Are You Smarter Than and 5th Grader spells the end of society as we know it

Look one thing you don't understand is that these people are under a lot of pressure on the show. It can be hard to come up with answers (not multiple choice) when you are on national TV with everyone watching you plus the audience cheering. Add to that the fact that the difference between a right and wrong answer can be $25,000. I would bet you $25,000 that anyone of these people would have no trouble on the same questions if given a written exam without the pressure.

Television shows in general are good indicators of the dumbing down of Americans and others. Reality shows, most sitcoms, CSI, Dr. Phil, etc. are all geared to the lowest common denominator. Even the nightly network news is now a joke. Thankfully we have the Daily Show to help keep us sane.

Travel Agent wrote:

FLa runr wrote:

thinking clearly in a tv studio with an audience watching and the red light blinking on the camera and a host sticking a mic in your face etc etc has gotta be tough. I'm sure the producers know this and make the situation as outrageous as possible so people screw up... afterall, the show is a bust if everybody knows all the answers.

Precisely. This is the same approach as the American Idol folks leaving the most horrible auditions in the final edit. Embarrasing moments create discussion and high ratings. "OH MY GOD DID YOU SEE LAST NIGHTS "ARE YOU SMARTER THAN A 5TH GRADER? THOSE PEOPLE ARE SO DUMB!!" is exactly the kind of water cooler talk the producers want. Flagpole, you fell for it. I bet you'll watch next week, too. The advertisers will be happy.

I haven't fallen for anything. I know that they obviously aren't taking the smartest people that apply. And, I will likely stop watching very soon unless the questions become more challenging. I don't have a need to feel superior to people. I enjoyed watching Ken Jennings when he was on his roll, and he was WAY better than I could have been on Jeopardy.

Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader is the game show equivalent to Jay Leno's Jaywalking segment, and I've heard him talk about this more than a couple times. He says they don't interview tons of people and just take the stupidest ones. He says there are some smart people but the vast majority of the people can't answer seemingly simple questions. My guess is that the application process for Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader is about the same -- they don't need to look too hard for these contestants, many of whom have college degrees.

Aren't you so smug wrote:

Look one thing you don't understand is that these people are under a lot of pressure on the show. It can be hard to come up with answers (not multiple choice) when you are on national TV with everyone watching you plus the audience cheering. Add to that the fact that the difference between a right and wrong answer can be $25,000. I would bet you $25,000 that anyone of these people would have no trouble on the same questions if given a written exam without the pressure.

BS. They get what seems like a TON of time to answer. The kids seems to answer just fine (granted they are not playing for money). To not know where Canada is isn't the result of pressure. It's the result of stupidity.

give me a brain wrote:

because she was saying "I have a XX % chance of getting 1,000,000", but it just isn't true. You have a 1/30 or however number of cases there are to pick 1,000,000. It's like the changing door problem. The probability you picked the right case doesn't get any better, you just might be getting some lucky guesses and eliminating some low numbers.

This isn't true. The probability of getting the $1mm does not remain at 1/30 once cases are removed. If there are 3 cases left (one with the million) then you have a 1/3 chance of picking the million dollar one.

fmr wrote:

give me a brain wrote:

because she was saying "I have a XX % chance of getting 1,000,000", but it just isn't true. You have a 1/30 or however number of cases there are to pick 1,000,000. It's like the changing door problem. The probability you picked the right case doesn't get any better, you just might be getting some lucky guesses and eliminating some low numbers.

This isn't true. The probability of getting the $1mm does not remain at 1/30 once cases are removed. If there are 3 cases left (one with the million) then you have a 1/3 chance of picking the million dollar one.

i thought about this after reading "give me a brain"'s post. i think s/he is correct. you pick the case when there are 30 cases. no matter what happens between that choice and the revealing of the contents of your case, your odds should remain 1/30.

it is easier to conceive of it in the "let's make a deal" context - where the host knows where the top prize is and can eliminate all of the superfluous options. putting that in terms of deal or no deal, imagine if howie mandel eliminated the cases one by one. he could choose to make it so that the last case revealed (other than the contestant's) is the $1 million case. if he does that, the contestant's odds of having the $1 million case at the beginning and at the point when there are two cases left are the same - 1 in 30.

that's how i see it at least.

Jay Leno has interviewed Los Angeles residents who cannot even tell him what country is on our southern border, even though it's just about 90 miles from where they're standing and, in an inebriated moment, they've probably been there.

i decided to use "the google" to see if people smarter and more knowledgeable than me have discussed the odds question. it appears that there is some debate - with the wikipedia entry on deal or no deal being changed a couple of times. (i surmise this by reading this blog entry:

http://joeduck.wordpress.com/2006/04/26/deal-or-no-deal-tv-show-reporting-odds-incorrectly/

and the current wikipedia entry).

the key question is whether the monty hall/let's make a deal probability question remains relevant when all selections are entirely random.

i don't know the answer.

I've read through this whole thread and the prevailing sentiment seems to be that this show reflects badly on society in general. I agree, but then again most shows fall into this category.

One of the paradoxes of America today is that we are rich and powerful with the world's biggest economy, yet we work longer hours than ever, have less leisure time, hardly read at all, and are far dumber in most subject areas to include geography. Yet kids and adults that can't find Chicago on a map are often very smart with IT stuff. America's economy is so good that you can essentially be culturally illiterate and make a very good living. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

People are more 'connected' than ever, yet they know so much less. Why is that?

I'm not sure. But in my business I see a lot of young analysts who are fairly smart and whizzes with IT, but somehow they are intellectually lazy when doing tough analytical work that requires real research. They become satisfied with the "bumper sticker" answer they can find in two seconds off the web. For example, if you read ten very good books on the history of France you will know the subject pretty well for a laymen. Along the way you'll pick up key facts and figures that you'll likely remember well because you'll understand the context in which these facts are important in the first place. A student that simply 'Googles' the facts and figures for a paper will dump this data far quicker when the paper has been submitted. There simply are no shortcuts to true knowledge.

What worries me most is that pursuing knowledge for the sheer enjoyment of it has come to be viewed by a large segment of America as 'snobbery'. Maybe it has always been that way, I don't know. But this has a big effect on kids. Kids in school today seem to either fall into the "it's cool to be dumb" crowd, or they work very hard to get a good grade, not to learn something. They want the grades because they are conditioned to know there is a reward on the other end.

The late Allan Bloom published a book in 1988 called 'The Closing of the American Mind' that was quite good in my opinion.

kaitainen wrote:

i decided to use "the google" to see if people smarter and more knowledgeable than me have discussed the odds question. it appears that there is some debate - with the wikipedia entry on deal or no deal being changed a couple of times. (i surmise this by reading this blog entry:

http://joeduck.wordpress.com/2006/04/26/deal-or-no-deal-tv-show-reporting-odds-incorrectly/

and the current wikipedia entry).

the key question is whether the monty hall/let's make a deal probability question remains relevant when all selections are entirely random.

i don't know the answer.

I had forgotten that you have a case throughout the enitre show. I now see the original poster's point although I still stand by my previous comments (sort of). The probability remains 1/30 that you selected the million but the level of "certainty" (not a technical term I know) rises as cases are removed. At the end I still think that it boils down to that if there are three cases left and the million is in one of them, that you have a one in three chance of holding the correct case.

I would be really like to hear what the academic answer on this is.

I think this debate could go as long as the airplane on a treadmill, but to me it seems that the % would change with time. If you are down to 2 cases - you have a 50% chance of having the $1 million at that point since all else is random. If Howie knows where it is I don't see how that could change anything since the contestant is picking the cases. That said I would never get down to 2 cases because I would take the deal before that!I don't really think you can judge the US population based on a game show. Have you ever seen MXC on Spike?

kaitainen wrote:

i decided to use "the google" to see if people smarter and more knowledgeable than me have discussed the odds question. it appears that there is some debate

fmr wrote:

I would be really like to hear what the academic answer on this is.

*I would really like to hear what the academic answer is on this.

Your post reflects, in general, the common sentiment of those who appreciate the merits of learning for its own sake, which I certainly can understand. Part and parcel of this argument, it seems, is the repetition of the trope of culture's downward spiral, exhibited here:

RunDaddy wrote:

One of the paradoxes of America today is that we are rich and powerful with the world's biggest economy, yet we work longer hours than ever, have less leisure time, hardly read at all, and are far dumber in most subject areas to include geography. Yet kids and adults that can't find Chicago on a map are often very smart with IT stuff. America's economy is so good that you can essentially be culturally illiterate and make a very good living. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

People are more 'connected' than ever, yet they know so much less. Why is that?

Now, the problem with this argument is that historically it has been made time and time and time again, with virtually no recognition of its previous instantiations. As only one of many examples, much hand-wringing occurred in the 19th century when novel-reading became a hobby, especially for young women. It was posited that psychological damage could occur, should said young women engage in this harmful activity too much. Now, of course, it's commendable to read novels, no matter what they are.

To make a long argument short, the cultural production of knowledge is a much more complex subject than has been treated historically, and a more productive use of time, I think, would be to work on an "archeology" (in the Foucauldian sense) of knowledge production sites and complexes that our culture has formed, rather than repeatedly and endlessly bemoaning the end of "real knowledge," whatever that is.

Flagpole, your problem here is that the show is on Fox, thus brought to you by the same group of morons that bring you Fox News. I actually had to do a web search to figure out what the hell you were talking about, because Fox-anything is an insult to our family's intelligence level and, except for a couple of NFL playoff games, WE don't watch any of it.

AT 8PM on Thursdays, I am helping our two boys with their homework. If we were watching TV, it would likely be either the Science or History Channel, not that lowest common denominator crap on the broadcast networks. This is how you have a 9th grader with a 4.0 average in his first semester of high school and a 6th grader that has been tested for his school's gifted program for next year, which our two kids are.

Keep in mind that TV programs like you mention don't just pick people at random. The contestants are screened and interviewed in order to select the type of personalities that the show producers are liiking for--apparently in this case, people who would be challenged to pass the 5th grade these days, which apparently closely equates with the typical TV viewer on Fox, or the show wouldn't have an audience.

Flagpole,

I haven't seen the show, so I probably shouldn't comment, but do you think people overthink the questions? I mean, they are on national television playing against a 5th grader. If they get it right, they beat a 5th grader, if they get it WRONG, they lose to a 5th grader. I'd worry that all the questions were tricks to make me look stupid. Of course, the Canada question is outrageous.

Now, the problem with this argument is that historically it has been made time and time and time again, with virtually no recognition of its previous instantiations. As only one of many examples, much hand-wringing occurred in the 19th century when novel-reading became a hobby, especially for young women. It was posited that psychological damage could occur, should said young women engage in this harmful activity too much. Now, of course, it's commendable to read novels, no matter what they are.

To make a long argument short, the cultural production of knowledge is a much more complex subject than has been treated historically, and a more productive use of time, I think, would be to work on an "archeology" (in the Foucauldian sense) of knowledge production sites and complexes that our culture has formed, rather than repeatedly and endlessly bemoaning the end of "real knowledge," whatever that is.[/quote]

I see your point to an extent. But I don't think it's necessary to solve the philosophical problem of what constitutes knowledge, if it's even solvable, to make a defendable judgment on the subject of the quality of an American education, for example.

When a person stands for a PhD at a respectable institution, he or she is expected in defense of the dissertation to have 'knowledge' of the subject area, and that knowledge is tested through a process of examination and judgment. When a gap in understanding is revealed, no candidate can throw back the 'well, no one knows what real knowledge is anyway' argument.

I think I've told this story on here before, but this seems a good place to repeat it.

I took a course in the States with ~ 75 young US Air Force officers back in the early 90s, all of them well educated, most of them with degrees, and I had the chance to chat with most of them (it was a couple month long course).

In conversation with these well-educated young Americans, a small handful could name a single Canadian city, and not one of them could name our capital city (quick - write it down before you Google it to see if you're right).

I was prepared to write off all Americans as hopelessly ignorant until the cab driver taking me to the airport to go home - a 50ish woman - was the first one who knew our Capital.

I've wondered about this over the years.... how could such an ignorant populace possibly have evolved into the most powerful nation on earth? I've concluded that it happened the other way - you've become ignorant BECAUSE you're the most powerful nation on earth, and you perceive that you don't need to know anything about anything outside your border (or town, perhaps).

Of course Americans as a whole aren't really ignorant (and certainly many Americans are quite knowledgeable), per se, it's just that the focus tends to be US-centric. If it has no affect on your life, there's no need to know about it. So you can happily forget the name of that big orange expanse on the map north of your border and get along just fine.

E-ffect, dammit!!

btw, that wasn't a criticism of America or Americans - just an honest observation, take it or leave it.

RunDaddy wrote:

I don't think it's necessary to solve the philosophical problem of what constitutes knowledge, if it's even solvable, to make a defendable judgment on the subject of the quality of an American education, for example.

Respectfully, I believe that you do. The philosophical problem of what constitutues knowledge is clearly inherent in the question of determining the quality of an American education. To put it in the most stupid terms, What is "quality?" What is "An American education?" In measuring these things you are making a comparative evaluation that necessitates the use of standards, which, in my opinion, are crucial to understand and entirely underexamined. How can you answer these questions without addressing the history of what has thought to constitute knowledge and education? I suppose you can, but not in any meaningful way.

I am also not sure what you mean by your hypothetical PhD candidate scenario. Perhaps I'm just dim. Could you explain?