site banner
bolido_sentimental  1yr ago (text post)   4133 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 25, 2022

Merry Christmas, everyone!

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There's no good reason you should do worse after going back and reviewing answers. More time to think should always be better, ceteris paribus. The only explanation I can think of would be if you're biased toward assuming your initial answer was wrong (e.g. because you doubt your own intelligence or doubt your test taking abilities) and so you consistently talk yourself into changing answers you shouldn't change.

What I found when studying for LSAT was that frequently I changed an answer from correct to incorrect when I went back. Typically after a section there were 2-3 I was unsure of.

I developed a rule that I would only change the answer if I could construct basically a logical statement that proves another answer was correct. When that happened changes were generally from incorrect to correct.

It's not that I always did worse, it's that it was as likely I'd do worse as I'd do better. At a certain point more time isn't helpful, in a closed book exam room setting time is only helpful up to some point where you've done all the work and extracted all the knowledge from your brain. I seem to hit that point much faster.

Can you be more specific about the type of test you're talking about? I initially envisioned a g-loaded multiple-choice test like the SAT, but what you're describing sounds more like a long-form written answer test based on subject matter knowledge. As another commenter pointed out, maybe you're just a fast writer/typist?

As someone who has always been an extremely fast test taker (and a consistently high-scoring test taker), I still struggle to think of situations where more time would not be beneficial for me. Unless the test is pure regurgitation of memorized lists, or unless the test is so easy that you're scoring close to 100% on the initial pass, having more time to review and refine your answers should tend to result in a higher score.

I still struggle to think of situations where more time would not be beneficial for me.

"Solve this math question" where you don't actually know how to do all of it. More time won't help when you lack some of the fundamental knowledge required.

If you literally have no clue how to do it, then I can see how more time would not be helpful. But I wouldn't consider that being a "fast test taker" I would consider that simply being unprepared for the test.

In my experience as someone who majored in physics and minored in math, there is almost always some way to use additional time productively on math tests, even if you're stumped by a problem. Re-write the problem in a different form and see if it looks more familiar. Change the coordinate system and see if it makes things easier. Try out various mathematical tools/techniques and see if they work.

I mean just set the time period to thousands of years, and eventually your descendants will develop new maths?

Everything. SAT, LSAT, ASVAB, Grade school math, high school calc, undergrad econ, law school fed courts. Been perpetually true. Essay, multiple choice, hard, soft. Selective college, gen pop at a public school.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats