>>> a minimum.
>
> > Is there an external examination to be passed at some stage?
>
> > Static electricity, magnetism, simple binary logic with switches are all
> > easy and safe to do. Even making a simple motor. I wouldn't recommend
> > Maxwell's spur for instance - at least not using mercury!!!
>
> > How far you get depends on how bright the child is. You might have
> > trouble if he just isn't interested or simply cannot grasp the subject.
>
> >>> Find out the kids IQ, without his knowledge. Use standardized
> >>> tests or various puzzles. An accelerating IQ is usually the
> >>> result of inherent curiousity, in which case you can access
> >>> the foundations of electronics in physics, via experiment,
> >>> such as Ohm's Law.
>
> > Any of the basic puzzle type tests will give you a quick idea as will a
> > quick game of chess, othello or draughts.
>
> > Quick test of genius is ask him to draw an ellipse given a length of
> > string, a board, some pins and a pencil. You need to get some idea of
> > his mathematical aptitude since that will affect how you teach science.
>
> > Provided you keep learning fun you are half way there.
>
> >> Careful with standardizing and categorizing. I had the "pleasure" of
> >> doing numerous management style quizzes along the lines of
> >> Myers-Briggs and similar. Came out different every time and the
> >> results had very little bearing on the real person I was (according to
> >> others, not me). Bottomline I have very little faith in this stuff.
--------------------
> > Curiosity, IQ and even better some of the pattern matching visual tests
> > are an extremely good predictor for certain skills. They don't predict
> > success though - I know at least one failed genius. The other problem is
> > that the standard multiple choice IQ tests will fail if put up against a
> > true genius who can find multiple right answers and deliberately chooses
> > the perverse one.

That's funny, in High School, we were administered an
Academic Aptitude Exam, (IOW's an IQ test), so I choose
the wrongest answers, so I could be the dumbest kid.
Never got my score but some dumb fucker vice-principal called
me an "inferior individual", so I must have done well.

>>For example what is the next number in the sequence :
>
> > 1 2 4 8 16 (a) 29 (b) 30 (c) 31 (d) 32 (e) 33
>
> > The examiner expects (d) 32, but a perverse genius will answer (c) 31
> > See GEB or
> >http://akpublic.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=1%2C2%2C4%2C8%2C1...
>
> > You could also make a strong case for answering (b) 30 too! (or 77, 20)
>
> > Myers-Briggs sort of works provided you don't play the system, but HR
> > people place far too much emphasis on these pseudo-random numbers.
>
> > Regards,
> > Martin Brown
>
> You don't have to be a genius, just smarter than the examiner. Given
> that writing IQ tests probably isn't the most fulfilling work ever, you
> really don't have to be that smart to fall into those sorts of problems.

Most of academic achievement (in ontario) is regurgitating what the
teacher wants to hear. Govmonk workers reproducing themselves.

> Cheers
> Phil Hobbs
>
> --
> Dr Philip C D Hobbs
> Principal
> ElectroOptical Innovations
> 55 Orchard Rd
> Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
> 845-480-2058
> hobbs at electrooptical dot nethttp://electrooptical.net

Regards
Ken
From: dagmargoodboat on 21 Dec 2009 16:13
On Dec 18, 10:52 pm, ehsjr <eh...(a)nospamverizon.net> wrote:
> Friends are home-schooling their son.
>
> I get to teach him 4th grade science: static electricity,
> magnetism, complete circuits, that sort of thing.  There is
> a very general state provided syllabus, which I regard as
> a minimum.
>
> Any thoughts, tips, techniques, hints?

I learned simple series and parallel circuits, SPST / SPDT switches,
in 2nd grade, and, with help, wound a toilet-paper roll with wire +
brass slider to make a tunable crystal radio. I was especially proud
of getting several stations at once, something ordinary radios
couldn't do. :-)

We made a baking soda + vinegar fire extinguisher in school, which I
proudly duplicated at home and presented to Mom, for use in the
kitchen.

And I remember making and bringing a hotdog cooker to school,
comprising a suicide cord connected to two nails driven through a
board. Pzzzzt, SNAP, sparkle sparkle SNAP sizzzzle, smoke...done to
perfection. I was class hero for a day. I knew it was dangerous, so
I was careful. Today you'd be arrested.

So, FWIW, show the kid neat, physical stuff. Like how invisible CO2
"pours" onto a candle and puts it out.

First the "what." Interested kids are curious -- the "how" and "why"
follow naturally.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur
From: krw on 21 Dec 2009 18:46
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:47:59 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
<dynamics(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote:

>On Dec 21, 11:12 am, Phil Hobbs
><pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> wrote:
>> Martin Brown wrote:
>> > Joerg wrote:
>> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> >>> On Dec 18, 7:52 pm, ehsjr <eh...(a)nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>> >>>> Friends are home-schooling their son.
>>
>> >>>> I get to teach him 4th grade science: static electricity,
>> >>>> magnetism, complete circuits, that sort of thing. There is
>> >>>> a very general state provided syllabus, which I regard as
>> >>>> a minimum.
>>
>> > Is there an external examination to be passed at some stage?
>>
>> > Static electricity, magnetism, simple binary logic with switches are all
>> > easy and safe to do. Even making a simple motor. I wouldn't recommend
>> > Maxwell's spur for instance - at least not using mercury!!!
>>
>> > How far you get depends on how bright the child is. You might have
>> > trouble if he just isn't interested or simply cannot grasp the subject.
>>
>> >>> Find out the kids IQ, without his knowledge. Use standardized
>> >>> tests or various puzzles. An accelerating IQ is usually the
>> >>> result of inherent curiousity, in which case you can access
>> >>> the foundations of electronics in physics, via experiment,
>> >>> such as Ohm's Law.
>>
>> > Any of the basic puzzle type tests will give you a quick idea as will a
>> > quick game of chess, othello or draughts.
>>
>> > Quick test of genius is ask him to draw an ellipse given a length of
>> > string, a board, some pins and a pencil. You need to get some idea of
>> > his mathematical aptitude since that will affect how you teach science.
>>
>> > Provided you keep learning fun you are half way there.
>>
>> >> Careful with standardizing and categorizing. I had the "pleasure" of
>> >> doing numerous management style quizzes along the lines of
>> >> Myers-Briggs and similar. Came out different every time and the
>> >> results had very little bearing on the real person I was (according to
>> >> others, not me). Bottomline I have very little faith in this stuff.
>--------------------
>> > Curiosity, IQ and even better some of the pattern matching visual tests
>> > are an extremely good predictor for certain skills. They don't predict
>> > success though - I know at least one failed genius. The other problem is
>> > that the standard multiple choice IQ tests will fail if put up against a
>> > true genius who can find multiple right answers and deliberately chooses
>> > the perverse one.
>
>That's funny, in High School, we were administered an
>Academic Aptitude Exam, (IOW's an IQ test), so I choose
>the wrongest answers, so I could be the dumbest kid.
>Never got my score but some dumb fucker vice-principal called
>me an "inferior individual", so I must have done well.

A friend played the game the other way. He took the SATs, NMSQT, ACT,
and anything else that came along under a phony name and then applied
to all sorts of colleges under the phony name. He had representatives
from CalTech and MIT asking the Dean of Students for "Mortimer
Schnerd". Who said the colleges *hired* anyone with half a brain?
From: Martin Brown on 22 Dec 2009 04:01
Phil Hobbs wrote:
> Martin Brown wrote:

>> Curiosity, IQ and even better some of the pattern matching visual
>> tests are an extremely good predictor for certain skills. They don't
>> predict success though - I know at least one failed genius. The other
>> problem is that the standard multiple choice IQ tests will fail if put
>> up against a true genius who can find multiple right answers and
>> deliberately chooses the perverse one. For example what is the next
>> number in the sequence :
>>
>> 1 2 4 8 16 (a) 29 (b) 30 (c) 31 (d) 32 (e) 33
>>
>> The examiner expects (d) 32, but a perverse genius will answer (c) 31
>> See GEB or
>> http://akpublic.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=1%2C2%2C4%2C8%2C16%2C&sort=0&fmt=0&language=english
>>
>> You could also make a strong case for answering (b) 30 too! (or 77, 20)
>
> You don't have to be a genius, just smarter than the examiner. Given

The best IQ tests are *supposed* to have been screened for false
positive correct answers (and by now they may well have been to beyond
this level). Searchable sequence archive makes life a lot easier. IQ is
still only valid for a range out to about ~4 sigma from the norm.

Another tricky one: what is the next number in the following sequence:

10 11 12 13 14 20 22 31

(not in the sequences archive)

My friend was very proud of his IQ=60 certificate. His mathematics only
IQ was roughly that value modulo 200. ISTR He didn't answer any of the
maths questions wrong - just not with the "right" answer. He researches
non-linear non-Newtonian fluid dynamics with tensor calculus.

> that writing IQ tests probably isn't the most fulfilling work ever, you
> really don't have to be that smart to fall into those sorts of problems.

Most of the time the examiners intended answer is obvious and it is
perverse to choose one of the ghost answers but it doesn't stop very
clever people playing with the test. They have nothing to prove.

Regards,
Martin Brown
From: Phil Hobbs on 22 Dec 2009 12:06
On 12/22/2009 4:01 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> Martin Brown wrote:
>
>>> Curiosity, IQ and even better some of the pattern matching visual
>>> tests are an extremely good predictor for certain skills. They don't
>>> predict success though - I know at least one failed genius. The other
>>> problem is that the standard multiple choice IQ tests will fail if
>>> put up against a true genius who can find multiple right answers and
>>> deliberately chooses the perverse one. For example what is the next
>>> number in the sequence :
>>>
>>> 1 2 4 8 16 (a) 29 (b) 30 (c) 31 (d) 32 (e) 33
>>>
>>> The examiner expects (d) 32, but a perverse genius will answer (c) 31
>>> See GEB or
>>> http://akpublic.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/?q=1%2C2%2C4%2C8%2C16%2C&sort=0&fmt=0&language=english
>>>
>>> You could also make a strong case for answering (b) 30 too! (or 77, 20)
>>
>> You don't have to be a genius, just smarter than the examiner. Given
>
> The best IQ tests are *supposed* to have been screened for false
> positive correct answers (and by now they may well have been to beyond
> this level). Searchable sequence archive makes life a lot easier. IQ is
> still only valid for a range out to about ~4 sigma from the norm.
>
> Another tricky one: what is the next number in the following sequence:
>
> 10 11 12 13 14 20 22 31
>
> (not in the sequences archive)
>
> My friend was very proud of his IQ=60 certificate. His mathematics only
> IQ was roughly that value modulo 200. ISTR He didn't answer any of the
> maths questions wrong - just not with the "right" answer. He researches
> non-linear non-Newtonian fluid dynamics with tensor calculus.
>
>> that writing IQ tests probably isn't the most fulfilling work ever,
>> you really don't have to be that smart to fall into those sorts of
>> problems.
>
> Most of the time the examiners intended answer is obvious and it is
> perverse to choose one of the ghost answers but it doesn't stop very
> clever people playing with the test. They have nothing to prove.
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown

"supposed to be screened"--yup, by a committee of the same folks who
write them. Why am I not filled with sublime confidence?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Ferrites: L changes with current change.
Next: Need: NEMA 4 Cabinet