So at this training the other, three sequences of number where put up on screen and we were asked to work out the sequence. As I did in my previous blog post.
And the sequence was quite simple. Just three whole numbers with each number being greater than the last. However the misleading bit was that all three given sequences followed the pattern (x) &mdash (2x) &mdash (2x+1). The whole point of this was to show how we don't challenge our preconceptions. How we pick test cases to prove what we expect. So instead of picking test cases that challenge the sequence, we pick test cases that confirm it.
In the training it took us about 10 minutes to twig on. I expected to be found out by you guys much faster than that. I was quite surprised that I wasn't. Not only did you guys not really test anything that would reveal anything more about the sequence, but you jumped straight to the formulae and started trying to figure out why I kept saying the formulae was wrong, and really took the long way of doing things. It would have been much quicker just test a variety of sequences and narrow it down from that. As Stuart showed when he started throwing some numbers in it really wasn't that hard at all.
I was deliberately vague about the rules for this. The rules where quite simply, and giving too much detail would have made the answer obvious which was also quite simple. It was also curious to note how everyone started looking at me as if I was the problem, instead of tackling the number sequence. by far the easiest way to find the definition of the sequence was to just throw numbers at me and refine from that. But until you can overcome the idea in your head that says the formula is (x) &mdash (2x) &mdash (2x+1), you get a bit stuck.
I guess it's a good lesson for life, about getting over notions you have set in your mind, and solving problems by looking at the problem itself, and not what we perceive the hurdles to be. I found this to be quite enlightening both from being on the guessing side (and I did miserably, it was other people who started challenging the pattern not me) and to be on the side answering the guesses.
Addendum. An example was given where they told teachers that they were teaching a class of gifted kids. However the class was actually a class of remedial students. They found a marked improvement in the kids because when the teacher found that her methods weren't working, instead of thinking "oh well the kids are dumb" she thought "I must be teaching badly cause these kids are gifted" and the teacher changed her methods to account for the kids. In normal cases where the teacher thought the kids were remedial they just thought "ah well it's the kids" and didn't change anything, and the kids got no better. If that helps explain it a bit. Maybe. Not sure.
1. Coop
Bollocks to that.
2. Adrian
Well at least someone commented. I thought I had pissed everyone off. :-)
You say bollocks, but I bet you’ll be trying it out on your friends.
3. Pete
That’s certainly one way that he could reduce the size of his Christmas card list.
4. David
I think this is all about context.
You were in a classroom/seminar type environment with immediate feedback whereas “in here” we were confined to type written questions with a tie delay on the response as you were at work/working.
Additionally, when you were on the training course you were primed for this kind of excercise (you knew what he course was about) so you would have been loking for hidden meanings and “clever dick” interpretations.
5. Destructor
Those number patterns were clearly not (x) — (2x) — (2x-1), they were (x) — (2x) — (2x+1)
6. Adrian
Dan, thanks. Corrected.
David, duly noted. I really thought it was an interesting exercise to do, and I’m glad I did it, although I do acknowledge that my execution was a bit poor. I have taken criticism both online and offline, and next time I try something like this (if I ever do) I’ll try establish the context better.
My big struggle was how to present the idea without making the solution to obvious and hence the task pointless. My idea was to give nothing except the sequence see what people cam up with, only answering if they were correct or incorrect. Clearly this just ticked people off, and didn’t encourage the investigation I thought it would.
It’s pretty hard to pitch something, when you know the answer, as you can’t perceive how someone would be looking at it from the other side of the window. I’m glad people attempted it and I’m glad the answer was found. But all the criticism of my approach to the task has been taken on board, and next time (if I ever do) I approach something like this, I’ll try do it in a way, people see it as an interesting challenge rather than an annoyance.
Obviously guidelines to what the rules of the game were would have been smart. I do find it interesting to see how different people (myself included) tackle loosely define problems.
Normally I suck and give up at them, and am pretty impressed at people (my brother and dad are good examples) who can tackle loosely defined problems and stick at them. I have little patience and give up very easily, which is not one of my better traits.
7. David
One of the training days I have been on in the past involved some touchy-feely personality profiling type stuff. I came out as a “blue” personailty, as did a lot of my team. We’re engineers/scientists (depending on your viewpoint) so it comes a no surprise to learn that we are analytical, need lots of detail, fully defined problems, so i guess my reaction to the problem set was my own frustration at not being able to see the problem the way I should.
I’m with you on the giving up thing.
Oh, and by the way when I said “clever dick” that wasn’t aimed at you, it was aimed at training course leaders who i typically tend to view as smug smart alecs who think they have taught you a great revelation when they say things like if you assume you make an ass out of “u” and me. What utter BS!
8. Adrian
The training guy (for this bit) mostly wasn’t too bad, with some BS but most of it fairly good. I know the smug types you mean though. This guy was ok to good, but not awesome. I have had some incredible speakers at work functions too who are really good.