is the full e-mail received from our friend Kristian Heide):
would very much like to receive a certificate based on the
new norm of The Sigma Test. I will send the fee to your
address in Sao Paulo. I have moved since you sent me the
last certificate. My new address is:
Heide (This part, with his address, was excluded)
understand that you must have put a tremendous amount of work
into the process of making the new norm. I hope other test-makers
will adopt your method. Your methodology with different weighting
factors seems much better and superior to a system where all
problems are assigned to the same weighting factor. You have
put common sense into good practical use based on a sound
strength that follows your tests (ST and STVI) is that you
allow fractional points to be given. If we look at how Ronald
H. is scoring the Titan test we see a whole different approach.
He is only interested in the answers, not in the reasoning
and logic behind. It is easy to see the weakness in Ronald’s
approach. Not only is he using the same weighting factor for
each problem; he is also not rewarding any points whatsoever
for a close to perfect (but not correct) solution.
allowing fractional points you need to design problems to
fit with your ideology. Especially on the more difficult problems,
where the fractional points are more important, I think it
is very fruitful to design problems that, in themselves, are
both diverse and complex. Even if a person is not able to
solve the whole problem perfectly he is nevertheless motivated
to start on it and give it his best shot because he knows
points will be rewarded for a partial solution also. I think
a test that is actually able to motivate the ones that decide
to take the tests to do their absolute best, is a successful
test. And when the scoring system in addition is fair, just
and correct, I think the test is as complete as it can be.
And that is what I believe you have succeeded in doing with
your tests. You motivate, and you have a superior scoring
months ago I sent an e-mail to the designers of Thinkfast
(they have now an online version that is very similar to the
Thinkfast software). I have done some analysis of their scoring
system, and found many weaknesses in it, which I told them
about. First they did what you did with TST: they did their
best the first time they designed the program by putting up
the scoring rules. You did the same on TST by “guessing”
each problem’s weighting factor. This is sound. But
when more information comes forth, one must be ready to refine
the rules. The Thinkfast designers have failed to do this.
Their scoring system is roughly as follows: There are 6 games.
G1 is the simplest (more primitive brain functions), and G6
the most complex. And they, correctly, use higher weighting
factors for the more complex games. But they fail to give
extra credit when you are able to perform, on any game, extremely
well regarding to percentile. If we use G1, simple reaction
time to a simple stimulus, as an example. If your reaction
time is 160 ms, this is pretty fast and rewarded accordingly.
If your reaction time gets as low as 140 ms, this is only
rewarded according to a mathematical formulae that is purely
theoretical and not empirical. There is nothing in the formulae
(for later versions of the software) that tests for percentile
(even though the data is available), so the extra points given
are not enough. And, even worse, should your reaction time
be 120 ms the scoring system does not give you the very high
extra credit you deserve. Since no one has ever before performed
with a reaction time at 120, this performance is so extreme
that it should be reflected in the scoring. When fewer people
are able to perform at a certain level, the weighting factors
should be adjusted accordingly: Exactly as you did with TST.
And as the TF designers should have done. They wrote me back,
and they agreed. But I doubt they will do the work necessary
to change their method.
was hoping to write something for WAHIP about this and some
other specifics regarding Thinkfast, but never seem to find
the time for it. In addition I have been involved in some
local Mensa activities, which takes some resources. Also,
I want to finish with STVI, but I never feel really finished.
There are always some more things to investigate and discuss.
But I find pleasure in working with this test, and that is
perhaps the most important thing.
hope the next year will leave me with some spare time for
interesting projects. Exciting projects are easy to find,
but finding the time to follow up on them...well, that’s
the key factor.
wishes for the new year to you from
abri a mensagem, pensei em ler depois, devido ao tamanho
do artigo. Quando comecei a entender, no entanto, não pude
evitar a leitura até o final, ainda que tenha lido rapidamente,
sem me deter nos detalhes.
embora não conheça o assunto suficientemente bem para dar
uma opinião segura, nunca vi método que pudesse ser tão
coerente, porque, finalmente, encontrou-se uma definição
realmente clara do que é QI e de como ele pode ser medido.
Gostaria de lhe dar os parabéns."
(Comment sent by José Antonio Francisco, from Brazil,
member of Platinum and Sigma IV)