Part 29 (2/2)

REMARKS. The value of this test may be questioned on two grounds: (1) That it has an ambiguous significance, since failure to pa.s.s it may result either from incorrect addition or from lack of knowledge of the individual values of the stamps; (2) that familiarity with stamps and their values is so much a matter of accident and special instruction that the test is not fair.

Both criticisms are in a measure valid. The first, however, applies equally well to a great many useful intelligence tests. In fact, it is only a minority in which success depends on but one factor. The other criticism has less weight than would at first appear. While it is, of course, not impossible for an intelligent child to arrive at the age of 9 years without having had reasonable opportunity to learn the cost of the common postage stamps, the fact is that a large majority have had the opportunity and that most of those of normal intelligence have taken advantage of it. It is necessary once more to emphasize the fact that in its method of locating a test the Binet system makes ample allowance for ”accidental” failures.

Like the tests of naming coins, repeating the names of the days of the week or the months of the year, giving the date, tying a bow-knot, distinguis.h.i.+ng right and left, naming the colors, etc., this one also throws light on the child's spontaneous interest in common objects. It is mainly the children of deficient intellectual curiosity who do not take the trouble to learn these things at somewhere near the expected age.

The test was located in year VIII of the Binet scale. However, Binet used coins, three single and three double sous. Since we do not have either a half-cent or a 2-cent coin, it has been necessary to subst.i.tute postage stamps. This changes the nature of the test and makes it much harder. It becomes less a test of ability to do a simple sum, and more a test of knowledge as to the value of the stamps used. That the test is easy enough for year VIII when it can be given in the original form is indicated by all the French, German, and English statistics available, but four separate series of Stanford tests agree in finding it too hard for year VIII when stamps are subst.i.tuted and the test is carried out according to the procedure described above.

CHAPTER XVI

INSTRUCTIONS FOR YEAR X

X, 1. VOCABULARY (THIRTY DEFINITIONS, 5400 WORDS)

PROCEDURE AND SCORING AS IN VIII, 6. At year X, thirty words should be correctly defined.

X, 2. DETECTING ABSURDITIES

PROCEDURE. Say to the child: ”_I am going to read a sentence which has something foolish in it, some nonsense. I want you to listen carefully and tell me what is foolish about it._” Then read the sentences, rather slowly and in a matter-of-fact voice, saying after each: ”_What is foolish about that?_” The sentences used are the following:--

(a) ”_A man said: 'I know a road from my house to the city which is downhill all the way to the city and downhill all the way back home.'_”

(b) ”_An engineer said that the more cars he had on his train the faster he could go._”

(c) ”_Yesterday the police found the body of a girl cut into eighteen pieces. They believe that she killed herself._”

(d) ”_There was a railroad accident yesterday, but it was not very serious. Only forty-eight people were killed._”

(e) ”_A bicycle rider, being thrown from his bicycle in an accident, struck his head against a stone and was instantly killed. They picked him up and carried him to the hospital, and they do not think he will get well again._”

Each should ordinarily be answered within thirty seconds. If the child is silent, the sentence should be repeated; but no other questions or suggestions of any kind are permissible. Such questions as ”_Could the road be downhill both ways?_” or, ”_Do you think the girl could have killed herself?_” would, of course, put the answer in the child's mouth.

It is even best to avoid laughing as the sentence is read.

Owing to the child's limited power of expression it is not always easy to judge from the answer given whether the absurdity has really been detected or not. In such cases ask him to explain himself, using some such formula as: ”_I am not sure I know what you mean. Explain what you mean. Tell me what is foolish in the sentence I read._” This usually brings a reply the correctness or incorrectness of which is more apparent, while at the same time the formula is so general that it affords no hint as to the correct answer. Additional questions must be used with extreme caution.

SCORING. Pa.s.sed if the absurdity is detected in _four out of the five_ statements. The following are samples of satisfactory and unsatisfactory answers:--

(a) _The road downhill_

_Satisfactory._ ”If it was downhill to the city it would be uphill coming back.” ”It can't be downhill both directions.”

”That could not be.” ”That is foolish. (Explain.) Because it must be uphill one way or the other.” ”That would be a funny road. (Explain.) No road can be like that. It can't be downhill both ways.”

_Unsatisfactory._ ”Perhaps he took a little different road coming back.” ”I guess it is a very crooked road.” ”Coming back he goes around the hill.” ”The man lives down in a valley.” ”The road was made that way so it would be easy.” ”Just a road. I don't see anything foolish.” ”He should say, 'a road which goes.'”

(b) _What the engineer said_

_Satisfactory._ ”If he has more cars he will go slower.” ”It is the other way. If he wants to go faster he mustn't have so many cars.” ”The man didn't mean what he said, or else it was a slip of the tongue.” ”That's the way it would be if he was going downhill.” ”Foolish, because the cars don't help pull the train.” ”He ought to say _slower_, not _faster_.”

<script>