Google and the Internet have really changed our view on what is important to memorize. Interview questions today are more oriented towards behavioral quesitons and problem solving.
1. What countries bound France?
2. What city and country produce the finest china?
...
145. What is the heaviest kind of wood?
146. What is the lightest wood?
Edit: incidentally, I think Edison's test is trying to measure curiosity. A curious person might have encountered a lot more trivia than a noncurious person. I've found curiosity trumps raw iq for creative problem solving, it drives a person to dig deeper into a problem.
It is astonishing to me, how widespread fisher-wife's-tale-level
conceptions about fundamental aspects of our existence are.
I devoutly hope that you are not, upon contemplation, equate a well-versedness in general knowledge with mindless memorization.
Is emergent behaviour of neural networks really that alien a concept?
Is it possible to believe, in all earnestness, that factoids such as these remain
isolated and inactive in your memory until recalled?
These questions aren't there to test your ability to learn atomic
facts without rhyme or reason. These questions, pitiful as they
may seem, try to probe the breadth of your mental landscape.
You might be right about testing the breadth of one's knowledge, but, for me, this test reminds me of the Mensa tests in Reader's Digest and other magazines from years past. The Mensa tests seemed like they were designed to be just easy enough to get several right answers, thereby piquing the interest of the test taker. Maybe you are smart enough to be in Mensa! Maybe you are smart enough to work at Edison! This test strikes me as 1920s era gamification.
Well, actually, according to Edison's defense of his test as linked to in the OP, he did try to gauge one's ability for rote memorization, and he didn't care about whether people knew about things beyond their immediate job. His 'theory' (highly flawed, I think) is that one needs excellent memory to be able to make decisions now, without needing to take the time to research them.
>His 'theory' (highly flawed, I think) is that one needs excellent memory to be able to make decisions now, without needing to take the time to research them.
I don't see any flaw in the theory. When you code for example, if you don't know in advance about several idioms, data structures, algorithms etc that's (most of the time) not something that you will make up later by researching and changing your program. It's simply something that will take you down a narrower path and constrain your programming.
I'm not talking about knowing the details of algorithm X, or how to implement it from memory. But if you don't know it's existence even, it wont be an algorithm you'll consider when you write your program.
Same thing applies to programming interviews I guess. If you know the minutiae off by heart, then you will be able to make decisions and proceed with your coding immediately rather than take a diversion to research the details. Obviously being able to quickly research is also a very useful skill, but I think it's reasonable to expect a certain level of 'memorized knowledge' from a professional programmer.
Knowledge of the factoids Edison regarded as important is not the same as breadth of knowledge. There is far too much to know to capture it in a short test like this.
They strike me as interview discussion questions not simple memorization.
Take the numerous distance calculations. Great circle? Theoretical tunnel thru the earth? Traditional maritime shipping routes or aircraft navigation routes which take into account prevailing winds and international boundaries etc? Oh so you produced a number which happens to be correct, here is a slide rule and the geographic coordinates I used, you can demonstrate spherical geometry to me now.
Perhaps some ageism was involved although hard to tell if it was enforced to eliminate old people or young people, such as "deepest depth of the ocean". Data points that have stabilized in recent decades were not stable a century ago. How deep you think the ocean is depends a lot on when you learned how deep the ocean is, at least back then.
I don't think it is happening quick enough. College education systems still revolve heavily around memorizing. Getting into medical school is a test of who can cram the most into their heads.
With medicine, you really don't have time to go Google something. Even in a slow-paced assessment, you need to gather data quickly and effectively, and make decisions. Patients might in the future be happy filling out long series of probing questions and then waiting for a few hours/days while someone does some Googling, but I doubt it. The practice of medicine by human Doctors probably can't be much further optimized from what it is right now.
The practice of medicine by human Doctors probably can't be much further optimized from what it is right now.
Maybe this is true for the 95-99% most common of conditions. Doctors can be shockingly bad at diagnosing anything they don't see on a daily basis. (rare-ish conditions, unusual presentations, or anything discovered since they studied medicine)
Google search is probably very inefficient for this kind of thing, but specialised search engines based on bayesian networks or similar might get you some leads on what to test for a lot faster than going from doctor to doctor in the hope that one of them might have an idea that pans out.
We had AI systems that outperformed doctors in limited domains as early as in 1972 [1].
We've of course had massive improvements in machine learning in the 43 years since then. I think the practice of human doctors could be massively improved by having them stop spending time on things that machines are much better at. Hopefully things like IBMs Watson can make a difference in this regard.
An intelligent database that can cross link a million conditions and varieties with voice-recognized list of identified symptoms?
I just spent two months in three separate hospitals for family members. Diagnosis can be vastly increased in quality and sped up with proper databases and voice recognition.
How about you walk into a waiting room and for the hour you waste there get diagnosed by a intelligent computer expert system. Then when the doc gets around to you they do a separate diagnosis.
Those two will resolve to a set of probability-based diagnoses and automatic recommendations for further tests and questions. It can access a state-of-the-art managed database with references to relevant research and a place to enter commentary and questions.
If you fill out a questionaire, why wait for a human to do the Googling? Shouldn't the machine be better at it, and isn't Watson closer to this goal then ever?
No. Watson is a family of algorithms IBM uses. Not even a single machine, it's more of a brand name. And some of the impressive feats like Jeopardy are more like gimmicks than actual advanced AI.
Furthermore, actual medical training greatly favors rote memorization and application of standard operating procedures. As a computational biologist, I spend a fair amount of time thinking about probabilities and medically related topics. Over the years, I have had several frustrating conversations with doctors who refuse to consider priors or stats from well respected meta-analyses (e.g. by Cochrane reviews). But, who can blame them? Doctors have little time to think in the current system.
For what it's worth, some actual intelligence tests from the period were remarkably similar, if a little easier. For example this group of (supposedly) actual questions from an Army IQ test ca WWI: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5293
I'm surprised it doesn't have an instant answer for the heaviest and lightest woods. Some of its answers don't quite get the question either. What are violin strings made of? Well we can be sure it's not cat guts. How is glucose made? We're only told the make up of it.
Full list of Questions converted to Google queries: http://pastebin.com/wsr7UrGK
I'm not going to run the full list because I don't want Google thinking I'm a robot for the rest of the day (Captcha will trigger for my network).
I don't know if this is what the OP was thinking of, but in the 1950s, Saar bordered it. So it's changed back, but that doesn't mean it hasn't changed.
incidentally, I think Edison's test is trying to measure curiosity
This test is ahead of its time and it is perfectly consistent with what we understand about Thomas Edison. I doubt anyone memorized the answers to this test - he is looking for signs of creativity.
Edison's formula: Invention is going to come from trying 99 dead ends to find the 1% that works.
Certainly it paints a picture of what was considered common knowledge and what was learned in schools at that time.
Another thought is that there are a couple of different types of memorization going on here. For example no one memorizes a list of bordering states/countries; answers to those questions would indicate the strength of photographic memory.
I doubt most of these facts were taught in schools - which is probably the point.
Finding answers to questions like these was difficult pre-Internet.
You'd only have a chance of getting them right if you read very widely all the time, and remembered most of what you read.
If I was competing with Edison and I genuinely thought his employees were able to ace that test, I'd be seriously worried, trivia or no.
In reality they probably couldn't. Only a very tiny percentage of the population is going to have the wide interests and the eidetic recall needed to ace this list.
Watching the recent PBS documentary on Edison was pretty amazing just how easy it is to connect to his mentality and astonishing challenges, and investors like SV today, calling him the original Jobs or Musk is really an understatement. Once you solve the 40yr problem of the incandescent light bulb, oh then you just need to knock out a power plant, grid, internal wiring and digging up the streets to get your product to market. Mean while JP Morgen him self is breathing down your neck the whole time. Amazing. ;)
I thought the interesting bit about the light bulb was that Edison recognized the reality that it was a systems problem (electric lighting), not a product problem (light bulb).
Finding a long-lasting bulb filament was, to Edison, basically an implementation detail. But he knew it wouldn't catch on without a full system to power it that was mechanically and economically sustainable.
It's analogous to Apple's approach to a smartphone. The iPhone succeeded not just because it was a good piece of hardware running a good OS, but because of the systems that supported it. When it launched, iTunes was running on a ton of computers already thanks to the iPod, so that's how Apple synced personal data and updated the OS.
And then when they released the SDK, they again took a systems approach--not just a collection of APIs to build apps, but a whole networked and managed online store for qualifying, distributing, and updating the apps.
That's strange, I can't find any reference to this. Where did you get it?
In Isaacson's biography there's mention of Einstein's visit to Boston, where he defends the value of a college education and he 'fails' one of the Edison-test questions about the speed of sound ('I do not carry such information in my mind, since it is readily available in books.').
A counter argument would be that this ad probably wasn't for the kind of employee Einstein would make. Edison was probably hiring well read, smart folks for regular jobs, not geniuses breaking new ground in narrow scientific domains.
I doubt such geniuses were digging through job ads to apply to Edison's company in the first place. If they were in need of jobs, they would probably be recruited heavily directly from university departments.
So yeah. This ad probably wasn't meant for Einstein. Which gives us no reason to think that "it's a bad ad because even Einstein couldn't solve it".
It looks more to me like Edison was trying to recruit high school history teachers. But, he was quite successful, so I guess it worked out well for him, eh?
The TL;DR for those too lazy to click and would rather speculate: Edison's reasoning was that he wanted to hire executives who could make decisions quickly and recall information quickly and reliably. Edison wanted the kind of information access that's available to everyone in this day and age. Since there were no machines to do it, he had to hire people to do it for him.
It is difficult for people living today to understand what information was like even 25 years ago. We absolutely look at information differently now because our storage, retrieval, and processing methods have advanced so fast that to look back a hundred years and try to understand their thinking we might as well be looking at the stone age. Try it sometime. Swear off the Internet for a week and try to be productive in your job.
As to whether Einstein would have done well at this test, Einstein would have made a lousy business executive, especially by Edison's metric as Einstein was notoriously forgetful.
This interesting stuff to me personally. My great-grandfather worked directly for Edison. At one point he managed a brick-making factory. He died long before I came along but I've always wondered what it was like to work closely with Edison.
But being able to answer the questions on the test doesn't show that you studied and memorized the answers; rather, it demonstrates that you have a lifelong habit of sucking up information.
It would be really nice if there is a Cave Johnson's interview for prospective employees. It will be like: "I'm Cave Johnson, I own the place. Your test assignment will vary, depending on the manner in which you have bent the world to your will."
All right, so that last test was seriously disappointing. Apparently, being civil isn't motivating you, so let's try it her way, all right, fatty? Adopted... fatty! Fatty, fatty no parents?
The problem is that in the olden days, it was the precinct worker's choice over who had to take it and who got it waived... and all the white folks got waived.
I can't answer many of these. But it looks like they are supposed to be 'common knowledge' of the day. Little more than 'have you been paying attention' kind of questions.
I was hoping there would be something about medicine that is now completely inaccurate. The best I could find was lead as a critical ingredient in making the best white paint.
Why would you need to know these things to work for an electrical/technological company?
Scientific or technological questions would be more appropriate. Sure, there are a few, but knowing the name of who invented something doesn't mean you understand it...
Answers to those questions indicate an inquisitive mind. An aptitude that would possibly make a technology company thrive. It's not for what they know - it's for what led them to know it.
