There is an opinion: "Only stupid amers could come up with such stupid tests, because this pattern, standard, primitive, one-sided, in this manner nifiga impossible to measure the true reason, and in general, if they are trained and understand the essence - you can easily lift up your like intelligence to 140, and even up to 150 ».
This opinion should be partly agree. And partly - no. First, come up with this "roulette for convolutions" not the Americans and the French. Specifically - Binet. In 1905. Developed - by order of military intelligence. The world had just died down the Russian-Japanese War, and everyone understood that it was only the first chord of Wagner's overture to the symphony that broke out after ten years. And all countries sought to strengthen their intelligence services. And for this - it was necessary to create a scientific, systematic basis to identify potentially valuable agents and analysts.
But the Americans also had a hand in the course of the First World War the system Binet LM finalized Terman of Stanford University. This concept, called "Scale Stanford-Binet intelligence" is used to this day virtually unchanged. I note a little running forward, its name is not as trivial as it may seem. In fact, it contains a clue how to deal with these tests. In the meantime - note: not Terman-Binet and Stanford.
We can not agree with the fact that the exercise by multiple individual can bring the amount of their points to 140 and even 150. No, that's impossible. In any case, such individuals are not interested in the main user of these tests - intelligence. They are interested in individuals who basically can not score less than two hundred.
Someone troubled: Well, it's you, old man, bent! After 200 - the absolute maximum. It turns out, they, these maniacs of the intelligence services, are only interested in those who do not make mistakes, either in a single question, and each - only gives the right answer?
My answer is: no, those who do not make mistakes in any single issue, gives the only correct answer to each question, and gaining a total of 200 points - is not interested in the intelligence services. They are interested in those who scored more than 200 points. Those who fundamentally disagree with the idea of the existence of a "ceiling of intelligence." And those who see: for each of the questions you can not give a true and logical answer, but several. And the questions are drawn up so that it was not immediately obvious and not all. But this is the main criterion for selection.
Here, by the way, there is one fundamental point. It's one thing when you are testing your intelligence on some idle site and there you have no other choice but to put a check mark in one of the specified checkboxes. But serious people do not test. They provide a booklet with questions - and some clean sheets. And they say: "Write the answers, time - half an hour." And more - do not say anything. But I, as the man doomed to lose, and I have nothing to say now that they do have in mind.
Let me explain with an example. Here is a sample question:
The first thought that comes to mind: once - a giraffe. Because it is a mammal, and all the rest - the birds. And the one who will answer and the only way - of course, pat on the head, give candy ... and write down in his personal file encrypted diagnosis, which the poor fellow would not have known if it was not I, with my revelations. The diagnosis - a "smart border sufficiency».
It's not so bad. It will fit in most professions and careers in society. This diagnosis does not hinder career development, acquiring titles, regalia, leadership positions, academic degrees. The only thing it completely closes the access - to work in a systematic and analytical centers, an elite secret service and even in those circles who really make the decisions. This is not even the question.
I think many of the top managers of that business, that "government," many high-ranking generals of the armed forces and intelligence services read my testimony today with mixed and hardly pleasant feeling. Chmura: I remember such tests, and I remember that it was about a giraffe and answered. How else, then? And this well - I have "borderline intellectual sufficiency"? I HAVE?
Fyrknu: What do you think, dear heart? Believe uncle Tyoma I somehow saw your private affair. However, you it soars? Live, like, not in hruschobe, zhrёsh you drink-worthy, but still severe problems you do not ship. So what more do you, honey?
And in fact responsible about zhirafchika had? Yes, as I understand the question. And if you did not understand that the only correct answer here obviously can not be - sorry, no luck, then. But count up how many stocks you only ran in the real work and the real power in such a rhinoceros approach to the theme?
Answers are also welcome about:
1. Excess - a giraffe, for the aforesaid reasons already beast it.
2. Excess - duck: all other long neck.
3. Excess - Moa is extinct animals and the rest - now in bloom and smell.
4. Excess - duck: it has the letter "k", and the rest is not.
5. Excess - ostrich: it repeats the letter, the rest is not.
6. Excess - Flamingo: a poetic symbol, and the other - not very.
7. Excess - giraffe: it has dedicated a verse the poet Gumilev, and the rest - no.
8. Excess - duck: it lives everywhere, and the rest - are limited and exotic habitats.
9. Excess - Moa vowels in it more than the consonants.
10. Excess - Straus: the others do not bury their heads in the sand.
And so - a lot more can be laid out. Of course, some of the choices presented little "cheat" strained. And Ladder will not go. But it is not in points, there is one 400 and one 700 already scored. The main thing - greater than the maximum. The main thing - to show an understanding of the principle of "identify patterns - is commendable for a student, but this world - not the school».
Requires reveal complexity, "multidimensional," as we call thinking. That is, the ability to see the forest and every tree individually, to see clearly all things at once, and in the context, to isolate features modeled in the head coordinate system with ten axes, catch the intersection of sets, and so on. It is engaged in a sensible analyst. Works "nadmozgom" one head is thinking for the entire Stanford and still a little bit of Beni (this is the question of the scale tip in the title)
Perhaps someone will object: but is it not the essence of the test in the ability to identify the main distinguishing feature, that is, belonging to the zoological class, birds or mammals?
My answer: Yeah, this is also the point. The analysts do not take people with delusions of grandeur, confident that they know in advance what the main characteristics and which are not. The analysts take people who are smart enough at least to understand the insignificance of his awareness before zamorochennye picture of the world. Or do you think, Socrates just blurted it his "I know that I know nothing"? In a fit of self-abasement cheap? No, he made himself a compliment, he said: "I know ...».
A practical example regarding the "key" and "adverse" signs.
War. The port entered podranenny battleship. I got up to repair the dock number five. Estimated repair period - a week.
Residents of the city are sending telegrams and letters.
Velyachko poet wrote to the editor of the magazine patriotic where Glavred - identified the enemy agent:
"Over the sea cannons rumbled
The battleship sailed in our last fight
From the battle came he was wounded
But with vznesёnnoy head proudly.
Yakov Markovich, honorary chairman of the society "The residents - to help the fleet", says relatives in America:
"Came Auntie Pesia. With his five pugs. POGOST week ».
DUNYASHA, a waitress from the restaurant "Happy House", wrote a friend:
"The owner is strongly scolds. He says I have a lot of dishes ... Ovtsa boyu says, armless. Dismissed perhaps to hell! Yes, just as it did not die of goladu? But I do not even know what to live for ... I do not see any Plyussa from this plaguing ... Seems to me pobidila me this life! I Slabaya. »
Student anarchist Mitya Mitya wrote to the embassy neutral state:
"11-45-74-82-73-21 ..." - and so much more enigmatic figures.
Who will be arrested and hanged for treason? (in fact, no one - not the agent identified in a hurry to shoot, as long as it is useful for games with misinformation - but that's nuances)
Poet Velyachko? I agree with the following verses very useful to hang, in retaliation for the muse and dishonored for the sake of purity of culture. But the war is not expected to influence. The poet is not a spy - he was just an idiot and verse it does not carry any meaning.
Yakov Markovich, abusive relationships in their community to promote the Navy? Oh, let's not anti-Semitic, gentlemen!
Consider: coincided so that Aunt Pesia him came exactly five pugs and this week. Check-then certainly check. But we will not look for easy ways for the "main criteria" - references to figures in the telegram.
The same applies to ohlamona anarchist. Student Mitya Mitya, shocking neurotic, simply "PR" in front of his buddies seditious mug. In the hope that it will seize oprichnina regime and princes will be "in the dark dungeons of torment", not yet understand. Day three, or even five. You can, of course, add him rods, for those jokes and a distraction from the work of people employed, but a bad education of young people - not the task of the military counterintelligence.
But the letter from Duniasha ... there any analyst would start immediately rub the handle: "Ha-ha-ha, what a funny aunt».
It is not in the numbers. The fact that all the mentioned messages appear more or less natural, given the mentality of the authors, and this - knocked out of the series.
Firstly, what is DUNYASHA friend wrote this garbage? Yes, and so idiotic unnatural? Her letter is similar to anything, but not to lament the missing women, the hardships of being suppressed.
Secondly, why she wrote the whole wisely, intelligently for suspicious dark waitress, but some public words, the most simple words - lyapa very strange errors? And why is she doing this? And what we have with these words? Come on, write them.
Fight. Sheep. Hunger. A plus. Victory. Weak. And yet - FOR. It is very difficult to make a mistake, so DUNYASHA just highlight the word.
We start casting pearls letters. Synonyms, antonyms, anagrams, palindromes - and other idle psevdoliteraturnye entertainment. Sooner or later we will come to mind: instead of whether to translate these words, say, English? Translate will, of course, in a simple, no frills. In the end, they must be sufficiently simple and straightforward coding system: poetry freaks and rare tokens there is not a ride.
The fight - combat, battle
Sheep - sheep
The hunger - hunger
For - for
Plus ... and so it will be: plus
The winner - won
Weak - weak
Hmm ... and what could it be? Battle ... Combat ... Sheep ... Sheep Fighting? What did not know of the espionage reports on its army and its weapons! It's funny: Battle sheep ... Or maybe, battleship? Battleship? But this is interesting.
"So-Sh! - Thinks brainy captain of the counterintelligence (then they thought to slovoersami) - Znachit, metod have not a literal, but foneticheskiy at sozvuchiyu. Sheep - ship, just in different ways to pronounce but close and clear. We take into account-ting »
Hunger. Hunger. And it is here with a side? Maybe - hangar, hangar? Indeed, dock, hangar - what's the difference?
And what's the hangar? "For» - for. Well, it is clear that the four - four. Strange, we know that the fifth battleship worth. True, plus and won. Pronounced - Juan. As one - one. Four plus one. Five. Now everything fell into place, the place where the battle lies Dreadnought.
Weak? Wick? Well, that's seeds. Of course, week - a week.
And if you look a little more closely, it becomes clear that DUNYASHA has a habit to share the secret message phrase exclamation marks, and the fusion of words and concepts, which gives the keys to the different proposals - represents hone.
Battleship. Hanger 4 + 1 = 5. Week
That is to say:
Battleship. 5. Week Doc.
DUNYASHA, you got ... You're a very interesting eccentric. And we're really not talking about such oddities in your biography as the move from Petrograd to Nakhodka and work as a waitress in the pub for the naval officers after the Smolny Institute of something.
Someone remarked, but still, we are talking about a main feature - the general feeling of artificiality, the absurdity of the letter, these outpourings Duniasha naigrannosti?
Yes, you know, gentlemen, "the feeling of naturalness or unnaturalness" - not an easy thing. Complex. There is an analysis of the many, many signs of coincidences and inconsistencies, is based on the general subject of the representation of reality, which in themselves are not always realistic, to put it mildly. For example, some readers called my spetskorovskie notes about our epic battle for the harmony of the world - "obscure and unlikely treshovym delirium complexed loser stuck in their primitive pubertal fantasies." But I know that I am-he-really a superhero, almost celestial, drive a jeep "Volkswagen Touareg", a hundred meters from the force down a machine gun five apples in flight, and most importantly - never lie! This is a political documentary on Russian television - "improbable trash," and in my notes - all true. The problem with these readers, the skeptics is that they simply do not know much life as it is, people do not really see - but taken to judge (to croak bog tussocks their IQ's measly 190 points).
Here and there: the devil is in the details, but in order to find there - it is necessary not only to know what are the details (and devils), but also be able to take into account all the details, without blinkers, without the initial installation "important" and "not particularly important "signs. Because it's silly to think that, and for what purpose it may be important. If you are drawing a biological reference - it is important that the giraffe - a mammal, and ostrich - bird. And if you have the information, the names of animals that can be used as acronyms or other abbreviations of those, then you will be more important that the ostrich has two letters "c" and could mean, respectively, the SS. For example, here's the last message Pleischner professor from Berne, which concealed from us Yulian Semyonov: "taxied to the zoo. I saw ostriches. I drank yadu. " It seems - and nothing unusual, but Stirlitz understood.
But, of course, "shapiёnskoe message Duniasha" - somewhat exaggerated for clarity. So stupid things like that, and in the First World are not made out. Even more so - in our days cryptographic case has a completely different look. And the analyst is not so much over by encrypting beats (with proper asymmetric encryption - it's like head against the wall: without the slightest, even a hypothetical chance of breaking) as identify patterns between, say, a visit to some of the plant defense minister and the intensity of the commercial coded traffic from the company producing garbage collection in the territory of the plant, to the one from which it buys cleaning equipment.
And if you reveal - there really begins play on interest. There is, of course, there is no naive pictures like "autistic mathematical genius looked at the rows of numbers and immediately rides a chip." They have a more effective action: discreet interception of private keys, their replacement, stuff like that. Cryptanalyst - by itself, is activated, but not in her trump card. In total, an analyst who works with things more varied and complex than the series of numbers and mathematical algorithms.
And it is clear that the analyst, for an overall picture and search laws - requires not only a "multi-dimensional" Intelligence is not only a terrible memory, and virtually unlimited access to information. This is a great power and great responsibility for the fate of the universe. Significantly higher than the defense minister or the formal head of the secret service. And this is understandable, it is true: they, "wedding generals" in his time was allowed "only right" answers in the tests of IQ. Points gained by fifty - and good (I do not mean Ivanov and Patrushev ... for obvious reasons).
However, returning to the question of "Giraffe-Utko ostrich", he recalled a case when the person who gave him only one answer - still fascinated "selection committee" of the mega-sharashka I in their opuses affectionately styled "our rag" .
The boy was just out of the army, in terms of erudition - quite dense. And when he was asked to choose from too much "duck-giraffe, ostrich, moa-flamingo", he wrote:
"Dick knows. Moa, I suppose. Because I have no idea, Cho is the garbage and what it eats. And the rest - I know ».
Then he worked at really the only true criterion for themselves: not yet know what the moa - to answer the question is meaningless. So, for him - in this case, once the moa. Man took, and at once - in higher education, an elite unit of spetskorovskoe.
Because it is a useful property: to be able to refrain from making categorical conclusions with insufficient information. This feature is useful in that it motivates to fill the gaps in his awareness and honest search for information, instead of drivel sagely.