preis@bc-cis.UUCP (David Preisler) (08/25/87)
A year ago I stumbled onto this test. It was given to a Freshman
English class ( the results were not good ). It might make a good
( non-technical ) pre-employment screen...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Test Of Discernment
Please do exactly as instructed. Ask no questions. Under no
circumstances are you to speak or ask a question. Be sure to keep
your eyes on your own paper. When you have finished, sit quietly, not
speaking a word.
1. Read all directions before you do anything.
2. Proceeded carefully and cautiously.
3. Put your name in the upper right-hand corner of this paper.
4. Circle the word "Name" in sentence three.
5. Draw five small squares in the upper left-hand corner of this
page.
6. Put an "X" in each square.
7. Put a circle around each square.
8. Sign your name in the lower right-hand corner of this paper.
9. After your name, write yes, yes, yes!
10. Put a circle around each word in sentence number 8.
11. Put an "X" in the lower left-hand corner of this paper.
12. Draw a triangle around the "X" you put down.
13. On the reverse side of this paper multiply 703 x 1850.
14. Draw a rectangle around the word paper in sentence number 3.
15. When you get to this point in the test, snap your fingers of your
left hand.
16. If you think you have followed directions up to this point, write
"I have" in the space provided below.
17. On the reverse side fo this paper, add 9850 and 8950.
18. Put a circle around your answer. Put a square around the circle.
19. Shut your eyes for just a few seconds. Then proceed to line 21.
20. Now that you have finished reading carefully, do only sentence three.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you really want to make it tough, make the questions reasonable
( Address, Date of Birth ), the questions above *look* suspicious.
David William Preisler
Assistant System Administrator
Phone: (718) 996-7375 (h) Brooklyn College
780-5905 (w) Department of CIS
c/o rm 0300 N
Net: preis@bc-cis.UUCP Bedford Avenue and Ave H
preis@bklyncis.BITNET Brooklyn, New York 11210
All complaints are to be submitted legibly in the box provided below
[]Karl.Kleinpaste@cbstr1.att.com (08/27/87)
I remember getting a test almost identical to that when I was in the 4th grade. I think 3 or perhaps 4 of us "got it right." The fact that college freshman can't cope with it any better than 4th-graders probably says something about the ability of people to learn to take directions. Pretty sad. Karl
neutron@hpfcls.UUCP (08/27/87)
preis@bc-cis.UUCP (David Preisler) writes: > A Test Of Discernment This sort of test bothers me. I think we can boil this test down a bit: 1. Read all directions before you do anything. 2. Draw a horse on the paper. 3. Make sure not do draw on the paper. (or: Ignore instruction #2) Upon reading #3, I think: "This test is inconsistent." Instructions 2 & 3 have the same level of importance; who says that #3 can override #2? If #2 had come after #3, would we be expected to obey the latter one? -Jack Applin
blm@cxsea.UUCP (Brian Matthews) (08/28/87)
In article <957@bc-cis.UUCP> preis@bc-cis.UUCP (David Preisler) writes: |A year ago I stumbled onto this test. It was given to a Freshman |English class ( the results were not good ). It might make a good |( non-technical ) pre-employment screen... |--------------------------------------------------------------------------- | A Test Of Discernment | |Please do exactly as instructed. Ask no questions. Under no |circumstances are you to speak or ask a question. Be sure to keep |your eyes on your own paper. When you have finished, sit quietly, not |speaking a word. | |1. Read all directions before you do anything. ... |20. Now that you have finished reading carefully, do only sentence three. I was given this "test" in the 5th grade! And then, as now, I claim that if you don't answer questions 2 through 19, you haven't completed the test. You see, number 1 only tells you to read everything, not to act on what you read. So a dutiful test taker would read question 1, and act on it by reading the rest of the test, and ONLY reading the rest of the test. After all, if you do act on question 20 during this initial reading, why question 20, and not 13, or 5? -- Brian L. Matthews "A man with one watch knows ...{mnetor,uw-beaver!ssc-vax}!cxsea!blm what time it is; a man with +1 206 251 6811 two watches isn't so sure." Computer X Inc. - a division of Motorola New Enterprises
andrew@lemming.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) (08/28/87)
[]
"The fact that college freshman can't cope with it any better
than 4th-graders probably says something about the ability of
people to learn to take directions. Pretty sad."
I disagree with the conclusion. People in an academic environment
learn quickly what to expect from a typical test, and approach new
tests with a mind set based on their experience. They "stereotype" the
test. This heuristic lets them complete a normal test much more
quickly than if they approached it with a completely open mind,
reexamining all their fundamental assumptions about test taking each
time.
Giving a test that is radically different from other tests, but which
attempts to pass itself off as a normal test until the hooker at the
end, is nothing more than a practical joke.
(When I took the test in 4th grade, I got it "right." I expected
practical jokes from that teacher, based on past experience. A similar
joke was an assignment to rearrange the letters dejnoorstuw into just
one word.)
-=- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!tekecs!andrew) [UUCP]
(andrew%tekecs.tek.com@relay.cs.netM"6SpSpSALCchris@nrcvax.UUCP (Chris Grevstad) (08/29/87)
Karl.Kleinpaste@cbstr1.att.com says: >I remember getting a test almost identical to that when I was in the >4th grade. I think 3 or perhaps 4 of us "got it right." The fact >that college freshman can't cope with it any better than 4th-graders >probably says something about the ability of people to learn to take >directions. Pretty sad. > I think it's probably fair to say that most of us who have gone through the school system have taken this test. In my case I passed it, mostly because it struck me as being unusual enough to take a long look at it. However, I believe most people, when faced with an exam and limited time, will immediately start answering the questions, regardless of the warning to read all the instructions first. This is not out of people's inability to take directions, but a general familiarity with test taking and a somewhat certain knowledge that they will need the entire exam period to finish. -- Chris Grevstad hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!chris ihnp4!nrcvax!chris Refund? REFUND!? ..... REFUND!?!?!
beede@hubcap.UUCP (08/30/87)
in article <7660001@hpfcls.HP.COM>, neutron@hpfcls.HP.COM (Jack Applin) says: ] ] preis@bc-cis.UUCP (David Preisler) writes: ] ]> A Test Of Discernment ] ] This sort of test bothers me. I think we can boil this test down a bit: ] ] 1. Read all directions before you do anything. ] 2. Draw a horse on the paper. ] 3. Make sure not do draw on the paper. ] (or: Ignore instruction #2) ] ] Upon reading #3, I think: "This test is inconsistent." ] Instructions 2 & 3 have the same level of importance; who says ] that #3 can override #2? If #2 had come after #3, would we be ] expected to obey the latter one? ] I agree. This is merely a gag -- to state that someone has ``failed'' if they answer any question but number 3 is to reward the plodders who perform tasks as you would expect a computer to. Hopefully a test of ``discernment'' would not eliminate all candidates with initiative. But, then again, maybe you could just blow off all the candidates that passed . . . (donning protective gear now :->) -- Mike Beede Computer Science Dept. UUCP: . . . !hubcap!beede Clemson University INET: beede@hubcap.clemson.edu Clemson SC 29634-1906 YOUR DIME: (803)656-{2845,3444}
michaud@decvax.UUCP (08/30/87)
> ... freshman english class ...
I remember a test like that, except we were given it
in 5th or 6th grade. I think they wanted to teach us
a lesson in following instructions. What they really
wanted is to get a good laugh at our expense.
%SUPER MICH% to the rescuecetron@utah-cs.UUCP (08/30/87)
the one I took in elementary school was subtly different. The main instructions (not the number list of actions) had the warning that you should read ALL further instructions/actions first. Then it had the usual list of wierd things to do. And the *AFTER* the last numbered actions (all of which were indented) it had a further instruction of the 'just do item #x, and turn it in....'. this solved all of the problems of which number item superseded which.... -ed
lawitzke@eecae.UUCP (John Lawitzke) (08/31/87)
Actually, if you're looking at computer people with this test, you should hire the one who points out that the test has logical flaws that don't allow it to be processed. 1 tells you to read everything first 20 tells you to only do 3 a) if you read through everything first and then get to 20 telling you to only do 3, you've already violated 20 by doing one. b) if you only do 3, you've also done 20 Conclusion: everyone fails, no matter what they do. If this test was given at an interview and the applicant responded along this line I'd think he shoudl be offered a top programming position because he actually understands logic. ;-) -- John H. Lawitzke UUCP: ...ihnp4!msudoc!eecae!lawitzke Division of Engineering Research ARPA: lawitzke@eecae.ee.msu.edu (35.8.8.151) Michigan State University Office: (517) 355-3769 E. Lansing, MI, 48824
doug@catuc.UUCP (doug) (08/31/87)
In article <957@bc-cis.UUCP>, preis@bc-cis.UUCP (David Preisler) writes: > A year ago I stumbled onto this test. It was given to a Freshman > English class ( the results were not good ). It might make a good > ( non-technical ) pre-employment screen... I remember taking a test like this in fifth grade I believe and to this day cannot think of why this test was given. The only thing it did was give the teacher a smug look on her face when she realized that she had tricked a bunch of kids a third her age. It seemed childish then and it seems childish now.
holloway@drivax.UUCP (Bruce Holloway) (08/31/87)
In article <2170@cxsea.UUCP> blm@cxsea.UUCP (Brian Matthews) writes: >|20. Now that you have finished reading carefully, do only sentence three. ... and not do sentence 20, too? In which case it sets up a paradox, and you'd be best off ignoring sentence 20 and doing all the others. - Bruce -- ******************************************************************************* * Bruce Holloway - Terminal Netnews Addict{seismo,sun}!amdahl!drivax!holloway * * ALBATROSS, ATARI*TROS @ Plink ALBATROSS @ Delphi * *******************************************************************************
ba@pbhya.UUCP (Behzad Alavi) (08/31/87)
Do any of you think of *DIRECTIONS* for taking a test, and the *TEST* itself as two different things? If your answer is yes, then the proper respone (behavior) to question #1, is to go BACK to the cover and read the instructions. Definitely NOT to proceed to QUESTION #2, (for the time being). Given that behavior, (meaning that you have read the directions now), then you proceed to Q #2, and act according to what it wants you to do.
dougs@sequent.UUCP (09/01/87)
In article <4874@utah-cs.UUCP>, cetron@utah-cs.UUCP (Edward J Cetron) writes: > > the one I took in elementary school was subtly different. > > The main instructions (not the number list of actions) had the warning > that you should read ALL further instructions/actions first. Then it had > the usual list of wierd things to do. And the *AFTER* the last numbered > actions (all of which were indented) it had a further instruction of the > 'just do item #x, and turn it in....'. this solved all of the problems of > which number item superseded which.... > > -ed Yeah, I once out-smarted myself in some test of general CS type knowledge they gave us at OSU my senior year. The TA's passed out a bunch of tests and the the prof sat up front and told us to carefully read the entire test as we probably did not have enough time to finish all of the problems. Having been burned once in a bogus test like this in the Air Force, I read the entire ~12 pages of code fragments and questions like "what does this code fragment do?". I read it all right, then I turned it in. The whole thing took about 15 minutes and I felt pretty smug about beating the system (for once). The TA's and prof looked shocked as I turned in the thing so quickly. However, since it was voluntary, they said nothing about it being blank. Of course, the following week they reported the results and I felt pretty stupid for being the only person (as far as I know) to not take the test. Doug Schwartz Sequent Computer ...!tektronix!ogcvax!sequent!dougs
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (09/01/87)
In article <957@bc-cis.UUCP> preis@bc-cis.UUCP (David Preisler) writes: > A Test Of Discernment > >Please do exactly as instructed. Ask no questions. Under no >circumstances are you to speak or ask a question. Be sure to keep >your eyes on your own paper. When you have finished, sit quietly, not >speaking a word. > >1. Read all directions before you do anything. >3. Put your name in the upper right-hand corner of this paper. >20. Now that you have finished reading carefully, do only sentence three. > The test is a paradox. More specifically, instruction 20 is a paradox. It instructs you to perform ONLY instruction three. However, if you, in fact, perform only instruction three, you have followed instruction 20 as well, which violates the conditions of instruction 20 (do ONLY three). Therefore, instruction 20 is invalid. Pthphbtphpbthpttt! _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape ihnp4!ptsfa -\ \_ -_ Bike shrunk by popular demand, dual ---> !{well,unicom}!ewhac O----^o But it's still the only way to fly. hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack") "Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctor
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (09/02/87)
Following up the discussion of trick tests, this may be of interest: A
trick question was recently posted in rec.puzzles that involved solving
a geometry puzzle that involved drawing a certain line with ONLY an
unmarked ruler (i.e. no pencil or pen). A couple of people were taken
in quite nicely.
On the other hand, perhaps it wasn't really meant to be a trick
question, though that's how it turned out. The problem is that we all
make assumptions when presented with incomplete information. But there
is no guarantee that the assumptions we make are the assumptions we
were supposed to make.
--
Rahul Dhesi UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesismith@COS.COM (Steve Smith) (09/03/87)
In article <2515@catuc.UUCP> doug@catuc.UUCP (doug) writes: >I remember taking a test like this in fifth grade I believe and to this >day cannot think of why this test was given. The reason for "tests" like this is to attempt to teach test-taking skills. In particular, when you take a test 1. ALWAYS read the instructions. The test may not be what you think it is. 2. ALWAYS at least glance over the ENTIRE test before starting. This lets you look for anything unexpected (like missing pages) before wasting any time. Also, you can do the easy questions first - if you have looked for them. Judging from the responses to this item, it seems that the lesson was pretty much lost. The question of what tests have to do with what is laughingly called "the real world" is something else entirely. "OK, now, Mr. Foobar, it's time for your annual salary review. The test is in three parts. Part one is multiple choice ..." (:-) -- __ -- Steve / / \ / "Truth is stranger than S. G. Smith I \ O | _ O \ I fiction because fiction smith@cos.com / \__/ / has to make sense."
paradis@encore.UUCP (Jim Paradis) (09/04/87)
In article <2515@catuc.UUCP> doug@catuc.UUCP (doug) writes: >I remember taking a test like this in fifth grade I believe and to this >day cannot think of why this test was given. The only thing it did was >give the teacher a smug look on her face when she realized that she had >tricked a bunch of kids a third her age. It seemed childish then and it >seems childish now. Actually, if faced with such a test in an employment situation, I would conclude that the potential employer values an employee's ability to jump through hoops more than anything else... and I'd make a beeline for the door! +----------------+ Jim Paradis linus--+ +--+-------------+ | Encore Computer Corp. necntc--| | | E N C O R E | | 257 Cedar Hill St. ihnp4--+-encore!paradis | +-------------+--+ Marlboro MA 01752 decvax--| +----------------+ (617) 460-0500 talcott--+ You don't honestly think ENCORE is responsible for this??!!
mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (09/05/87)
In article <957@bc-cis.UUCP>, preis@bc-cis.UUCP (David Preisler) writes: > A year ago I stumbled onto this test. It was given to a Freshman > English class (the results were not good). It might make a good > (non-technical) pre-employment screen... > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > A Test Of Discernment > > Please do exactly as instructed. Ask no questions. Under no > circumstances are you to speak or ask a question. Be sure to keep > your eyes on your own paper. When you have finished, sit quietly, > not speaking a word. ....so far so good.... > 1. Read all directions before you do anything. [2 through 18, assorted directions for scribbling on the test paper] > 19. Shut your eyes for just a few seconds. Then proceed to line 21. > 20. Now that you have finished reading carefully, do only sentence three. This seems as though it were also an exercise in paradox resolution. Okay, I do exactly as instructed. Since nobody told me otherwise, I will start with step 1. So I read all the directions. Now presumably I proceed to step 2, since step 1 didn't say anything about carrying out what I just read, or indeed even bothering to remember what I just read. So in the absence of explicit directions to do otherwise, I proceed on the directions implicit in the numbering of the steps. Onward, eventually to step 19. However, I find myself unable to carry out line 19 because there is no line 21. What shall I do? Worse, given directive 20, I cannot "do exactly as instructed" because I have been instructed to do mutually incompatible things (steps 2 and 4-19 are instructions to do things and therefore must be done, but doing as instructed by step 20 requires that I not do 2 and 4-19, or for that matter 1, which I have already done! eek!). Worse, I am forbidden to request additional information with which to resolve this conflict. Presumably you wanted me to obey lines 1, 20, and 3 in that order. How do you justify this? Presumably you feel that step 1 implies carrying out step 20 next instead of step 2? Why? And how does step 20 allow you to have already performed step 1, which is explicitly forbidden? der Mouse (mouse@mcgill-vision.uucp)
jpp@slxsys.UUCP (John Pettitt) (09/12/87)
Another well known 'trick' relates to interviewing sales staff - The
sales manager gives the candidate a pencil and says 'Ok now sell me
that pencil' - The correct response is to break the pencil in half
and say 'Ok Now you need a pencil !'
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
John Pettitt { stc!datlog }
Technical Director seismo!mcvax!ukc!{ pyrltd }!slxsys!jpp
Specialix Systems { reading!riddle }