So I came across this work by Brooke Nelson as published by the Reader's Digest: Can You Pass the World’s Shortest IQ Test? Less Than 20 Percent of People Can.
First, Nelson claimed the questions even stumped students at Yale and Harvard. That fails to surprise as the admissions policies of such schools with undeserved reputations floods the student bodies with legacies whose parents buy / bribe their children into such schools along with lower IQ students of the colored races who gain admission because of being identified with a colored race.
Second, and before I get into what else caught my eye, there is no such thing as "passing" an IQ test. An IQ is a measure. It is a ratio of metal age to chronological age.
So what is mental age? A mental age of 12 is equivalent to the average performance of twelve year olds; a mental age of 13 to the average performance of thirteen year olds and so on.
The What is an Intelligence Quotient (IQ)?
An intelligence quotient yields the relative degree of intelligence disregarding chronological age. Said another way, it is the ratio of mental and chronological ages.
Anyone testing exactly at age will have an IQ of 100. Anyone below age will have IQs less than 100 while anyone above will have IQ greater than 100.
So, for example, a five year old of four year old intelligence is 20% retarded and at age of ten, that same child will have the intelligence of someone eight.
Thus, a child, ten, who has the intelligence of a child, five, has an IQ of 50 while a child, ten, who has the intelligence of one twelve has an IQ of 120.
The Intelligence Quotient yields a measure of comparison. It makes possible direct comparison of people of different chronological ages.
What Is Wrong With Frederick's Test
The first question has conceptual errors. Frederick does not seem to understand what cost means. Like most, Frederick conflates cost with price.
Here is Frederick's first question:
1. A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
A cost is an outlay. A price is a trade rate. Frederick errs when he conflates the two. Most do.
Here is how Frederick ought to have written the question:
The cost to acquire a bat and ball is $1.10. The price of the bat is $1.00 more than the price of the ball. What is the price of one ball?
As revealed in the article, most will err and say the "cost" is 10 cents rather than the right answer: 5 cents per ball.
Here is how to get the answer. Since $1.10 - $1 leaves $0.10 and the ball must have a price, for the bat to be $1.00 more requires the residual (ten cents) to be split evenly between the ball and the bat.
Perhaps most get wrong Frederick's question because of the conceptual error committed by Frederick, which leads to confusion in the minds of those who take his error-riddled test.
Gab It
