deceptively easy

[a***@gmail.com]

1) This exam is deceptively easy.

Does that mean that it is really hard?
Or that it is easy but looks hard?

How about:

2) This exam seems deceptively easy.

Gratefully,
Navi.

[Mark Brader]

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) This exam is deceptively easy.
Does that mean that it is really hard?
Or that it is easy but looks hard?

It's easy but looks hard. Something about the way it's written
or presented is deceptive, concealing the fact that it's easy.

Post by a***@gmail.com
2) This exam seems deceptively easy.

"Seems deceptively" is a nonsensical combination. One refers to
an apparent aspect that may or may not be real; the other, to an
aspect that is real but not apparent.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) This exam is deceptively easy.
Does that mean that it is really hard?
Or that it is easy but looks hard?

It's easy but looks hard. Something about the way it's written
or presented is deceptive, concealing the fact that it's easy.

I would take it the other way round.
It looks easy, but the easy answers are wrong.
An exam of easy looking trick questions.

It needs more context,

Jan

[Peter Moylan]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mark Brader

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) This exam is deceptively easy.
Does that mean that it is really hard?
Or that it is easy but looks hard?

It's easy but looks hard. Something about the way it's written
or presented is deceptive, concealing the fact that it's easy.

I would take it the other way round.
It looks easy, but the easy answers are wrong.
An exam of easy looking trick questions.

Either of those interpretations can be defended. Because of that, you
should never write "deceptively easy" unless you genuinely want to
confuse your readers.

[Richard Yates]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 23:09:29 +1000, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mark Brader

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) This exam is deceptively easy.
Does that mean that it is really hard?
Or that it is easy but looks hard?

It's easy but looks hard. Something about the way it's written
or presented is deceptive, concealing the fact that it's easy.

I would take it the other way round.
It looks easy, but the easy answers are wrong.
An exam of easy looking trick questions.

Either of those interpretations can be defended. Because of that, you
should never write "deceptively easy" unless you genuinely want to
confuse your readers.

Common in US sportsE is "deceptively fast". I have heard it said only
as a compliment so I have assumed that it means "faster than he
looks". That is the opposite of "deceptively easy" meaning "harder
than it looks".

Inventing parallel terms with other adjectives is of no help:
"deceptively green"?
"deceptively pretty"?
"deceptively sour"?

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Richard Yates
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 23:09:29 +1000, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mark Brader

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) This exam is deceptively easy.
Does that mean that it is really hard?
Or that it is easy but looks hard?

It's easy but looks hard. Something about the way it's written
or presented is deceptive, concealing the fact that it's easy.

I would take it the other way round.
It looks easy, but the easy answers are wrong.
An exam of easy looking trick questions.

Either of those interpretations can be defended. Because of that, you
should never write "deceptively easy" unless you genuinely want to
confuse your readers.

Common in US sportsE is "deceptively fast". I have heard it said only
as a compliment so I have assumed that it means "faster than he
looks". That is the opposite of "deceptively easy" meaning "harder
than it looks".
"deceptively green"?

That's what your wife calls blue.

Post by Richard Yates
"deceptively pretty"?

Take her clothes off.

Post by Richard Yates
"deceptively sour"?

Cream,

Jan

[Mark Brader]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mark Brader

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) This exam is deceptively easy.
Does that mean that it is really hard?
Or that it is easy but looks hard?

It's easy but looks hard. Something about the way it's written
or presented is deceptive, concealing the fact that it's easy.

I would take it the other way round.
It looks easy, but the easy answers are wrong.
An exam of easy looking trick questions.

Either of those interpretations can be defended. Because of that, you
should never write "deceptively easy" unless you genuinely want to
confuse your readers.

Only those who don't know what it means. Jan is just wrong here.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mark Brader

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) This exam is deceptively easy.
Does that mean that it is really hard?
Or that it is easy but looks hard?

It's easy but looks hard. Something about the way it's written
or presented is deceptive, concealing the fact that it's easy.

I would take it the other way round.
It looks easy, but the easy answers are wrong.
An exam of easy looking trick questions.

Either of those interpretations can be defended. Because of that, you
should never write "deceptively easy" unless you genuinely want to
confuse your readers.

Only those who don't know what it means. Jan is just wrong here.

Perhaps, but I am not the only one in this forum who disagrees with you.
As Peter says, following OED, the word has opposite meanings.

What is a decept?

Jan

[Janet]

In article <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, ***@de-
ster.demon.nl says...

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mark Brader

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) This exam is deceptively easy.
Does that mean that it is really hard?
Or that it is easy but looks hard?

It's easy but looks hard. Something about the way it's written
or presented is deceptive, concealing the fact that it's easy.

I would take it the other way round.
It looks easy, but the easy answers are wrong.
An exam of easy looking trick questions.

+1

Janet

[Mack A. Damia]

Post by Janet
ster.demon.nl says...

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mark Brader

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) This exam is deceptively easy.
Does that mean that it is really hard?
Or that it is easy but looks hard?

It's easy but looks hard. Something about the way it's written
or presented is deceptive, concealing the fact that it's easy.

I would take it the other way round.
It looks easy, but the easy answers are wrong.
An exam of easy looking trick questions.

+1

Nah. It means that the exam looks hard but is easy.

Survey 1. Which of the following three conclusions can you draw from
the following statement?

The final exam for that class was deceptively easy.

56.8% The final exam was easy. (60%)
36.0% The final exam was hard. (32%)
7.2% The final exam was neither easy nor hard. (8%)

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3468

[Mark Brader]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by a***@gmail.com
2) This exam seems deceptively easy.

"Seems deceptively" is a nonsensical combination.

Thinking further about it, I'll retract that claim. If it seems
deceptively easy, this means it is deceptively hard.

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Mark Brader

Post by a***@gmail.com
2) This exam seems deceptively easy.

"Seems deceptively" is a nonsensical combination.

Thinking further about it, I'll retract that claim. If it seems
deceptively easy, this means it is deceptively hard.

Perhaps it seems, deceptively, easy.

-- Richard

[Rich Ulrich]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Mark Brader

Post by a***@gmail.com
2) This exam seems deceptively easy.

"Seems deceptively" is a nonsensical combination.

Thinking further about it, I'll retract that claim. If it seems
deceptively easy, this means it is deceptively hard.

Perhaps it seems, deceptively, easy.

Yes, that works, too.

Does anyone have examples of a test that looks easy that is
hard? Or vice-versa? Maybe I was too dull to notice, but
I never had occasion to apply that description.

I had one math professor who gave exams that would
feature a "trick question" - two ways to get the answer, rather
than a right way and a wrong way with different answers -
like this example:

What is the contingency chi-squared value for this table?

32 16 8
16 8 4
8 4 2

- you can do a bunch of tedious computing; or you can
/observe/ that rows and proportionate and therefore the
computed value has to be zero.

That's a question that checks some combination of knowledge
and how much you are paying attention before you jump
into answering. I would not use "deceptive" for it.

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Rich Ulrich
I had one math professor who gave exams that would
feature a "trick question" - two ways to get the answer, rather
than a right way and a wrong way with different answers -
What is the contingency chi-squared value for this table?
32 16 8
16 8 4
8 4 2
- you can do a bunch of tedious computing; or you can
/observe/ that rows and proportionate and therefore the
computed value has to be zero.

Cf the story about von Neumann:

http://www.pleacher.com/mp/mlessons/calculus/infin.html

-- Richard

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Rich Ulrich
I had one math professor who gave exams that would
feature a "trick question" - two ways to get the answer, rather
than a right way and a wrong way with different answers -
What is the contingency chi-squared value for this table?
32 16 8
16 8 4
8 4 2
- you can do a bunch of tedious computing; or you can
/observe/ that rows and proportionate and therefore the
computed value has to be zero.

http://www.pleacher.com/mp/mlessons/calculus/infin.html

Summing the series in your mind isn't as hard as it might seem,
if you have the right kind of mind.
(Hint: visualise a space-time diagram)
It's hard only when you try to do sums on paper,
(for those with algebra dominance)

Jan

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Rich Ulrich
I had one math professor who gave exams that would
feature a "trick question" - two ways to get the answer, rather
than a right way and a wrong way with different answers -
What is the contingency chi-squared value for this table?
32 16 8
16 8 4
8 4 2
- you can do a bunch of tedious computing; or you can
/observe/ that rows and proportionate and therefore the
computed value has to be zero.

http://www.pleacher.com/mp/mlessons/calculus/infin.html

Summing the series in your mind isn't as hard as it might seem,
if you have the right kind of mind.
(Hint: visualise a space-time diagram)
It's hard only when you try to do sums on paper,
(for those with algebra dominance)

That's me. If I can't do it with algebra I can't do it.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Rich Ulrich
I had one math professor who gave exams that would
feature a "trick question" - two ways to get the answer, rather
than a right way and a wrong way with different answers -
What is the contingency chi-squared value for this table?
32 16 8
16 8 4
8 4 2
- you can do a bunch of tedious computing; or you can
/observe/ that rows and proportionate and therefore the
computed value has to be zero.

http://www.pleacher.com/mp/mlessons/calculus/infin.html

Summing the series in your mind isn't as hard as it might seem,
if you have the right kind of mind.
(Hint: visualise a space-time diagram)
It's hard only when you try to do sums on paper,
(for those with algebra dominance)

That's me. If I can't do it with algebra I can't do it.

Have a look at the picture in
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series>
To some it is obvious what the sum of the series must be,
just by looking at the purple squares in the picture.
(and trivial arithmetic)

Some mathematicians and physicists
think very much with pictures in mind.
(For example Penrose and Hawking,
by their own say so)

Jan

[Katy Jennison]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Rich Ulrich
I had one math professor who gave exams that would
feature a "trick question" - two ways to get the answer, rather
than a right way and a wrong way with different answers -
What is the contingency chi-squared value for this table?
32 16 8
16 8 4
8 4 2
- you can do a bunch of tedious computing; or you can
/observe/ that rows and proportionate and therefore the
computed value has to be zero.

http://www.pleacher.com/mp/mlessons/calculus/infin.html

Summing the series in your mind isn't as hard as it might seem,
if you have the right kind of mind.
(Hint: visualise a space-time diagram)
It's hard only when you try to do sums on paper,
(for those with algebra dominance)

That's me. If I can't do it with algebra I can't do it.

Have a look at the picture in
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series>
To some it is obvious what the sum of the series must be,
just by looking at the purple squares in the picture.
(and trivial arithmetic)
Some mathematicians and physicists
think very much with pictures in mind.
(For example Penrose and Hawking,
by their own say so)

That particular one is obvious also to people like me who have
negligible mathematical aptitude but do have quite good spatial and
visual skills.

These things are more transferable than might at first appear. I know
whether something is spelt correctly by whether it looks right; I can
also usually tell you whether item x is going to fit into container y
without having to measure either of them.

I grew up assuming that everyone could do these things, until I found
out they couldn't.

[Jerry Friedman]

...

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Richard Tobin
http://www.pleacher.com/mp/mlessons/calculus/infin.html

Summing the series in your mind isn't as hard as it might seem,
if you have the right kind of mind.
(Hint: visualise a space-time diagram)
It's hard only when you try to do sums on paper,
(for those with algebra dominance)

That's me. If I can't do it with algebra I can't do it.

Have a look at the picture in
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series>
To some it is obvious what the sum of the series must be,
just by looking at the purple squares in the picture.
(and trivial arithmetic)

The picture tells me nothing, but I have no trouble using the formula
for geometric series in my head.

For the problem in the von Neumann story, the part I'd have difficulty
with is figuring out what series to sum.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Some mathematicians and physicists
think very much with pictures in mind.
(For example Penrose and Hawking,
by their own say so)

[Snidely]

...

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Richard Tobin
http://www.pleacher.com/mp/mlessons/calculus/infin.html

Summing the series in your mind isn't as hard as it might seem,
if you have the right kind of mind.
(Hint: visualise a space-time diagram)
It's hard only when you try to do sums on paper,
(for those with algebra dominance)

That's me. If I can't do it with algebra I can't do it.

Have a look at the picture in
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series>
To some it is obvious what the sum of the series must be,
just by looking at the purple squares in the picture.
(and trivial arithmetic)

The picture tells me nothing, but I have no trouble using the formula for
geometric series in my head.
For the problem in the von Neumann story, the part I'd have difficulty with
is figuring out what series to sum.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Some mathematicians and physicists
think very much with pictures in mind.
(For example Penrose and Hawking,
by their own say so)

Myself, I can see some fraction, but not that it is bar-guveq.

/dps

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Mark Brader

Post by a***@gmail.com
2) This exam seems deceptively easy.

"Seems deceptively" is a nonsensical combination.

Thinking further about it, I'll retract that claim. If it seems
deceptively easy, this means it is deceptively hard.

Perhaps it seems, deceptively, easy.

Yes, that works, too.
Does anyone have examples of a test that looks easy that is
hard? Or vice-versa? Maybe I was too dull to notice, but
I never had occasion to apply that description.
I had one math professor who gave exams that would
feature a "trick question" - two ways to get the answer, rather
than a right way and a wrong way with different answers -
What is the contingency chi-squared value for this table?
32 16 8
16 8 4
8 4 2
- you can do a bunch of tedious computing; or you can
/observe/ that rows and proportionate and therefore the
computed value has to be zero.
That's a question that checks some combination of knowledge
and how much you are paying attention before you jump
into answering. I would not use "deceptive" for it.

Anecdote about Gauss as a schoolboy. The class was asked
to add all the integers from 1 to 100 together.

Trick should be obvious.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Mark Brader

Post by a***@gmail.com
2) This exam seems deceptively easy.

"Seems deceptively" is a nonsensical combination.

Thinking further about it, I'll retract that claim. If it seems
deceptively easy, this means it is deceptively hard.

Perhaps it seems, deceptively, easy.

Yes, that works, too.
Does anyone have examples of a test that looks easy that is
hard? Or vice-versa? Maybe I was too dull to notice, but
I never had occasion to apply that description.

I can't remember good examples from when I was a student. Over the
years, though, I've often met problems that seemed easy at first sight
and turned out to be difficult.

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Rich Ulrich
I had one math professor who gave exams that would
feature a "trick question" - two ways to get the answer, rather
than a right way and a wrong way with different answers -
What is the contingency chi-squared value for this table?
32 16 8
16 8 4
8 4 2
- you can do a bunch of tedious computing; or you can
/observe/ that rows and proportionate and therefore the
computed value has to be zero.
That's a question that checks some combination of knowledge
and how much you are paying attention before you jump
into answering. I would not use "deceptive" for it.

Anecdote about Gauss as a schoolboy. The class was asked
to add all the integers from 1 to 100 together.
Trick should be obvious.

Obvious to us now. Was it obvious back then?

[Mark Brader]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by David Kleinecke
Anecdote about Gauss as a schoolboy. The class was asked
to add all the integers from 1 to 100 together.
Trick should be obvious.

Obvious to us now. Was it obvious back then?

Yes... but not usually to schoolboys.

There are other versions of the anecdote where the arithmetic series
to be added is not 1 to 100. This doesn't change the point.

[Peter T. Daniels]

[Brader's screwing with the attributions repaired]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by David Kleinecke
Anecdote about Gauss as a schoolboy. The class was asked
to add all the integers from 1 to 100 together.
Trick should be obvious.

Obvious to us now. Was it obvious back then?

Yes... but not usually to schoolboys.

Nor to their teacher, or it wouldn't have been set as a "shut up and sit still"
exercise.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Mark Brader

Post by a***@gmail.com
2) This exam seems deceptively easy.

"Seems deceptively" is a nonsensical combination.

Thinking further about it, I'll retract that claim. If it seems
deceptively easy, this means it is deceptively hard.

Perhaps it seems, deceptively, easy.

Yes, that works, too.
Does anyone have examples of a test that looks easy that is
hard? Or vice-versa? Maybe I was too dull to notice, but
I never had occasion to apply that description.

I can't remember good examples from when I was a student. Over the
years, though, I've often met problems that seemed easy at first sight
and turned out to be difficult.

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Rich Ulrich
I had one math professor who gave exams that would
feature a "trick question" - two ways to get the answer, rather
than a right way and a wrong way with different answers -
What is the contingency chi-squared value for this table?
32 16 8
16 8 4
8 4 2
- you can do a bunch of tedious computing; or you can
/observe/ that rows and proportionate and therefore the
computed value has to be zero.
That's a question that checks some combination of knowledge
and how much you are paying attention before you jump
into answering. I would not use "deceptive" for it.

Anecdote about Gauss as a schoolboy. The class was asked
to add all the integers from 1 to 100 together.
Trick should be obvious.

Obvious to us now. Was it obvious back then?

Guess so, to those with the right mindset.
The needed quality is above all being lazy enough.

Jan

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Mark Brader

Post by a***@gmail.com
2) This exam seems deceptively easy.

"Seems deceptively" is a nonsensical combination.

Thinking further about it, I'll retract that claim. If it seems
deceptively easy, this means it is deceptively hard.

I don't see that "hard" is the opposite of "easy" all the time in this
case. A football player that is deceptively fast is a player who
faster than he appears to be to the casual observer. Nothing hard
about his running; it doesn't appear that he's as fast as he is.

Not all the time, though.

A football player who is deceptively hard to block is one who is
difficult to block, but appears that he would be easy to stop. If
he's deceptively easy to block, he's big and looks like he can't be
stopped, but can be easily stopped.

That's football as in the kind we play here in the US.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:48:40 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Mark Brader

Post by a***@gmail.com
2) This exam seems deceptively easy.

"Seems deceptively" is a nonsensical combination.

Thinking further about it, I'll retract that claim. If it seems
deceptively easy, this means it is deceptively hard.

I don't see that "hard" is the opposite of "easy" all the time in this
case. A football player that is deceptively fast is a player who
faster than he appears to be to the casual observer. Nothing hard
about his running; it doesn't appear that he's as fast as he is.

I posted already that "deceptively" should reverse the
adjective. For "deceptively fast", the unambiguous statement
would be, for instance, "Sloane Stephens is a deceptively
slow-looking tennis player." (U.S. Open Tennis winner. I thought
she never looked hurried, and eventually I read that she's onsidered
one of the fastest movers on the tour.)

"Deceptively fast" means what you say, but it feels to me
like a widespread idiomatic usage.

Post by Tony Cooper
Not all the time, though.
A football player who is deceptively hard to block is one who is
difficult to block, but appears that he would be easy to stop. If
he's deceptively easy to block, he's big and looks like he can't be
stopped, but can be easily stopped.
That's football as in the kind we play here in the US.

I don't think I've heard anyone use either of those.
"Surprisingly" would do better for both of them.
And for "fast", sometimes, though not so clearly.

[Cheetah99218]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 20:48:40 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Mark Brader

Post by a***@gmail.com
2) This exam seems deceptively easy.

"Seems deceptively" is a nonsensical combination.

Thinking further about it, I'll retract that claim. If it seems
deceptively easy, this means it is deceptively hard.

I don't see that "hard" is the opposite of "easy" all the time in this
case. A football player that is deceptively fast is a player who
faster than he appears to be to the casual observer. Nothing hard
about his running; it doesn't appear that he's as fast as he is.
Not all the time, though.
A football player who is deceptively hard to block is one who is
difficult to block, but appears that he would be easy to stop. If
he's deceptively easy to block, he's big and looks like he can't be
stopped, but can be easily stopped.
That's football as in the kind we play here in the US.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/lifestyle/health/the-cognitive-reflection-test-the-worlds-shortest-iq-test-isnt-as-easy-as-it-seems/news-story/1ff7a1718503de630a95286fc9d5d742

Relating to the subject.
FYI.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Cheetah99218
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/lifestyle/health/the-cognitive-reflection-test-the-worlds-shortest-iq-test-isnt-as-easy-as-it-seems/news-story/1ff7a1718503de630a95286fc9d5d742
Relating to the subject.
FYI.

Apparently I'm a genius. I would say, instead, that I got the correct
answers immediately because I've seen puzzles of the same kind in the past.

I see that the article is reprinted from /The Sun/ in the UK. Is The Sun
reputed to be the sort of newspaper that is read by geniuses?

If a hen and a half lays an egg and a half in a day and a half, how many
would it lay in a week? My father always claimed that the answer should
be 6, because Sunday is a day of rest.

[b***@shaw.ca]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Cheetah99218
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/lifestyle/health/the-cognitive-reflection-test-the-worlds-shortest-iq-test-isnt-as-easy-as-it-seems/news-story/1ff7a1718503de630a95286fc9d5d742
Relating to the subject.
FYI.

Apparently I'm a genius. I would say, instead, that I got the correct
answers immediately because I've seen puzzles of the same kind in the past.
I see that the article is reprinted from /The Sun/ in the UK. Is The Sun
reputed to be the sort of newspaper that is read by geniuses?

The opposite, more or less. The Sun is a scurrilous tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Post by Peter Moylan
If a hen and a half lays an egg and a half in a day and a half, how many
would it lay in a week? My father always claimed that the answer should
be 6, because Sunday is a day of rest.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Cheetah99218
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/lifestyle/health/the-cognitive-reflection-test-the-worlds-shortest-iq-test-isnt-as-easy-as-it-seems/news-story/1ff7a1718503de630a95286fc9d5d742
Relating to the subject.
FYI.

Apparently I'm a genius. I would say, instead, that I got the correct
answers immediately because I've seen puzzles of the same kind in the past.
I see that the article is reprinted from /The Sun/ in the UK. Is The Sun
reputed to be the sort of newspaper that is read by geniuses?

The opposite, more or less. The Sun is a scurrilous tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch.

It is now, but it didn't always belong to the dirty digger.

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Peter Moylan
If a hen and a half lays an egg and a half in a day and a half, how many
would it lay in a week? My father always claimed that the answer should
be 6, because Sunday is a day of rest.

[Lewis]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Cheetah99218
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/lifestyle/health/the-cognitive-reflection-test-the-worlds-shortest-iq-test-isnt-as-easy-as-it-seems/news-story/1ff7a1718503de630a95286fc9d5d742
Relating to the subject.
FYI.

Apparently I'm a genius. I would say, instead, that I got the correct
answers immediately because I've seen puzzles of the same kind in the past.
I see that the article is reprinted from /The Sun/ in the UK. Is The Sun
reputed to be the sort of newspaper that is read by geniuses?
If a hen and a half lays an egg and a half in a day and a half, how many
would it lay in a week? My father always claimed that the answer should
be 6, because Sunday is a day of rest.

The phrasing on the widget question is imprecise. I have a printer that
prints 20 pages a minutes, that does not mean that it takes a minute to
print a single page; a machine that makes 5 widgets in 5 minutes does
not necessarily take five minutes to make a single widget.

[Tak To]

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Cheetah99218
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/lifestyle/health/the-cognitive-reflection-test-the-worlds-shortest-iq-test-isnt-as-easy-as-it-seems/news-story/1ff7a1718503de630a95286fc9d5d742
Relating to the subject.
FYI.

Apparently I'm a genius. I would say, instead, that I got the correct
answers immediately because I've seen puzzles of the same kind in the past.
I see that the article is reprinted from /The Sun/ in the UK. Is The Sun
reputed to be the sort of newspaper that is read by geniuses?
If a hen and a half lays an egg and a half in a day and a half, how many
would it lay in a week? My father always claimed that the answer should
be 6, because Sunday is a day of rest.

The phrasing on the widget question is imprecise. I have a printer that
prints 20 pages a minutes, that does not mean that it takes a minute to
print a single page; a machine that makes 5 widgets in 5 minutes does
not necessarily take five minutes to make a single widget.

The phrasing of the widget question is OK; the logic of the
official explanation is not.

[Rich Ulrich]

Post by Tak To

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Cheetah99218
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/lifestyle/health/the-cognitive-reflection-test-the-worlds-shortest-iq-test-isnt-as-easy-as-it-seems/news-story/1ff7a1718503de630a95286fc9d5d742
Relating to the subject.
FYI.

Apparently I'm a genius. I would say, instead, that I got the correct
answers immediately because I've seen puzzles of the same kind in the past.
I see that the article is reprinted from /The Sun/ in the UK. Is The Sun
reputed to be the sort of newspaper that is read by geniuses?
If a hen and a half lays an egg and a half in a day and a half, how many
would it lay in a week? My father always claimed that the answer should
be 6, because Sunday is a day of rest.

The phrasing on the widget question is imprecise. I have a printer that
prints 20 pages a minutes, that does not mean that it takes a minute to
print a single page; a machine that makes 5 widgets in 5 minutes does
not necessarily take five minutes to make a single widget.

The phrasing of the widget question is OK; the logic of the
official explanation is not.

By the way, the third question (When do the lilies fill the pond
half-way?) illustrates that "IQ tests" measure the willingness to
ignore the real world and answer while making nonsensical assumptions.
Coverage of a real lily pond will tend to follow a "logistic" curve,
which has exponential-growth-within-bounds, rather than
exponential-growth. Some people know that from experience.

This was not a question asked in Lurie's study of illiterate
Russian peasants - but there were various questions that they
did not want to /start/ to answer because they would argue
"That would never happen", etc.

The willingness to argue from abstractions is valued in modern
college or graduate school education. That is one reason why
IQ testing has relevance there.

I think that certain tests ike the one the State Department uses
to screen employees lean more on knowledge of the real world.
I could imagine that for law school, too, but I don't know what
the LSAT tests.

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Rich Ulrich
By the way, the third question (When do the lilies fill the pond
half-way?) [...]

We were asked that question at school when I was 8 years old. I set
about doubling from 1, with the idea that I would see what I got to
after N days (it was 30 in the version we were set), then see how many
days it took to get to half that. I had only got to about 20 by the
end of the lesson.

There was a Fields-medallist-to-be in the class with me. Naturally he
solved it in no time. Probably because he was a year older than me :-)

-- Richard

[Tak To]

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Tak To

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Cheetah99218
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/lifestyle/health/the-cognitive-reflection-test-the-worlds-shortest-iq-test-isnt-as-easy-as-it-seems/news-story/1ff7a1718503de630a95286fc9d5d742
Relating to the subject.
FYI.

Apparently I'm a genius. I would say, instead, that I got the correct
answers immediately because I've seen puzzles of the same kind in the past.
I see that the article is reprinted from /The Sun/ in the UK. Is The Sun
reputed to be the sort of newspaper that is read by geniuses?
If a hen and a half lays an egg and a half in a day and a half, how many
would it lay in a week? My father always claimed that the answer should
be 6, because Sunday is a day of rest.

The phrasing on the widget question is imprecise. I have a printer that
prints 20 pages a minutes, that does not mean that it takes a minute to
print a single page; a machine that makes 5 widgets in 5 minutes does
not necessarily take five minutes to make a single widget.

The phrasing of the widget question is OK; the logic of the
official explanation is not.

By the way, the third question (When do the lilies fill the pond
half-way?) illustrates that "IQ tests" measure the willingness to
ignore the real world and answer while making nonsensical assumptions.
Coverage of a real lily pond will tend to follow a "logistic" curve,
which has exponential-growth-within-bounds, rather than
exponential-growth. Some people know that from experience.
This was not a question asked in Lurie's study of illiterate
Russian peasants - but there were various questions that they
did not want to /start/ to answer because they would argue
"That would never happen", etc.
The willingness to argue from abstractions is valued in modern
college or graduate school education. That is one reason why
IQ testing has relevance there.
I think that certain tests ike the one the State Department uses
to screen employees lean more on knowledge of the real world.
I could imagine that for law school, too, but I don't know what
the LSAT tests.

According to the Law School Admissions Council, it is (a) Reading
Comprehension, (b) Analytical Reasoning, (c) Logical Reasoning[*].
A writing sample is also required.
https://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source/jd-docs/sampleptjune.pdf

[*] And the first question the logician in me asked was, "What is
the difference between (b) and (c)?"

[Rich Ulrich]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 12:35:35 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
wrote:

me >

Post by Tak To

Post by Rich Ulrich
By the way, the third question (When do the lilies fill the pond
half-way?) illustrates that "IQ tests" measure the willingness to
ignore the real world and answer while making nonsensical assumptions.
Coverage of a real lily pond will tend to follow a "logistic" curve,
which has exponential-growth-within-bounds, rather than
exponential-growth. Some people know that from experience.
This was not a question asked in Lurie's study of illiterate
Russian peasants - but there were various questions that they
did not want to /start/ to answer because they would argue
"That would never happen", etc.
The willingness to argue from abstractions is valued in modern
college or graduate school education. That is one reason why
IQ testing has relevance there.
I think that certain tests ike the one the State Department uses
to screen employees lean more on knowledge of the real world.
I could imagine that for law school, too, but I don't know what
the LSAT tests.

According to the Law School Admissions Council, it is (a) Reading
Comprehension, (b) Analytical Reasoning, (c) Logical Reasoning[*].
A writing sample is also required.
https://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source/jd-docs/sampleptjune.pdf
[*] And the first question the logician in me asked was, "What is
the difference between (b) and (c)?"

I'm pretty sure that (c) logical reasoning is what is tested by
Raven's Progressive Matrices. Bright subjects with Asperger's
syndrome may do superbly on Raven's while doing very poorly
on critical reading or critical reasoning. I think that Miller's
Analogies tests that facet, and I suppose that it might be called
"analytical reasoning".

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Tak To

Post by Rich Ulrich
I think that certain tests ike the one the State Department uses
to screen employees lean more on knowledge of the real world.
I could imagine that for law school, too, but I don't know what
the LSAT tests.

According to the Law School Admissions Council, it is (a) Reading
Comprehension, (b) Analytical Reasoning, (c) Logical Reasoning[*].
A writing sample is also required.
https://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source/jd-docs/sampleptjune.pdf
[*] And the first question the logician in me asked was, "What is
the difference between (b) and (c)?"

I have always found it interesting that the topic of "logic", as studied
in application areas like computer science and engineering and
philosophy and mathematics, is a foundation for different and apparently
unrelated applications in those areas, but ends up being consistent
between areas of study. For example, someone who has studied digital
circuit design would be quite at home with "logic" as taught in a
philosophy department. Everyone in all of those areas is in full
agreement as to what a logical chain of reasoning is, and the difference
between valid and invalid application of logical propositions.

What is not yet clear to me is whether lawyers have yet joined that
club. Is logic in law consistent with logic in other areas, or is the
law still an ass? I have certainly seen examples of legal reasoning that
didn't make sense to me.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 12:20:31 +1000, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tak To

Post by Rich Ulrich
I think that certain tests ike the one the State Department uses
to screen employees lean more on knowledge of the real world.
I could imagine that for law school, too, but I don't know what
the LSAT tests.

According to the Law School Admissions Council, it is (a) Reading
Comprehension, (b) Analytical Reasoning, (c) Logical Reasoning[*].
A writing sample is also required.
https://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source/jd-docs/sampleptjune.pdf
[*] And the first question the logician in me asked was, "What is
the difference between (b) and (c)?"

I have always found it interesting that the topic of "logic", as studied
in application areas like computer science and engineering and
philosophy and mathematics, is a foundation for different and apparently
unrelated applications in those areas, but ends up being consistent
between areas of study. For example, someone who has studied digital
circuit design would be quite at home with "logic" as taught in a
philosophy department. Everyone in all of those areas is in full
agreement as to what a logical chain of reasoning is, and the difference
between valid and invalid application of logical propositions.
What is not yet clear to me is whether lawyers have yet joined that
club. Is logic in law consistent with logic in other areas, or is the
law still an ass? I have certainly seen examples of legal reasoning that
didn't make sense to me.

I left high school civics imagining that "legal reasoning" followed
easy logic. It did take a few years before I was disabused of that
idea. (That's not even accounting for paid-off judges.)

Yesterday's paper reported that the Nobel Prize in Economics
this year goes to a fellow who has successfully modified some of
the assumptions that economics is driven by "rational decisions".
I think that legal reasoning suffers some the the same shortcomings.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2017/10/2017-nobel-prizes
Mr Thaler developed a theory of mental accounting, which explains
how people making financial decisions look only at the narrow effect
of individual decisions rather than the whole effect. (Indeed, he is
one of the founders of the sub-discipline of behavioural finance.)
The Nobel committee also highlighted Mr Thaler’s research on
self-control, that is, the tension between long-term planning and
short-term temptations.

That "narrow effect" vs "whole effect" works in both directions for
the US Supreme Court, I think. Solving a narrow issue can lead
to outrageous long-term consequences; but it may also be a mistake
to base an unlikely-seeming decsion on some (unlikely) imagined
consequence. Different people have different assumptions about
how the world works.

Also, what "constitution" do they argue from --
For the US Supreme Court, Scalia complained that there was not
any logic to gay marriage - but he never accepted the "unalienable
rights" expressed in Declaration of Independence, of equality, and
of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If I accepted that the
background philosophy of the Constitution /ought/ to be the
stoic acceptance of inequalities which was general in 18th century
England, then I think I would have to accept the rest of his logic.

[Lewis]

Post by Rich Ulrich
On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 12:20:31 +1000, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tak To

Post by Rich Ulrich
I think that certain tests ike the one the State Department uses
to screen employees lean more on knowledge of the real world.
I could imagine that for law school, too, but I don't know what
the LSAT tests.

According to the Law School Admissions Council, it is (a) Reading
Comprehension, (b) Analytical Reasoning, (c) Logical Reasoning[*].
A writing sample is also required.
https://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source/jd-docs/sampleptjune.pdf
[*] And the first question the logician in me asked was, "What is
the difference between (b) and (c)?"

I have always found it interesting that the topic of "logic", as studied
in application areas like computer science and engineering and
philosophy and mathematics, is a foundation for different and apparently
unrelated applications in those areas, but ends up being consistent
between areas of study. For example, someone who has studied digital
circuit design would be quite at home with "logic" as taught in a
philosophy department. Everyone in all of those areas is in full
agreement as to what a logical chain of reasoning is, and the difference
between valid and invalid application of logical propositions.
What is not yet clear to me is whether lawyers have yet joined that
club. Is logic in law consistent with logic in other areas, or is the
law still an ass? I have certainly seen examples of legal reasoning that
didn't make sense to me.

I left high school civics imagining that "legal reasoning" followed
easy logic. It did take a few years before I was disabused of that
idea. (That's not even accounting for paid-off judges.)
Yesterday's paper reported that the Nobel Prize in Economics
this year goes to a fellow who has successfully modified some of
the assumptions that economics is driven by "rational decisions".
I think that legal reasoning suffers some the the same shortcomings.
https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2017/10/2017-nobel-prizes
Mr Thaler developed a theory of mental accounting, which explains
how people making financial decisions look only at the narrow effect
of individual decisions rather than the whole effect. (Indeed, he is
one of the founders of the sub-discipline of behavioural finance.)
The Nobel committee also highlighted Mr Thaler’s research on
self-control, that is, the tension between long-term planning and
short-term temptations.

This sounds similar to the results of the following experiment:

Group A gets to flip a coin and if they call the right result, they win
a dollar (are whatever local BUC) and if they don't, they don't win
anything.

Group B gets given 50¢ (Half a BUC) each and flips a coin, if they call
the right result, they get another 50¢, but if they don't, they have to
give the 50¢ back.

Group A is happier with the results, win of lose. The people in Group B
who "lose" feel like they lost 50¢ and are much less happy about the
results.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Peter Moylan
For example, someone who has studied digital
circuit design would be quite at home with "logic" as taught in a
philosophy department.

[Peter Moylan]

For example, someone who has studied digital circuit design would
be quite at home with "logic" as taught in a philosophy
department.

[Sorry about the false start. I hit the wrong button.]

On re-reading that, I have just noticed the connection with another
thread, in the use of the word "circuit".

Electrical circuits are called circuits because of the charge
preservation property that says that currents must travel in a loop and
return to their starting point. This is consistent with the origin of
the word (Latin circuitus), and consistent with the way the word
"circuit" is used elsewhere in English, whether we are talking about
race tracks, circuit judges, etc.

As a consequence we find it normal to talk about electrical circuit
theory and circuit diagrams, and the wiring circuits in house wiring.

The notion fails, in a sense, when we start talking about digital
circuits. Of course the underlying truth is that all currents must have
a return path, but that underlying detail is not shown on digital
circuit diagrams. There are no loops in digital circuits, except in
those cases where we deliberately use feedback to give the circuit memory.

Nevertheless, we continue to use the word "circuit" when talking about
an electronic implementation of digital logic. Tradition has turned out
to be more influential than etymology.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 12:17:17 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Cheetah99218
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/lifestyle/health/the-cognitive-reflection-test-the-worlds-shortest-iq-test-isnt-as-easy-as-it-seems/news-story/1ff7a1718503de630a95286fc9d5d742
Relating to the subject.
FYI.

Apparently I'm a genius. I would say, instead, that I got the correct
answers immediately because I've seen puzzles of the same kind in the past.
I see that the article is reprinted from /The Sun/ in the UK. Is The Sun
reputed to be the sort of newspaper that is read by geniuses?
If a hen and a half lays an egg and a half in a day and a half, how many
would it lay in a week? My father always claimed that the answer should
be 6, because Sunday is a day of rest.

The phrasing on the widget question is imprecise. I have a printer that
prints 20 pages a minutes, that does not mean that it takes a minute to
print a single page; a machine that makes 5 widgets in 5 minutes does
not necessarily take five minutes to make a single widget.

The short form of the answer only requires that you
replicate the original 5 machines 20 times. Thus, your
suggested complexity does not present a problem or
ambiguity.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Mark Brader
Thinking further about it, I'll retract that claim. If it seems
deceptively easy, this means it is deceptively hard.

I don't see that "hard" is the opposite of "easy" all the time in this
case. A football player that is deceptively fast is a player who
faster than he appears to be to the casual observer. Nothing hard
about his running; it doesn't appear that he's as fast as he is.
Not all the time, though.
A football player who is deceptively hard to block is one who is
difficult to block, but appears that he would be easy to stop. If
he's deceptively easy to block, he's big and looks like he can't be
stopped, but can be easily stopped.
That's football as in the kind we play here in the US.

A deceptively easy question is one like "How many of each animal did Moses take on the Ark?"

[charles]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Mark Brader
Thinking further about it, I'll retract that claim. If it seems
deceptively easy, this means it is deceptively hard.

I don't see that "hard" is the opposite of "easy" all the time in this
case. A football player that is deceptively fast is a player who
faster than he appears to be to the casual observer. Nothing hard
about his running; it doesn't appear that he's as fast as he is.
Not all the time, though.
A football player who is deceptively hard to block is one who is
difficult to block, but appears that he would be easy to stop. If he's
deceptively easy to block, he's big and looks like he can't be stopped,
but can be easily stopped.
That's football as in the kind we play here in the US.

A deceptively easy question is one like "How many of each animal did
Moses take on the Ark?"

his great, great,,,,grandfather forgot the unicorns.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by charles

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Mark Brader
Thinking further about it, I'll retract that claim. If it seems
deceptively easy, this means it is deceptively hard.

I don't see that "hard" is the opposite of "easy" all the time in this
case. A football player that is deceptively fast is a player who
faster than he appears to be to the casual observer. Nothing hard
about his running; it doesn't appear that he's as fast as he is.
Not all the time, though.
A football player who is deceptively hard to block is one who is
difficult to block, but appears that he would be easy to stop. If he's
deceptively easy to block, he's big and looks like he can't be stopped,
but can be easily stopped.
That's football as in the kind we play here in the US.

A deceptively easy question is one like "How many of each animal did
Moses take on the Ark?"

his great, great,,,,grandfather forgot the unicorns.

Maybe not ... a cartoon in a very early number of *Christopher Street* showed the parade of animals lined up to board, and one unicorn says to the other
unicorn, "We won't tell them we're gay, okay?"

[Rich Ulrich]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 06:03:55 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Mark Brader
Thinking further about it, I'll retract that claim. If it seems
deceptively easy, this means it is deceptively hard.

I don't see that "hard" is the opposite of "easy" all the time in this
case. A football player that is deceptively fast is a player who
faster than he appears to be to the casual observer. Nothing hard
about his running; it doesn't appear that he's as fast as he is.
Not all the time, though.
A football player who is deceptively hard to block is one who is
difficult to block, but appears that he would be easy to stop. If
he's deceptively easy to block, he's big and looks like he can't be
stopped, but can be easily stopped.
That's football as in the kind we play here in the US.

A deceptively easy question is one like "How many of each animal did Moses take on the Ark?"

I think I call it a deceptive, easy question.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Rich Ulrich
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 06:03:55 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels
A deceptively easy question is one like "How many of each animal did Moses take on the Ark?"

I think I call it a deceptive, easy question.

It's not easy until you see through the deception. Most people get the
wrong answer, in my experience.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 12:23:10 +1000, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Rich Ulrich
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 06:03:55 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels
A deceptively easy question is one like "How many of each animal did Moses take on the Ark?"

I think I call it a deceptive, easy question.

It's not easy until you see through the deception. Most people get the
wrong answer, in my experience.

No matter whether they get it wrong, folks find it "easy".

I think that we are speaking of easy-ness by two different
definitions, or, maybe, at two different "levels"
- how hard you work;
- how often you are wrong.

Now I am thinking... If you are warned that a test looks
easy but it includes a bunch of "trick" questions mixed in with
simple ones, you may spend a lot of time trying to make
sure that you don't miss any tricks. That could make the
"easy" questions harder (more time-consuming) than the
trick questions where you quickly spot the trick.

[Richard Tobin]

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) This exam is deceptively easy.
Does that mean that it is really hard?
Or that it is easy but looks hard?
2) This exam seems deceptively easy.

It's used so inconsistently that it doesn't reliably convey anything
unless the reader already knows what you want to say.

-- Richard

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) This exam is deceptively easy.
Does that mean that it is really hard?
Or that it is easy but looks hard?
2) This exam seems deceptively easy.

It's used so inconsistently that it doesn't reliably convey anything
unless the reader already knows what you want to say.

Yes. I agree with that more than I agree with what Mark said.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:54:01 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) This exam is deceptively easy.
Does that mean that it is really hard?
Or that it is easy but looks hard?
2) This exam seems deceptively easy.

It's used so inconsistently that it doesn't reliably convey anything
unless the reader already knows what you want to say.

Yes. I agree with that more than I agree with what Mark said.

ODO says:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/deceptively

deceptively
adverb

usually as submodifier In a way or to an extent that gives a
misleading impression; to a lesser or greater extent than appears
the case.
‘the idea was deceptively simple’
‘the airy and deceptively spacious lounge’

Usage

Deceptively belongs to a very small set of words whose meaning is
genuinely ambiguous. It can be used in similar contexts to mean both
one thing and also its complete opposite. A deceptively smooth
surface is one which appears smooth but in fact is not smooth at
all, while a deceptively spacious room is one that does not look
spacious but is in fact more spacious than it appears. But what is a
deceptively steep gradient? Or a person who is described as
deceptively strong? To avoid confusion, it is probably best to
reword and not to use deceptively in such contexts at all

[Peeler]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/deceptively
deceptively
adverb
usually as submodifier In a way or to an extent that gives a
misleading impression; to a lesser or greater extent than appears
the case.
‘the idea was deceptively simple’
‘the airy and deceptively spacious lounge’
Usage
Deceptively belongs to a very small set of words whose meaning is
genuinely ambiguous. It can be used in similar contexts to mean both
one thing and also its complete opposite. A deceptively smooth
surface is one which appears smooth but in fact is not smooth at
all, while a deceptively spacious room is one that does not look
spacious but is in fact more spacious than it appears. But what is a
deceptively steep gradient? Or a person who is described as
deceptively strong? To avoid confusion, it is probably best to
reword and not to use deceptively in such contexts at all

I don't agree with the writer's interpretation of the last examples at all.

To my understanding a "deceptively spacious room" can ONLY be a room that
appears to be spacious (large) but isn't (e.g. because it has lots of
mirrors in it).

A "deceptively steep gradient" is a gradient that appears to be steep but
isn't (because e.g. of an optical illusion).

This writer obviously interprets "steep" and "spacious" to be neutral terms
which they aren't. Spacious means "having a large amount of space" and steep
means "having a sharp slope". (space by itself would be neutral; gradient,
too, but neither spacious nor steep is neutral)

A "deceptively strong person" is a person who appears (e.g. because
he's fat or because of his demeanour) to be strong but isn't. No ambiguity
there, as "strong" isn't neutral either.

The deception in such constructs is in the eye of the beholder not inherent
in the object or person and are corrected by facts (later).

[Rich Ulrich]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:09:09 +0200, Peeler

Post by Peeler

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/deceptively
deceptively
adverb
usually as submodifier In a way or to an extent that gives a
misleading impression; to a lesser or greater extent than appears
the case.
‘the idea was deceptively simple’
‘the airy and deceptively spacious lounge’
Usage
Deceptively belongs to a very small set of words whose meaning is
genuinely ambiguous. It can be used in similar contexts to mean both
one thing and also its complete opposite. A deceptively smooth
surface is one which appears smooth but in fact is not smooth at
all, while a deceptively spacious room is one that does not look
spacious but is in fact more spacious than it appears. But what is a
deceptively steep gradient? Or a person who is described as
deceptively strong? To avoid confusion, it is probably best to
reword and not to use deceptively in such contexts at all

I don't agree with the writer's interpretation of the last examples at all.
To my understanding a "deceptively spacious room" can ONLY be a room that
appears to be spacious (large) but isn't (e.g. because it has lots of
mirrors in it).
A "deceptively steep gradient" is a gradient that appears to be steep but
isn't (because e.g. of an optical illusion).
This writer obviously interprets "steep" and "spacious" to be neutral terms
which they aren't. Spacious means "having a large amount of space" and steep
means "having a sharp slope". (space by itself would be neutral; gradient,
too, but neither spacious nor steep is neutral)
A "deceptively strong person" is a person who appears (e.g. because
he's fat or because of his demeanour) to be strong but isn't. No ambiguity
there, as "strong" isn't neutral either.
The deception in such constructs is in the eye of the beholder not inherent
in the object or person and are corrected by facts (later).

All of those will be unambiguous if you add "-looking" to the
comparison. Deceptively simple-looking is hard. Deceptively
smooth-looking is rough. Deceptively spacious-looking is small.

Now that I think about it, the "deceptively" fairly clearly implies
"false appearance" and I have to conclude that it should always
be taken to reverse the adjective's assertion.

[Peeler]

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Peeler

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
usually as submodifier In a way or to an extent that gives a
misleading impression; to a lesser or greater extent than appears
the case.
‘the idea was deceptively simple’
‘the airy and deceptively spacious lounge’
Usage
Deceptively belongs to a very small set of words whose meaning is
genuinely ambiguous. It can be used in similar contexts to mean both
one thing and also its complete opposite. A deceptively smooth
surface is one which appears smooth but in fact is not smooth at
all, while a deceptively spacious room is one that does not look
spacious but is in fact more spacious than it appears. But what is a
deceptively steep gradient? Or a person who is described as
deceptively strong? To avoid confusion, it is probably best to
reword and not to use deceptively in such contexts at all

I don't agree with the writer's interpretation of the last examples at all.
To my understanding a "deceptively spacious room" can ONLY be a room that
appears to be spacious (large) but isn't (e.g. because it has lots of
mirrors in it).
A "deceptively steep gradient" is a gradient that appears to be steep but
isn't (because e.g. of an optical illusion).
This writer obviously interprets "steep" and "spacious" to be neutral terms
which they aren't. Spacious means "having a large amount of space" and steep
means "having a sharp slope". (space by itself would be neutral; gradient,
too, but neither spacious nor steep is neutral)
A "deceptively strong person" is a person who appears (e.g. because
he's fat or because of his demeanour) to be strong but isn't. No ambiguity
there, as "strong" isn't neutral either.
The deception in such constructs is in the eye of the beholder not inherent
in the object or person and are corrected by facts (later).

All of those will be unambiguous if you add "-looking" to the
comparison. Deceptively simple-looking is hard. Deceptively
smooth-looking is rough. Deceptively spacious-looking is small.
Now that I think about it, the "deceptively" fairly clearly implies
"false appearance" and I have to conclude that it should always
be taken to reverse the adjective's assertion.

That's how I see it too. I don't understand the linguistic "logic" of those
who interpret it to mean something different (e.g. as was discussed on the
website Mack A. Damia cited). It's also the simplest solution and
unambiguous. Everything else appears to be too much (forced) interpretation.

An exam cannot be or look "deceptively", it can be easy or hard. But the
"easy" or "hard" in the two examples can get modified by deceptively.

from the WordNet 2.0 dictionary

deceptively
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adverb
1. in a misleading way; "the exam looked deceptively easy"
(synonym) deceivingly, misleadingly
(pertainym) deceptive, delusory

[Peeler]

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) This exam is deceptively easy.
Does that mean that it is really hard?

Definitely that one.

Post by a***@gmail.com
Or that it is easy but looks hard?

That would be: "The exam is deceptively difficult."

Post by a***@gmail.com
2) This exam seems deceptively easy.

Ridiculous made up construct. It's like a double negation.

"A deceptively shy girl": a girl who appears to be shy but really isn't, if
you get to know her closer. There's no implication that she is intentionally
"deceptive" about anything and tries to appear shy.

[Mack A. Damia]

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) This exam is deceptively easy.
Does that mean that it is really hard?
Or that it is easy but looks hard?
2) This exam seems deceptively easy.

Some trick questions are deceptively easy.

"If a plane crashed right on the border of the USA and Mexico, where
would the survivors be buried?"

"Does England have a 4th of July?"

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Mack A. Damia

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) This exam is deceptively easy.
Does that mean that it is really hard?
Or that it is easy but looks hard?
2) This exam seems deceptively easy.

Some trick questions are deceptively easy.
"If a plane crashed right on the border of the USA and Mexico, where
would the survivors be buried?"

In situ, of course,

Jan

[Mack A. Damia]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Mack A. Damia

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) This exam is deceptively easy.
Does that mean that it is really hard?
Or that it is easy but looks hard?
2) This exam seems deceptively easy.

Some trick questions are deceptively easy.
"If a plane crashed right on the border of the USA and Mexico, where
would the survivors be buried?"

In situ, of course,

I would guess in a large margarita in a cantina on Tijuana’s Avenida
Revolución.