In other words, you can produce this effect in a lab under contrived conditions (e.g. when the subjects get the hint as to what you are looking for) but in real-world settings there is no such effect.
I’m sure this is an experience many have had–when I took an introductory psych course, part of my grade was contingent upon participating in a research study as a subject.
Eager to get it over with, I signed up for the next available slot and showed up to the ‘lab.’ I entered a room with a computer terminal and was told I was taking an intelligence test. But lo and behold, seated right across from me in full view was another subject allegedly taking the same test–for whatever reason the investigator went out of their way to tell me that the other person was taking the same test that I was, not that I had asked, or really cared.
I couldn’t see the other subject’s screen, but I could see them rapidly clicking and moving the mouse as if they were flying through an easy test in the most theatrical manner imaginable. Meanwhile the questions served up to me seemed remarkably difficult and took several minutes each to answer.
After about 5 minutes I concluded that either: 1.) I was an idiot. 2.) I was seated across from a genius. 3.) The other ‘subject’ was actually a plant and this was a study to see if proximity to a perceived high performer impacted an individual’s performance.
If smartphones had been a thing back then I would have started browsing Unz. But they weren’t, so instead I tipped my chair back, let out a big sigh, said “I’m so discouraged!”, and stopped answering the questions.
Did they throw out my data? I doubt it. I’m sure my little data point is in some journal being served up as God’s truth, p<0.05.
You lucked out. I got to be one of the subjects of a research project that was measuring how much variation there was between individuals in their response to Pavlovian conditioning. In the original Pavlovian experiment dogs were given food while a bell was rung and the level of salivation was measured. After repeated trials the dogs would salivate just from the bell ringing. The fine people of this study decided that it would be too awkward and slow to perform quite that kind of test on a large number of human subjects. What they did instead is that a graduate student wired two of your fingers to electrodes to administer mildly painful electrical shocks while ringing a bell. Other electrodes would quantify how quickly the conditioning to respond to just the bell would take from person to person, by measuring the skin resistance that resulted from spikes in perspiration caused by the shock. I thought briefly of being a smart ass and halfway through the experiment suddenly “breaking” and yelling out details on troop deployments. I held back since the young lady testing me also controlled the intensity of the shocks and didn’t look like someone with a sense of humor. She did compliment me on how clear cut my responses were. At least I think it a compliment.
The silliest part of the psych course was that the professor told us at the start of the semester that at the end he would reward the best student with a copy of B.F. Skinner’s novel Walden II. Out of curiosity I checked a checked a copy out of the library, and found out it is was Skinner’s vision of a hyper-rational communist utopia. Just the sort of vision of an ideal society you would expect from someone who once kept his infant daughter in a “Skinner Box” to test if it was possible to mold a perfect human by tightly controlling all the stimuli they are exposed to.
My main takeaway from the class was that there might be something to the stereotype that the field of psychology attracts the most damaged people.
Eager to get it over with, I signed up for the next available slot and showed up to the ‘lab.’ I entered a room with a computer terminal and was told I was taking an intelligence test.
It's like when you are playing vidya and are forced to enter a dark room where the lights don't work and the NPC tramp outside has told you that "I haven't seen any monster here recently." while grinning insanely. Pretty sure there are no monsters in that room.
After about 5 minutes I concluded that either: 1.) I was an idiot. 2.) I was seated across from a genius. 3.) The other ‘subject’ was actually a plant and this was a study to see if proximity to a perceived high performer impacted an individual’s performance.
A large proportion of psychological tests involve lying to the participants. It may be necessary but I really don't like it. If I was asked to take part in such a test, I'd say, "okay, as long as you don't lie to me, use stooges, or try to trick me in any way". But I suppose that would bring everything to a full stop.
I'm sure this is an experience many have had--when I took an introductory psych course, part of my grade was contingent upon participating in a research study as a subject.
Eager to get it over with, I signed up for the next available slot and showed up to the 'lab.' I entered a room with a computer terminal and was told I was taking an intelligence test. But lo and behold, seated right across from me in full view was another subject allegedly taking the same test--for whatever reason the investigator went out of their way to tell me that the other person was taking the same test that I was, not that I had asked, or really cared.
I couldn't see the other subject's screen, but I could see them rapidly clicking and moving the mouse as if they were flying through an easy test in the most theatrical manner imaginable. Meanwhile the questions served up to me seemed remarkably difficult and took several minutes each to answer.
After about 5 minutes I concluded that either: 1.) I was an idiot. 2.) I was seated across from a genius. 3.) The other 'subject' was actually a plant and this was a study to see if proximity to a perceived high performer impacted an individual's performance.
If smartphones had been a thing back then I would have started browsing Unz. But they weren't, so instead I tipped my chair back, let out a big sigh, said "I'm so discouraged!", and stopped answering the questions.
Did they throw out my data? I doubt it. I'm sure my little data point is in some journal being served up as God's truth, p<0.05.
Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Alfa158, @El Dato, @Haruto Rat, @Graham
It can’t be that hard to discourage people from working hard on a meaningless low stakes test.
The first time, I didn’t give a shit, till I got my score. The second time, I did, and it made a significant difference. If your ego is tied to the result, you’ll try harder. Or maybe I’m an outlier. Maybe I have a "fuck that" gene that begs expression under certain circumstances.
Is this part of the replicability crisis in the social sciences?
I wonder if the researchers have considered a different methodology: take an individual who may constitute a stereotype threat and throw him or her into a pond of water. If they float, they are indeed a threat. If they sink, they are not.
It is very easy to dismiss such nonsense, but I have to admit that I love how it dovetails so well with the science-fiction of David Cronenberg and Dune.
The first time, I didn’t give a shit, till I got my score. The second time, I did, and it made a significant difference. If your ego is tied to the result, you’ll try harder. Or maybe I’m an outlier. Maybe I have a "fuck that" gene that begs expression under certain circumstances.
回复：@Jack D，@Anonymous
Real IQ tests have to be professionally administered. I don’t know what tests you took but they weren’t valid IQ tests. It’s possible for your IQ to vary somewhat between administrations but usually not by much unless you are being uncooperative.
The first time, I didn’t give a shit, till I got my score. The second time, I did, and it made a significant difference. If your ego is tied to the result, you’ll try harder. Or maybe I’m an outlier. Maybe I have a "fuck that" gene that begs expression under certain circumstances.
回复：@Jack D，@Anonymous
Had several IQ tests in the ’00s and never received a “score” back, i.e. the conventional point scale of pop journalism vocabulary (instead they showed the result data in obscure statistics/percentiles, not readily useful for bragging about). This was in Connecticut. Where’d you take your test
I'm sure this is an experience many have had--when I took an introductory psych course, part of my grade was contingent upon participating in a research study as a subject.
Eager to get it over with, I signed up for the next available slot and showed up to the 'lab.' I entered a room with a computer terminal and was told I was taking an intelligence test. But lo and behold, seated right across from me in full view was another subject allegedly taking the same test--for whatever reason the investigator went out of their way to tell me that the other person was taking the same test that I was, not that I had asked, or really cared.
I couldn't see the other subject's screen, but I could see them rapidly clicking and moving the mouse as if they were flying through an easy test in the most theatrical manner imaginable. Meanwhile the questions served up to me seemed remarkably difficult and took several minutes each to answer.
After about 5 minutes I concluded that either: 1.) I was an idiot. 2.) I was seated across from a genius. 3.) The other 'subject' was actually a plant and this was a study to see if proximity to a perceived high performer impacted an individual's performance.
If smartphones had been a thing back then I would have started browsing Unz. But they weren't, so instead I tipped my chair back, let out a big sigh, said "I'm so discouraged!", and stopped answering the questions.
Did they throw out my data? I doubt it. I'm sure my little data point is in some journal being served up as God's truth, p<0.05.
Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Alfa158, @El Dato, @Haruto Rat, @Graham
You lucked out. I got to be one of the subjects of a research project that was measuring how much variation there was between individuals in their response to Pavlovian conditioning. In the original Pavlovian experiment dogs were given food while a bell was rung and the level of salivation was measured. After repeated trials the dogs would salivate just from the bell ringing.
The fine people of this study decided that it would be too awkward and slow to perform quite that kind of test on a large number of human subjects. What they did instead is that a graduate student wired two of your fingers to electrodes to administer mildly painful electrical shocks while ringing a bell. Other electrodes would quantify how quickly the conditioning to respond to just the bell would take from person to person, by measuring the skin resistance that resulted from spikes in perspiration caused by the shock. I thought briefly of being a smart ass and halfway through the experiment suddenly “breaking” and yelling out details on troop deployments. I held back since the young lady testing me also controlled the intensity of the shocks and didn’t look like someone with a sense of humor. She did compliment me on how clear cut my responses were. At least I think it a compliment.
The silliest part of the psych course was that the professor told us at the start of the semester that at the end he would reward the best student with a copy of B.F. Skinner’s novel Walden II. Out of curiosity I checked a checked a copy out of the library, and found out it is was Skinner’s vision of a hyper-rational communist utopia. Just the sort of vision of an ideal society you would expect from someone who once kept his infant daughter in a “Skinner Box” to test if it was possible to mold a perfect human by tightly controlling all the stimuli they are exposed to.
My main takeaway from the class was that there might be something to the stereotype that the field of psychology attracts the most damaged people.
I'm sure this is an experience many have had--when I took an introductory psych course, part of my grade was contingent upon participating in a research study as a subject.
Eager to get it over with, I signed up for the next available slot and showed up to the 'lab.' I entered a room with a computer terminal and was told I was taking an intelligence test. But lo and behold, seated right across from me in full view was another subject allegedly taking the same test--for whatever reason the investigator went out of their way to tell me that the other person was taking the same test that I was, not that I had asked, or really cared.
I couldn't see the other subject's screen, but I could see them rapidly clicking and moving the mouse as if they were flying through an easy test in the most theatrical manner imaginable. Meanwhile the questions served up to me seemed remarkably difficult and took several minutes each to answer.
After about 5 minutes I concluded that either: 1.) I was an idiot. 2.) I was seated across from a genius. 3.) The other 'subject' was actually a plant and this was a study to see if proximity to a perceived high performer impacted an individual's performance.
If smartphones had been a thing back then I would have started browsing Unz. But they weren't, so instead I tipped my chair back, let out a big sigh, said "I'm so discouraged!", and stopped answering the questions.
Did they throw out my data? I doubt it. I'm sure my little data point is in some journal being served up as God's truth, p<0.05.
Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Alfa158, @El Dato, @Haruto Rat, @Graham
Eager to get it over with, I signed up for the next available slot and showed up to the ‘lab.’ I entered a room with a computer terminal and was told I was taking an intelligence test.
It’s like when you are playing vidya and are forced to enter a dark room where the lights don’t work and the NPC tramp outside has told you that “I haven’t seen any monster here recently.” while grinning insanely. Pretty sure there are no monsters in that room.
So, he analyses a bunch of studies on the basis that they are flawed, and his conclusion is “valid” because he has a weighted average of all the underlying data and their associated errors. Vast simplifying assumption here is that the errors largely cancel out: What if they are additive?
Fourth, the meta-analytic database is subjected to tests of publication bias, finding nontrivial evidence for publication bias.
The key quote I see is the final sentence of the abstract:
Overall, results indicate that the size of the stereotype threat effect that can be experienced on tests of cognitive ability in operational scenarios such as college admissions tests and employment testing may range from negligible to small.
P.S. I was unable to find free full text of the paper. Does anyone have it?
I'm sure this is an experience many have had--when I took an introductory psych course, part of my grade was contingent upon participating in a research study as a subject.
Eager to get it over with, I signed up for the next available slot and showed up to the 'lab.' I entered a room with a computer terminal and was told I was taking an intelligence test. But lo and behold, seated right across from me in full view was another subject allegedly taking the same test--for whatever reason the investigator went out of their way to tell me that the other person was taking the same test that I was, not that I had asked, or really cared.
I couldn't see the other subject's screen, but I could see them rapidly clicking and moving the mouse as if they were flying through an easy test in the most theatrical manner imaginable. Meanwhile the questions served up to me seemed remarkably difficult and took several minutes each to answer.
After about 5 minutes I concluded that either: 1.) I was an idiot. 2.) I was seated across from a genius. 3.) The other 'subject' was actually a plant and this was a study to see if proximity to a perceived high performer impacted an individual's performance.
If smartphones had been a thing back then I would have started browsing Unz. But they weren't, so instead I tipped my chair back, let out a big sigh, said "I'm so discouraged!", and stopped answering the questions.
Did they throw out my data? I doubt it. I'm sure my little data point is in some journal being served up as God's truth, p<0.05.
Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Alfa158, @El Dato, @Haruto Rat, @Graham
After about 5 minutes I concluded that either: 1.) I was an idiot. 2.) I was seated across from a genius. 3.) The other ‘subject’ was actually a plant and this was a study to see if proximity to a perceived high performer impacted an individual’s performance.
I'm sure this is an experience many have had--when I took an introductory psych course, part of my grade was contingent upon participating in a research study as a subject.
Eager to get it over with, I signed up for the next available slot and showed up to the 'lab.' I entered a room with a computer terminal and was told I was taking an intelligence test. But lo and behold, seated right across from me in full view was another subject allegedly taking the same test--for whatever reason the investigator went out of their way to tell me that the other person was taking the same test that I was, not that I had asked, or really cared.
I couldn't see the other subject's screen, but I could see them rapidly clicking and moving the mouse as if they were flying through an easy test in the most theatrical manner imaginable. Meanwhile the questions served up to me seemed remarkably difficult and took several minutes each to answer.
After about 5 minutes I concluded that either: 1.) I was an idiot. 2.) I was seated across from a genius. 3.) The other 'subject' was actually a plant and this was a study to see if proximity to a perceived high performer impacted an individual's performance.
If smartphones had been a thing back then I would have started browsing Unz. But they weren't, so instead I tipped my chair back, let out a big sigh, said "I'm so discouraged!", and stopped answering the questions.
Did they throw out my data? I doubt it. I'm sure my little data point is in some journal being served up as God's truth, p<0.05.
Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Alfa158, @El Dato, @Haruto Rat, @Graham
A large proportion of psychological tests involve lying to the participants. It may be necessary but I really don’t like it. If I was asked to take part in such a test, I’d say, “okay, as long as you don’t lie to me, use stooges, or try to trick me in any way”. But I suppose that would bring everything to a full stop.
Westlaw is a great research tool, its coders/algorithms put a little red or orange flags on those cases which have been overturned or undermined by later precedent. If social science were subjected to the same thing, that would be quite helpful.
It would also would be helpful if Westlaw would flag legal decisions which rest on debunked studies like “stereotype threat.”
An army of reference and research lawyers in Eagan make KeyCite possible; algorithms have their place, but, no matter what the "artificial intelligence" cheerleaders spout, there's no chance any programme on the planet could do the necessary analysis.
So, he analyses a bunch of studies on the basis that they are flawed, and his conclusion is "valid" because he has a weighted average of all the underlying data and their associated errors. Vast simplifying assumption here is that the errors largely cancel out: What if they are additive?
回复：@res
Especially given this from the abstract:
Fourth, the meta-analytic database is subjected to tests of publication bias, finding nontrivial evidence for publication bias.
The key quote I see is the final sentence of the abstract:
Overall, results indicate that the size of the stereotype threat effect that can be experienced on tests of cognitive ability in operational scenarios such as college admissions tests and employment testing may range from negligible to small.
P.S. I was unable to find free full text of the paper. Does anyone have it?
Westlaw is a great research tool, its coders/algorithms put a little red or orange flags on those cases which have been overturned or undermined by later precedent. If social science were subjected to the same thing, that would be quite helpful.
It would also would be helpful if Westlaw would flag legal decisions which rest on debunked studies like "stereotype threat."
回复：@Autochthon
An army of reference and research lawyers in Eagan make KeyCite possible; algorithms have their place, but, no matter what the “artificial intelligence” cheerleaders spout, there’s no chance any programme on the planet could do the necessary analysis.
RSS
Baffle them with bs right out of the starting gate.
In other words, you can produce this effect in a lab under contrived conditions (e.g. when the subjects get the hint as to what you are looking for) but in real-world settings there is no such effect.
The idea seemed rather contrived to begin with.
All the stereotypes they’ve ever tested are true. Blacks are less intelligent than whites, women are worse than men at right tail math, and so on.
I’m sure this is an experience many have had–when I took an introductory psych course, part of my grade was contingent upon participating in a research study as a subject.
Eager to get it over with, I signed up for the next available slot and showed up to the ‘lab.’ I entered a room with a computer terminal and was told I was taking an intelligence test. But lo and behold, seated right across from me in full view was another subject allegedly taking the same test–for whatever reason the investigator went out of their way to tell me that the other person was taking the same test that I was, not that I had asked, or really cared.
I couldn’t see the other subject’s screen, but I could see them rapidly clicking and moving the mouse as if they were flying through an easy test in the most theatrical manner imaginable. Meanwhile the questions served up to me seemed remarkably difficult and took several minutes each to answer.
After about 5 minutes I concluded that either: 1.) I was an idiot. 2.) I was seated across from a genius. 3.) The other ‘subject’ was actually a plant and this was a study to see if proximity to a perceived high performer impacted an individual’s performance.
If smartphones had been a thing back then I would have started browsing Unz. But they weren’t, so instead I tipped my chair back, let out a big sigh, said “I’m so discouraged!”, and stopped answering the questions.
Did they throw out my data? I doubt it. I’m sure my little data point is in some journal being served up as God’s truth, p<0.05.
阻止人们在毫无意义的低风险测试中努力工作并不是那么困难。
回复：@Soopy
You lucked out. I got to be one of the subjects of a research project that was measuring how much variation there was between individuals in their response to Pavlovian conditioning. In the original Pavlovian experiment dogs were given food while a bell was rung and the level of salivation was measured. After repeated trials the dogs would salivate just from the bell ringing.
The fine people of this study decided that it would be too awkward and slow to perform quite that kind of test on a large number of human subjects. What they did instead is that a graduate student wired two of your fingers to electrodes to administer mildly painful electrical shocks while ringing a bell. Other electrodes would quantify how quickly the conditioning to respond to just the bell would take from person to person, by measuring the skin resistance that resulted from spikes in perspiration caused by the shock. I thought briefly of being a smart ass and halfway through the experiment suddenly “breaking” and yelling out details on troop deployments. I held back since the young lady testing me also controlled the intensity of the shocks and didn’t look like someone with a sense of humor. She did compliment me on how clear cut my responses were. At least I think it a compliment.
The silliest part of the psych course was that the professor told us at the start of the semester that at the end he would reward the best student with a copy of B.F. Skinner’s novel Walden II. Out of curiosity I checked a checked a copy out of the library, and found out it is was Skinner’s vision of a hyper-rational communist utopia. Just the sort of vision of an ideal society you would expect from someone who once kept his infant daughter in a “Skinner Box” to test if it was possible to mold a perfect human by tightly controlling all the stimuli they are exposed to.
My main takeaway from the class was that there might be something to the stereotype that the field of psychology attracts the most damaged people.
A large proportion of psychological tests involve lying to the participants. It may be necessary but I really don't like it. If I was asked to take part in such a test, I'd say, "okay, as long as you don't lie to me, use stooges, or try to trick me in any way". But I suppose that would bring everything to a full stop.
Eager to get it over with, I signed up for the next available slot and showed up to the 'lab.' I entered a room with a computer terminal and was told I was taking an intelligence test. But lo and behold, seated right across from me in full view was another subject allegedly taking the same test--for whatever reason the investigator went out of their way to tell me that the other person was taking the same test that I was, not that I had asked, or really cared.
I couldn't see the other subject's screen, but I could see them rapidly clicking and moving the mouse as if they were flying through an easy test in the most theatrical manner imaginable. Meanwhile the questions served up to me seemed remarkably difficult and took several minutes each to answer.
After about 5 minutes I concluded that either: 1.) I was an idiot. 2.) I was seated across from a genius. 3.) The other 'subject' was actually a plant and this was a study to see if proximity to a perceived high performer impacted an individual's performance.
If smartphones had been a thing back then I would have started browsing Unz. But they weren't, so instead I tipped my chair back, let out a big sigh, said "I'm so discouraged!", and stopped answering the questions.
Did they throw out my data? I doubt it. I'm sure my little data point is in some journal being served up as God's truth, p<0.05.
Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Alfa158, @El Dato, @Haruto Rat, @Graham
It can’t be that hard to discourage people from working hard on a meaningless low stakes test.
可能部分取决于你的自我与聪明的联系程度。如果你认为自己很聪明，而某件事似乎出乎意料地困难，而旁边有一个考生在和你一起做这件事，你就会高度集中注意力。
我多年来第一次参加智商测试，有人给了我一本测试书，我把它带回家，几天后就忘记了。一天早上，我醒来，注意到它在我的桌子上，并决定当场翻阅它。我的成绩符合我的预期，但我在考试前半小时才醒来。我想，如果我从朋友那里得到一份新的测试，在当天晚些时候，喝完一杯咖啡后再次参加测试，我可以提高分数。我做到了，我做到了，提高了 10 分。
The first time, I didn’t give a shit, till I got my score. The second time, I did, and it made a significant difference. If your ego is tied to the result, you’ll try harder. Or maybe I’m an outlier. Maybe I have a "fuck that" gene that begs expression under certain circumstances.
回复：@Jack D，@Anonymous
Is this part of the replicability crisis in the social sciences?
I wonder if the researchers have considered a different methodology: take an individual who may constitute a stereotype threat and throw him or her into a pond of water. If they float, they are indeed a threat. If they sink, they are not.
Where’s my Federal grant money?
阻止人们在毫无意义的低风险测试中努力工作并不是那么困难。
回复：@Soopy
可能部分取决于你的自我与聪明的联系程度。如果你认为自己很聪明，而某件事似乎出乎意料地困难，而旁边有一个考生在和你一起做这件事，你就会高度集中注意力。
我多年来第一次参加智商测试，有人给了我一本测试书，我把它带回家，几天后就忘记了。一天早上，我醒来，注意到它在我的桌子上，并决定当场翻阅它。我的成绩符合我的预期，但我在考试前半小时才醒来。我想，如果我从朋友那里得到一份新的测试，在当天晚些时候，喝完一杯咖啡后再次参加测试，我可以提高分数。我做到了，我做到了，提高了 10 分。
第一次，我没有在意，直到我得到了分数。第二次，我做到了，这产生了显着的变化。如果你的自我与结果联系在一起，你就会更加努力。或者也许我是一个局外人。也许我有一个“操那个”的基因，在某些情况下会请求表达。
真正的智商测试必须由专业人士进行。我不知道你做了什么测试，但它们不是有效的智商测试。您的智商可能会因不同的管理而有所不同，但通常不会相差太大，除非您不合作。
在 00 年代进行过几次智商测试，但从未收到过“分数”，即流行新闻词汇的传统评分标准（相反，他们以晦涩的统计数据/百分位数显示结果数据，不太适合吹嘘）。这是在康涅狄格州。你在哪里参加考试
回复：@Not Raul
It is very easy to dismiss such nonsense, but I have to admit that I love how it dovetails so well with the science-fiction of David Cronenberg and Dune.
可能部分取决于你的自我与聪明的联系程度。如果你认为自己很聪明，而某件事似乎出乎意料地困难，而旁边有一个考生在和你一起做这件事，你就会高度集中注意力。
我多年来第一次参加智商测试，有人给了我一本测试书，我把它带回家，几天后就忘记了。一天早上，我醒来，注意到它在我的桌子上，并决定当场翻阅它。我的成绩符合我的预期，但我在考试前半小时才醒来。我想，如果我从朋友那里得到一份新的测试，在当天晚些时候，喝完一杯咖啡后再次参加测试，我可以提高分数。我做到了，我做到了，提高了 10 分。
The first time, I didn’t give a shit, till I got my score. The second time, I did, and it made a significant difference. If your ego is tied to the result, you’ll try harder. Or maybe I’m an outlier. Maybe I have a "fuck that" gene that begs expression under certain circumstances.
回复：@Jack D，@Anonymous
Real IQ tests have to be professionally administered. I don’t know what tests you took but they weren’t valid IQ tests. It’s possible for your IQ to vary somewhat between administrations but usually not by much unless you are being uncooperative.
可能部分取决于你的自我与聪明的联系程度。如果你认为自己很聪明，而某件事似乎出乎意料地困难，而旁边有一个考生在和你一起做这件事，你就会高度集中注意力。
我多年来第一次参加智商测试，有人给了我一本测试书，我把它带回家，几天后就忘记了。一天早上，我醒来，注意到它在我的桌子上，并决定当场翻阅它。我的成绩符合我的预期，但我在考试前半小时才醒来。我想，如果我从朋友那里得到一份新的测试，在当天晚些时候，喝完一杯咖啡后再次参加测试，我可以提高分数。我做到了，我做到了，提高了 10 分。
The first time, I didn’t give a shit, till I got my score. The second time, I did, and it made a significant difference. If your ego is tied to the result, you’ll try harder. Or maybe I’m an outlier. Maybe I have a "fuck that" gene that begs expression under certain circumstances.
回复：@Jack D，@Anonymous
Had several IQ tests in the ’00s and never received a “score” back, i.e. the conventional point scale of pop journalism vocabulary (instead they showed the result data in obscure statistics/percentiles, not readily useful for bragging about). This was in Connecticut. Where’d you take your test
You can easily convert percentiles to IQ.
https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx
Eager to get it over with, I signed up for the next available slot and showed up to the 'lab.' I entered a room with a computer terminal and was told I was taking an intelligence test. But lo and behold, seated right across from me in full view was another subject allegedly taking the same test--for whatever reason the investigator went out of their way to tell me that the other person was taking the same test that I was, not that I had asked, or really cared.
I couldn't see the other subject's screen, but I could see them rapidly clicking and moving the mouse as if they were flying through an easy test in the most theatrical manner imaginable. Meanwhile the questions served up to me seemed remarkably difficult and took several minutes each to answer.
After about 5 minutes I concluded that either: 1.) I was an idiot. 2.) I was seated across from a genius. 3.) The other 'subject' was actually a plant and this was a study to see if proximity to a perceived high performer impacted an individual's performance.
If smartphones had been a thing back then I would have started browsing Unz. But they weren't, so instead I tipped my chair back, let out a big sigh, said "I'm so discouraged!", and stopped answering the questions.
Did they throw out my data? I doubt it. I'm sure my little data point is in some journal being served up as God's truth, p<0.05.
Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Alfa158, @El Dato, @Haruto Rat, @Graham
You lucked out. I got to be one of the subjects of a research project that was measuring how much variation there was between individuals in their response to Pavlovian conditioning. In the original Pavlovian experiment dogs were given food while a bell was rung and the level of salivation was measured. After repeated trials the dogs would salivate just from the bell ringing.
The fine people of this study decided that it would be too awkward and slow to perform quite that kind of test on a large number of human subjects. What they did instead is that a graduate student wired two of your fingers to electrodes to administer mildly painful electrical shocks while ringing a bell. Other electrodes would quantify how quickly the conditioning to respond to just the bell would take from person to person, by measuring the skin resistance that resulted from spikes in perspiration caused by the shock. I thought briefly of being a smart ass and halfway through the experiment suddenly “breaking” and yelling out details on troop deployments. I held back since the young lady testing me also controlled the intensity of the shocks and didn’t look like someone with a sense of humor. She did compliment me on how clear cut my responses were. At least I think it a compliment.
The silliest part of the psych course was that the professor told us at the start of the semester that at the end he would reward the best student with a copy of B.F. Skinner’s novel Walden II. Out of curiosity I checked a checked a copy out of the library, and found out it is was Skinner’s vision of a hyper-rational communist utopia. Just the sort of vision of an ideal society you would expect from someone who once kept his infant daughter in a “Skinner Box” to test if it was possible to mold a perfect human by tightly controlling all the stimuli they are exposed to.
My main takeaway from the class was that there might be something to the stereotype that the field of psychology attracts the most damaged people.
在 00 年代进行过几次智商测试，但从未收到过“分数”，即流行新闻词汇的传统评分标准（相反，他们以晦涩的统计数据/百分位数显示结果数据，不太适合吹嘘）。这是在康涅狄格州。你在哪里参加考试
回复：@Not Raul
You can easily convert percentiles to IQ.
https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx
Eager to get it over with, I signed up for the next available slot and showed up to the 'lab.' I entered a room with a computer terminal and was told I was taking an intelligence test. But lo and behold, seated right across from me in full view was another subject allegedly taking the same test--for whatever reason the investigator went out of their way to tell me that the other person was taking the same test that I was, not that I had asked, or really cared.
I couldn't see the other subject's screen, but I could see them rapidly clicking and moving the mouse as if they were flying through an easy test in the most theatrical manner imaginable. Meanwhile the questions served up to me seemed remarkably difficult and took several minutes each to answer.
After about 5 minutes I concluded that either: 1.) I was an idiot. 2.) I was seated across from a genius. 3.) The other 'subject' was actually a plant and this was a study to see if proximity to a perceived high performer impacted an individual's performance.
If smartphones had been a thing back then I would have started browsing Unz. But they weren't, so instead I tipped my chair back, let out a big sigh, said "I'm so discouraged!", and stopped answering the questions.
Did they throw out my data? I doubt it. I'm sure my little data point is in some journal being served up as God's truth, p<0.05.
Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Alfa158, @El Dato, @Haruto Rat, @Graham
It’s like when you are playing vidya and are forced to enter a dark room where the lights don’t work and the NPC tramp outside has told you that “I haven’t seen any monster here recently.” while grinning insanely. Pretty sure there are no monsters in that room.
So, he analyses a bunch of studies on the basis that they are flawed, and his conclusion is “valid” because he has a weighted average of all the underlying data and their associated errors. Vast simplifying assumption here is that the errors largely cancel out: What if they are additive?
Especially given this from the abstract:
The key quote I see is the final sentence of the abstract:P.S. I was unable to find free full text of the paper. Does anyone have it?Eager to get it over with, I signed up for the next available slot and showed up to the 'lab.' I entered a room with a computer terminal and was told I was taking an intelligence test. But lo and behold, seated right across from me in full view was another subject allegedly taking the same test--for whatever reason the investigator went out of their way to tell me that the other person was taking the same test that I was, not that I had asked, or really cared.
I couldn't see the other subject's screen, but I could see them rapidly clicking and moving the mouse as if they were flying through an easy test in the most theatrical manner imaginable. Meanwhile the questions served up to me seemed remarkably difficult and took several minutes each to answer.
After about 5 minutes I concluded that either: 1.) I was an idiot. 2.) I was seated across from a genius. 3.) The other 'subject' was actually a plant and this was a study to see if proximity to a perceived high performer impacted an individual's performance.
If smartphones had been a thing back then I would have started browsing Unz. But they weren't, so instead I tipped my chair back, let out a big sigh, said "I'm so discouraged!", and stopped answering the questions.
Did they throw out my data? I doubt it. I'm sure my little data point is in some journal being served up as God's truth, p<0.05.
Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Alfa158, @El Dato, @Haruto Rat, @Graham
4.) The other ‘subject’ found solitaire.
Eager to get it over with, I signed up for the next available slot and showed up to the 'lab.' I entered a room with a computer terminal and was told I was taking an intelligence test. But lo and behold, seated right across from me in full view was another subject allegedly taking the same test--for whatever reason the investigator went out of their way to tell me that the other person was taking the same test that I was, not that I had asked, or really cared.
I couldn't see the other subject's screen, but I could see them rapidly clicking and moving the mouse as if they were flying through an easy test in the most theatrical manner imaginable. Meanwhile the questions served up to me seemed remarkably difficult and took several minutes each to answer.
After about 5 minutes I concluded that either: 1.) I was an idiot. 2.) I was seated across from a genius. 3.) The other 'subject' was actually a plant and this was a study to see if proximity to a perceived high performer impacted an individual's performance.
If smartphones had been a thing back then I would have started browsing Unz. But they weren't, so instead I tipped my chair back, let out a big sigh, said "I'm so discouraged!", and stopped answering the questions.
Did they throw out my data? I doubt it. I'm sure my little data point is in some journal being served up as God's truth, p<0.05.
Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Alfa158, @El Dato, @Haruto Rat, @Graham
A large proportion of psychological tests involve lying to the participants. It may be necessary but I really don’t like it. If I was asked to take part in such a test, I’d say, “okay, as long as you don’t lie to me, use stooges, or try to trick me in any way”. But I suppose that would bring everything to a full stop.
Westlaw is a great research tool, its coders/algorithms put a little red or orange flags on those cases which have been overturned or undermined by later precedent. If social science were subjected to the same thing, that would be quite helpful.
It would also would be helpful if Westlaw would flag legal decisions which rest on debunked studies like “stereotype threat.”
An army of reference and research lawyers in Eagan make KeyCite possible; algorithms have their place, but, no matter what the "artificial intelligence" cheerleaders spout, there's no chance any programme on the planet could do the necessary analysis.
(I like your underlying point, though.)
回复：@res
Especially given this from the abstract:
The key quote I see is the final sentence of the abstract:
P.S. I was unable to find free full text of the paper. Does anyone have it?
It would also would be helpful if Westlaw would flag legal decisions which rest on debunked studies like "stereotype threat."
回复：@Autochthon
An army of reference and research lawyers in Eagan make KeyCite possible; algorithms have their place, but, no matter what the “artificial intelligence” cheerleaders spout, there’s no chance any programme on the planet could do the necessary analysis.
(I like your underlying point, though.)