Hacker News Reader

Comment by jere | Hacker News Reader

'The animals of the forest thought it was very strange that tropical fruit should want to race a very fast animal.

"The pineapple has some trick up its sleeve," a moose said.

Pineapples don't have sleeves, an owl said

"Well, you know what I mean,” the moose said. "If a pineapple challenges a hare to a race, it must be that the pineapple knows some secret trick that will allow it to win.”

“The pineapple probably expects us to root for the hare and then look like fools when it loses,” said a crow. “Then the pineapple will win the race because the hare is overconfident and takes a nap, or gets lost, or something.”

The animals agreed that this made sense. There was no reason a pineapple should challenge a hare unless it had a clever plan of some sort. So the animals, wanting to back a winner, all cheered for the pineapple.'

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/talking-pineapple-questi...

MORAL: Google+ doesn't have sleeves.

View on HN

Sorry, this isn't entirely relevant to Google+, but is relevant at the nydailynews article.

To anyone looking at that article: clearly the test meant that the owl was the wisest, as he literally said the moral of the story. And the animals ate the fruit as they were annoyed (there's no other negative emotion there, and the whole point of the story was the animals didn't like that the pineapple seemed to be tricking them). The more difficult question is actually "What would have happened if the animals had decided to root for the hare," though the correct answer is probably "They would have been happy to have cheered for a winner."

Upon reading the first part of the story, I was actually really excited about the questions that "had everyone stumped," because if given in a class discussion, they'd lead to students saying all kinds of outlandish, but really interesting, and hopefully perceptive and creative, things. Unfortunately, there were then four answer choices: what's the point of having creative thinking exercises, with a very creative story, if the students don't then get to show off a bit of creative thought themselves? And here is where I really dislike standardized tests, as done by companies like Pearson's or The College Board: educators want to tell students to be creative, to explore on their own, sometimes to be silly and give silly answers, and need a good outlet for that. But if we teach to these sorts of tests, then we're saying that you need to suppress your silliness and creativity even in the face of a dauntingly silly story.

As a personal note, I always really liked taking standardized tests, because the math was usually fairly easy and fun to do, and the reading passages were usually very interesting reads (I remember one was about the Trail of Tears, another about a girl climbing a redwood, and there were a bunch more. The worst ones were the passages that read like shopping lists). Also, it definitely didn't hurt that on most the tests I took, I was told I was in the 9xth percentile (this likely had a lot to do with the fact that I enjoyed the tests, rather than getting anxious at them).

>And the animals ate the fruit as they were annoyed (there's no other negative emotion there, and the whole point of the story was the animals didn't like that the pineapple seemed to be tricking them).

But practically speaking animals usually eat because they're hungry. Even in a story about talking fruit, that has to seem like a viable option. So I think the point about the question being ambiguous is fair. Anyway, I actually thought the passage was rather amusing, which I guess is why I remembered it here.

I also think that there's a problem with the realistic approach to the story contra the Aesopian interpretation where animals should be seen as human-like beings in animal form in order to let the moral be inferred on a figurative, abstract level instead of a literal, concrete level.

It's a silly test, because it's ambiguous. Ambiguity is fine in a class setting, but not one where you don't require one canonical answer.

It's perfect for something like this, because we assume it's Aesopian and open-ended, but not as a test. I still like it on its own.

    There was no reason a pineapple should challenge a hare
    unless it had a clever plan of some sort. So the 
    animals, wanting to back a winner, all cheered for the
    pineapple.

The owl is a part of the group "the animals", "all" of which cheered for the pineapple, according to one interpretation.

The owl correctly states that the pineapple has no sleeves, but it only does so on a literal basis, not necessarily a figurative one.

The hare is the only creature that, from my reading of the language, does not cheer for the pineapple, making it the smartest of the lot.

So it's a weird test that is interesting to discuss for fun, but ridiculous to put on a test that will define the lives of the people who have to answer it.

> but ridiculous to put on a test that will define the lives of the people who have to answer it.

Depends on how the question is graded and what the objective of the question it. I think it's a wonderful question, personally. It's not the type of question that you can just memorize the answer to, and then regurgitate on the test. You also can't just put down an answer that you think the testers are looking for, as you would on a question about, say, climate change or multiculturalism. So what's left? You use your brain, reason something, and then justify it.

// No standardized test in grade 8 will define your life and certainly not any single question will make much difference.

The animals were annoyed because they were embarrassed.

The fact that people thought the questions were confusing is quite worrying.

Here is what I feel the story is analogous to:

A scammer is selling dieting pills on the internet.

The scammer claims it will beat all other methods of dieting, even better than not eating outright. The scammer challenges half the commenters to use his pills (eating normally at the same time), and the other half not eating at all, may the best dieting method wins.

The commenters thought it was strange the scammer would want to challenge the best dieting method of all.

"This isn't even a dieting method, you're eating more by taking the pill!" One said.

"Well, you know what I mean", the scammer said. (it's a weight loss method).

"The scammer has some trick up its sleeve," said another.

Scammers scam, a moderator said.

"Well, you know what I mean,” another commenter said. "If a scammer challenges the best dieting method of all with his dieting pills it must have something to it to allow him to win.”

“The scammer probably expects us to root for the sensible dieting method and then look like fools when it doesn't work,” said the person with 76 points of karma. “Then the scammer will win because the dieters are overconfident and takes a banana, or binges, or something.”

The commenters agreed that this made sense. There was no reason a scammer should challenge actual dieting unless his pills had a clever mechanism of some sort. So the commenters, wanting to back a winner, all cheered for the scammer.

When the challenge began, the commenters who dieted by skipping food lost 5 kilograms within a week. The commenters who took the dieting pills just continued to gained weight.

The commenters continued to observe how the dieting pills were going to beat actual dieting. Two weeks later when the actual dieters have lost 10 kilograms, pill takers did not lose any weight, and in fact, gained 10.

The commenters lynched the scammer.

MORAL: Scammers scam.

People make foolish predictions because they don't want to become fools, but then when their foolish prediction turns out to be foolish, they seek revenge, vengeance. This seems to be happening more and more these days, and that's why I am worried people think this set of questions were confusing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com