If you're already struggling, don't worry, just keep plugging in your answers.
For questions 2 and 3 you'll have to do some addition and subtraction:
The test might seem too tough for you now, but just wait until you see question number 4:
Question 5 separates the men from the boys, or apparently, the men women from the women:
Now we're going to transition from the mathematics section to reading comprehension.
Before getting to the questions, read this paragraph. You'll need it for questions 6 through 10:
Now here are the stumpers in question:
Question 11 gets its own passage:
Giving up yet? Well hang in there.
Questions 12 and 13 rely on this material:
Now you have to answer the hard questions like 'Can you read a paragraph that contains the answer?'
The following questions ask you to identify spelling and grammatical errors and to insert the correct word where it fits:
Question 18 also asks you to identify a spelling error. This can be a hard one!
Now here's how you do the final section.
You have to fill out forms correctly, according to a style guide everyone is provided.
The questions are based on this.
You have to fill in which items were stolen, where the victim lived, the suspect's name and address, the suspect's clothing items, and the names of the officers assigned to the complaint.
Now, without sarcasm, if you fail this sort of test, something is wrong with you. This test is incredibly easy and you would have to be illiterate and innumerate to fail.
And yet, 9% of Whites and 29% of Blacks fail. Incidentally, with equal variances, that's a 0.79 d difference
That difference is what's expected based on the Black-White difference in the general population with a bit of selection into test-taking added. It matches up with what we know to be unbiased differences in other tests of police officers (e.g., on the WAIS).
Now what do the women fail? Well, 49% of them can't do 18 push-ups in a minute, 27 sit-ups in a minute, run 1.5 miles in 15m20s, and reach 1.5 inches past their toes while seated.
They're pathetically physically incapable, so that's the department's fault.
The Maryland Department of State Police would need to show that the thresholds used in the test have equal predictive power by sex, that they're relevant to the job, etc.
Everyone knows a physical test is fine, but justifying it is obviously hard.
You could argue that maybe the female officers won't be stepping into the line of duty, or that the test just doesn't work at all, but argue that.
Otherwise, we get yet another senseless attack on having even bottom of the barrel standards.
It's pathetic.
Now if you really couldn't figure out the POST question answers, here's a link to the answer sheet: mdsp.maryland.gov/Careers/Troope…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Why do identical twins have such similar personalities?
Is it because they're reared together? Is it because people treat them alike due to their visual similarity?
Nope! Neither theory holds water.
Despite looking as similar as identical twins and being reared apart, look-alikes are not similar like identical twins are. In fact, they're no more similar than unrelated people.
This makes sense: they're only minimally more genetically similar than regular unrelated people.
The other thing is that twins reared apart and together have similarly similar personalities.
In fact, there might be a negative environmental effect going on, where twins reared together try to distinguish their personalities more!
Smart people tend to earn higher educations and higher incomes, and to work in more prestigious occupations.
This holds for people from excellent family backgrounds (Utopian Sample) and comparing siblings from the same families!
This is true, meaningful, and the causal relationship runs strongly from IQ to SES, with little independent influence of SES. Just look at how similar the overall result and the within-family results are!
But also look at fertility in this table: quite the reverse!
The reason this is hard to explain has to do with the fact that kids objectively have more similar environments to one another than to their parents.
In fact, for a cultural theory to recapitulate regression to the mean across generations, these things would need to differ!
Another fact that speaks against a cultural explanation is that the length of contact between fathers and sons doesn't matter for how correlated they are in status.
We can see this by leveraging the ages parents die at relative to said sons.
The internet gives everyone access to unlimited information, learning tools, and the new digital economy, so One Laptop Per Child should have major benefits.
The reality:
Another study just failed to find effects on academic performance.
This is one of those findings that's so much more damning than it at first appears.
The reason being, laptop access genuinely provides people with more information than was available to any kid at any previous generation in history.
If access was the issue, this resolves it.
And yet, nothing happens
This implementation of the program was more limited than other ones that we've already seen evaluations for though. The laptops were not Windows-based and didn't have internet, so no games, but non-infinite info too
So, at least in this propensity score- or age-matched data, there's no reason to chalk the benefit up to the weight loss effects.
This is a hint though, not definitive. Another hint is that benefits were observed in short trials, meaning likely before significant weight loss.
We can be doubly certain about that last hint because diabetics tend to lose less weight than non-diabetics, and all of the observed benefit has so far been observed in diabetic cohorts, not non-diabetic ones (though those directionally show benefits).