Common sense is not that common: a recent study from the University of Pennsylvania concludes the concept is “somewhat illusory.” Researchers collected statements from various sources that had been described as “common sense” and put them to test subjects. The mixed bag of results suggested there was “little evidence that more than a small fraction of beliefs is common to more than a small fraction of people.”
It’s no surprise that there are few universally shared notions of what stands to reason. People took a horse worming drug to cure COVID! They think low-traffic neighborhoods are a communist plot and call the police about KFC running out of chicken! We all think those other guys are the stupid ones.
If you would like to test your own common sense, the Pennsylvania researchers are running an online challenge (commonsense.seas.upenn.edu). Despite dark suspicions about my common sense, I was compelled to try, agreeing or disagreeing with statements, then deciding whether others would think like me.
Photo: EPA-EFE
Some were easy (“No one wants to get ill;” “Glue is sticky”), but some gave ample opportunity to overthink and second guess myself. Surely it isn’t silly to end a marriage if you don’t love someone? Is “loving people more than they deserve” an “aspect of kindness?”
How am I supposed to know anything about the body temperature of cats?
The worst bit was the maths (designed to check if intelligence and common sense are correlated — not particularly, apparently). I’m 49 and haven’t worked out two-thirds of anything since 1992: I had to draw 60 apples to stumble through a simple fraction, guess the full price for a discounted toaster and text my son for help. That exchange ended with me begging him: “Pretend this never happened.”
The verdict? A feeble 53/100 on the “commonsensicality” index (maths score undisclosed). Unwilling to accept my worst mark since year 10 physics, I tried again. And again. By the fifth attempt (yes, a total waste of my time), I had bumped my score up to 97/100. That is a victory for something, but definitely not common sense.
June 23 to June 29 After capturing the walled city of Hsinchu on June 22, 1895, the Japanese hoped to quickly push south and seize control of Taiwan’s entire west coast — but their advance was stalled for more than a month. Not only did local Hakka fighters continue to cause them headaches, resistance forces even attempted to retake the city three times. “We had planned to occupy Anping (Tainan) and Takao (Kaohsiung) as soon as possible, but ever since we took Hsinchu, nearby bandits proclaiming to be ‘righteous people’ (義民) have been destroying train tracks and electrical cables, and gathering in villages
This year will go down in the history books. Taiwan faces enormous turmoil and uncertainty in the coming months. Which political parties are in a good position to handle big changes? All of the main parties are beset with challenges. Taking stock, this column examined the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) (“Huang Kuo-chang’s choking the life out of the TPP,” May 28, page 12), the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) (“Challenges amid choppy waters for the DPP,” June 14, page 12) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) (“KMT struggles to seize opportunities as ‘interesting times’ loom,” June 20, page 11). Times like these can
Dr. Y. Tony Yang, Associate Dean of Health Policy and Population Science at George Washington University, argued last week in a piece for the Taipei Times about former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) leading a student delegation to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that, “The real question is not whether Ma’s visit helps or hurts Taiwan — it is why Taiwan lacks a sophisticated, multi-track approach to one of the most complex geopolitical relationships in the world” (“Ma’s Visit, DPP’s Blind Spot,” June 18, page 8). Yang contends that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has a blind spot: “By treating any
Swooping low over the banks of a Nile River tributary, an aid flight run by retired American military officers released a stream of food-stuffed sacks over a town emptied by fighting in South Sudan, a country wracked by conflict. Last week’s air drop was the latest in a controversial development — private contracting firms led by former US intelligence officers and military veterans delivering aid to some of the world’s deadliest conflict zones, in operations organized with governments that are combatants in the conflicts. The moves are roiling the global aid community, which warns of a more militarized, politicized and profit-seeking trend
RSS