Thursday, April 07, 2011

Simple test to assess critical thinking skills

You can use this test to calibrate anyone; not just your representatives in government.

Calibration:

1. Ask how they would (or did) vote, on this:

"Congress accepts the scientific findings of the Environmental Protection Agency that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare." (link)
(Added Apr 15: Names of US Congressmembers who deny climate change, so their grandchildren can find them)


2. Ask if they see any pattern, to the colors in this image:
(are the colors randomly distributed, or do they change, from one side to the other?)

Education:

Refer them to David Brin (then Skeptical Science).

And finally, assess, based on how they've responded to this information.
at

3 comments:

  1. Don Pelton4/08/2011 10:05 AM

    Even though I'm colorblind, I can see the change.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anna Haynes4/17/2011 10:43 AM

    I've just now sent a "Contact Tom McClintock" request asking if he can see it.

    (Russ Steele is not willing to answer the question, but Russ does not represent me in Congress, either.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anna Haynes4/17/2011 10:54 AM

    (7 minutes later)
    My, but Tom's prompt. His reading comprehension is at zero, but he *is* prompt; answering,

    "Thank you for writing. I appreciate hearing from you.

    Members of Congress study, debate, and ultimately vote on a wide range of issues on a daily basis. Your thoughts help me better represent you throughout this process. I hope you will continue to reach out in the future when there are other issues you would like to bring to my attention.

    Again, thank you for sharing your comments. I look forward to being in touch."

    I look forward to being in touch, too; to see if Tom's hearing works better than his eyesight.

    But since "what does the image show?" relies on eyesight, this new information may not bode well...

    ReplyDelete

Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...

Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.

* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.

If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.

New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)

Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.