Anyone else watch this show? I can't see how the questions are
ordered. They're supposed to be in order of difficulty, but I find
personally a pretty random distribution with some of the supposedly
hard ones really easy and vice versa. Anyone else noticed something
similar?
Incidentally, for questions of the kind posed on the show, it's
possible to train to improve your score. These are very similar the IQ
test questions and the more you do, the better you get at them over
the course of time.

On 14/04/2024 18:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> Anyone else watch this show? I can't see how the questions are
> ordered. They're supposed to be in order of difficulty, but I find
> personally a pretty random distribution with some of the supposedly
> hard ones really easy and vice versa. Anyone else noticed something
> similar?

I've not watched that show, but I noticed the same thing with Who Wants
to be a Millionaire. I often struggled with the low end questions, which
were usually based upon popular culture, but much less so with the
questions past the £1,000 mark. The question setters on that seemed to
be view anything to do with history or geography as particularly difficult.

> Incidentally, for questions of the kind posed on the show, it's
> possible to train to improve your score. These are very similar the IQ
> test questions and the more you do, the better you get at them over
> the course of time.

--
Colin Bignell

On 14/04/2024 18:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:

> Incidentally, for questions of the kind posed on the show, it's
> possible to train to improve your score. These are very similar the IQ
> test questions and the more you do, the better you get at them over
> the course of time.

+1
It seems for some questions part of the trick is just recognising the
type of question which must be common place in IQ tests or perhaps in
puzzle books etc.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 4/14/2024 3:22 PM, alan_m wrote:
> On 14/04/2024 18:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, for questions of the kind posed on the show, it's
>> possible to train to improve your score. These are very similar the IQ
>> test questions and the more you do, the better you get at them over
>> the course of time.
>
> +1
> It seems for some questions part of the trick is just recognising the
> type of question which must be common place in IQ tests or perhaps in puzzle books etc.
>

There were IQ test books, and we practiced on a few before
the school delivered IQ tests. In the book store, these
were in the same section as the Harlequin Romance novels.
Printed on quality recycled paper.

The purpose of the test book, is to understand the canonical
form of the question. "Herring is to Whale, as Apple is to: Watermelon",
you know, silly proportionality questions. Then, when you're in the
real test, these don't seem so bizarre.

From our little study, of the effectiveness of "practicing",
we estimated from our test results that we could boost
our number by ten points or so. Which in the scheme of
things, will not cure cancer or ensure a "higher station in society".
Maybe your slop pail would be bigger and hold more brown water.
Based on your IQ results.

*******

The other style of quiz, is Trivial Pursuit type. We had a
team in school, which competed with other schools, on television.
I was on the backup team (which means I never got called up
and I didn't bother practicing because I knew what would happen
-- after all, "I have track team experience").

Our star guy there, he became an art expert over night.
He was given a stack of art books around a foot thick.
And in around three or four days, we would flash him
a small version of an artwork, and he would say "Modigliani"
or "Rafael". When that guy became a medical doctor, I bet
he didn't pay for his copy of Grays Anatomy, instead choosing
to just go to the uni book store and "memorize it". That is
one doctor, if you show him a rash, he knows right away,
what that is. "Rafael".

Paul

On 15/04/2024 06:52, Paul wrote:
....
> From our little study, of the effectiveness of "practicing",
> we estimated from our test results that we could boost
> our number by ten points or so. ...

In the days of the 11+, which was essentially an IQ test aimed at
channelling the top 20% into Grammar School, the estimate for the
improvement from studying old exams was nearer five points. Enough to
make a difference for those who were marginal cases, but either not
needed or not worth the effort for most pupils.

--
Colin Bignell

On 14/04/2024 18:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> Anyone else watch this show? I can't see how the questions are
> ordered. They're supposed to be in order of difficulty, but I find
> personally a pretty random distribution with some of the supposedly
> hard ones really easy and vice versa. Anyone else noticed something
> similar?
> Incidentally, for questions of the kind posed on the show, it's
> possible to train to improve your score. These are very similar the IQ
> test questions and the more you do, the better you get at them over
> the course of time.
>

+1
The questions seem to have got easier as each series progresses. That's
not my brain being trained. Anyone who does crosswords can normally spot
an anagram or word puzzles eg clodogver (dog in clover).
The £50k to £80k questions seem to be the easiest.
I've only ever answered the £100,000 question once.

--
Regards
wasbit

On 4/15/2024 3:09 AM, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 15/04/2024 06:52, Paul wrote:
> ...
>>  From our little study, of the effectiveness of "practicing",
>> we estimated from our test results that we could boost
>> our number by ten points or so. ...
>
> In the days of the 11+, which was essentially an IQ test aimed at channelling the top 20% into Grammar School, the estimate for the improvement from studying old exams was nearer five points. Enough to make a difference for those who were marginal cases, but either not needed or not worth the effort for most pupils.
>

You can have an "off day" going into a quiz, and that will
likely swamp out other effects.

That's one reason why I don't particular agree with the
notion of making administrative decisions based on the result.
"Being quizzed once, then put into the slow lane"

If you're going to use IQ tests in that way, maybe they should
randomly be conducted once a year, so there is a graph to
look at. The error bars on those numbers, are too large
to use for decisions based on one quiz. One of the problems
with that, is IQ tests come from an outside body, and they
cost money.

"The cost of an IQ test ranges from free to as much as $200,
depending on who administers the test."

That explains why the scheme is not conducted properly.

Paul

In message <uvirgd$700j$1@dont-email.me>, wasbit <wasbit@nowhere.com>
writes
>On 14/04/2024 18:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> Anyone else watch this show? I can't see how the questions are
>> ordered. They're supposed to be in order of difficulty, but I find
>> personally a pretty random distribution with some of the supposedly
>> hard ones really easy and vice versa. Anyone else noticed something
>> similar?
>> Incidentally, for questions of the kind posed on the show, it's
>> possible to train to improve your score. These are very similar the IQ
>> test questions and the more you do, the better you get at them over
>> the course of time.
>>
>
>+1
>The questions seem to have got easier as each series progresses. That's
>not my brain being trained. Anyone who does crosswords can normally
>spot an anagram or word puzzles eg clodogver (dog in clover).
>The £50k to £80k questions seem to be the easiest.
>I've only ever answered the £100,000 question once.

Don't know about *mind training* but I find answers to crosswords can
come unexpectedly when re-visited after several days. Has the mind been
busy or simply using a fresh set of parameters.

Sad to say, I also cheat! The Chambers Crossword Dictionary is a huge
help with clear instructions on spotting compositors *mis-direction* and
lists of alternative words with similar meanings.
>

--
Tim Lamb

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:09:53 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:

> On 15/04/2024 06:52, Paul wrote:
> ...
>> From our little study, of the effectiveness of "practicing",
>> we estimated from our test results that we could boost our number by
>> ten points or so. ...
>
> In the days of the 11+, which was essentially an IQ test aimed at
> channelling the top 20% into Grammar School, the estimate for the
> improvement from studying old exams was nearer five points. Enough to
> make a difference for those who were marginal cases, but either not
> needed or not worth the effort for most pupils.

And that still happens in some parts of the country.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 15/04/2024 08:09, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 15/04/2024 06:52, Paul wrote:
> ...
>>  From our little study, of the effectiveness of "practicing",
>> we estimated from our test results that we could boost
>> our number by ten points or so. ...
>
> In the days of the 11+, which was essentially an IQ test aimed at
> channelling the top 20% into Grammar School, the estimate for the
> improvement from studying old exams was nearer five points. Enough to
> make a difference for those who were marginal cases, but either not
> needed or not worth the effort for most pupils.

Yes, we had 100 homework questions a week to complete from a book (Top
10 Metric Mental) to prepare us for the 11+. The stress and anguish
every week was hellish - the exams themselves (there were 3, but only 1
was the real one, IIRC) were no worry at all.

Another difference from today was that each week our score out of 100
was compared to the previous week's. The same or higher score was fine,
but a lower score resulted in boys whacked on the backside with a
table-tennis bat, the same number of times as the dropped marks and for
girls it was a wooden ruler across the palm of the hand.

We also had separate classes, for a chosen few, to prepare for exams for
Manchester Grammar and William Hulme (for the boys, I've forgotten which
schools for the girls), both fee paying schools at the time. Having
passed for Manchester Grammar, although I'd already decided not to go
there, I didn't have the stress of waiting for the 11+ results. On the
morning that the letter arrived, my mother shouted up to me and I just
went back to sleep for another hour, before coming to look.

On 15/04/2024 12:03, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:09:53 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
>
>> On 15/04/2024 06:52, Paul wrote:
>> ...
>>> From our little study, of the effectiveness of "practicing",
>>> we estimated from our test results that we could boost our number by
>>> ten points or so. ...
>>
>> In the days of the 11+, which was essentially an IQ test aimed at
>> channelling the top 20% into Grammar School, the estimate for the
>> improvement from studying old exams was nearer five points. Enough to
>> make a difference for those who were marginal cases, but either not
>> needed or not worth the effort for most pupils.
>
> And that still happens in some parts of the country.

We still have the 11_ here.

I do wonder whether it is actually a good thing for all, as, perhaps in
competition with the Grammars, the whole school system regularly
outperforms other areas of the country.

On 14/04/2024 19:49, Colin Bignell wrote:

> I've not watched that show, but I noticed the same thing with Who Wants
> to be a Millionaire. I often struggled with the low end questions, which
> were usually based upon popular culture, but much less so with the
> questions past the £1,000 mark. The question setters on that seemed to
> be view anything to do with history or geography as particularly difficult.

There is a radio show I listen to (Boogie in the morning on radio Forth)
in the car this has a quiz section (2K minute ) I usually get the
history/geography /general knowledge questions correct but then they ask
the 'easy' questions who won this weeks Xfactor or what show is Tina
Hobbly known for and I haven't a clue.

On 15/04/2024 12:12, SteveW wrote:
> On 15/04/2024 12:03, Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:09:53 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/04/2024 06:52, Paul wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>   From our little study, of the effectiveness of "practicing",
>>>> we estimated from our test results that we could boost our number by
>>>> ten points or so. ...
>>>
>>> In the days of the 11+, which was essentially an IQ test aimed at
>>> channelling the top 20% into Grammar School, the estimate for the
>>> improvement from studying old exams was nearer five points. Enough to
>>> make a difference for those who were marginal cases, but either not
>>> needed or not worth the effort for most pupils.
>>
>> And that still happens in some parts of the country.
>
> We still have the 11_ here.
>
> I do wonder whether it is actually a good thing for all, as, perhaps in
> competition with the Grammars, the whole school system regularly
> outperforms other areas of the country.
>

When the state abandoned the Grammar School system, those took 20% and
universities took around 5% of the population. With the current target
being to get 50% into higher educations, I am not sure there is much
point in segregating the top 20% any more.

--
Colin Bignell

In message <7P-cnVr7gM79wYD7nZ2dnZeNn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Colin
Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> writes
>On 15/04/2024 12:12, SteveW wrote:
>> On 15/04/2024 12:03, Bob Eager wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:09:53 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/04/2024 06:52, Paul wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>   From our little study, of the effectiveness of "practicing",
>>>>> we estimated from our test results that we could boost our number by
>>>>> ten points or so. ...
>>>>
>>>> In the days of the 11+, which was essentially an IQ test aimed at
>>>> channelling the top 20% into Grammar School, the estimate for the
>>>> improvement from studying old exams was nearer five points. Enough to
>>>> make a difference for those who were marginal cases, but either not
>>>> needed or not worth the effort for most pupils.
>>>
>>> And that still happens in some parts of the country.
>> We still have the 11_ here.
>> I do wonder whether it is actually a good thing for all, as, perhaps
>>in competition with the Grammars, the whole school system regularly
>>outperforms other areas of the country.
>>
>
>When the state abandoned the Grammar School system, those took 20% and
>universities took around 5% of the population. With the current target
>being to get 50% into higher educations, I am not sure there is much
>point in segregating the top 20% any more.

My County Grammar proudly displayed the names of those 6th. formers
passing the entrance exams for Oxford/Cambridge.
Usually in the very low single figures. Perhaps a reflection of current
standards in education considering the annual intake of around 100 11+
first formers in the mid 1950's.
>

--
Tim Lamb

In message <iMCcnfSvk9rqT4H7nZ2dnZeNn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Colin
Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> writes
>On 15/04/2024 06:52, Paul wrote:
>...
>> From our little study, of the effectiveness of "practicing",
>> we estimated from our test results that we could boost
>> our number by ten points or so. ...
>
>In the days of the 11+, which was essentially an IQ test aimed at
>channelling the top 20% into Grammar School, the estimate for the
>improvement from studying old exams was nearer five points. Enough to
>make a difference for those who were marginal cases, but either not
>needed or not worth the effort for most pupils.
>

When I was in the lower 6th at school, a few of us did the Statistics
O-Level (good old GCE in those days), over one year, rather than two.
We spent the first half of the year doing it as normal lessons, then
spent the rest of the year working our way through the schools library
of past exam papers. Everyone passed with either an A or a B.

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "diy" with "news" and reverse the domain

If you are reading this from a web interface eg DIY Banter,
DIY Forum or Google Groups, please be aware this is NOT a forum, and
you are merely using a web portal to a USENET group. Many people block
posters coming from web portals due to perceieved SPAM or inaneness.
For a better method of access, please see:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 15/04/2024 19:06, Adrian wrote:
> In message <iMCcnfSvk9rqT4H7nZ2dnZeNn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Colin
> Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> writes
>> On 15/04/2024 06:52, Paul wrote:
>> ...
>>>  From our little study, of the effectiveness of "practicing",
>>> we estimated from our test results that we could boost
>>> our number by ten points or so. ...
>>
>> In the days of the 11+, which was essentially an IQ test aimed at
>> channelling the top 20% into Grammar School, the estimate for the
>> improvement from studying old exams was nearer five points. Enough to
>> make a difference for those who were marginal cases, but either not
>> needed or not worth the effort for most pupils.
>>
>
> When I was in the lower 6th at school, a few of us did the Statistics
> O-Level (good old GCE in those days), over one year, rather than two. We
> spent the first half of the year doing it as normal lessons, then spent
> the rest of the year working our way through the schools library of past
> exam papers.  Everyone passed with either an A or a B.

However, those are tests of knowledge, rather than IQ tests. You can
expand your knowledge but the scope for increasing your IQ is limited.

--
Colin Bignell

On 15/04/2024 18:43, Tim Lamb wrote:
> In message <7P-cnVr7gM79wYD7nZ2dnZeNn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Colin
> Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> writes
>> On 15/04/2024 12:12, SteveW wrote:
>>> On 15/04/2024 12:03, Bob Eager wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:09:53 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15/04/2024 06:52, Paul wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>   From our little study, of the effectiveness of "practicing",
>>>>>> we estimated from our test results that we could boost our number by
>>>>>> ten points or so. ...
>>>>>
>>>>> In the days of the 11+, which was essentially an IQ test aimed at
>>>>> channelling the top 20% into Grammar School, the estimate for the
>>>>> improvement from studying old exams was nearer five points. Enough to
>>>>> make a difference for those who were marginal cases, but either not
>>>>> needed or not worth the effort for most pupils.
>>>>
>>>> And that still happens in some parts of the country.
>>>  We still have the 11_ here.
>>>  I do wonder whether it is actually a good thing for all, as, perhaps
>>> in  competition with the Grammars, the whole school system regularly
>>> outperforms other areas of the country.
>>>
>>
>> When the state abandoned the Grammar School system, those took 20% and
>> universities took around 5% of the population. With the current target
>> being to get 50% into higher educations, I am not sure there is much
>> point in segregating the top 20% any more.
>
> My County Grammar proudly displayed the names of those 6th. formers
> passing the entrance exams for Oxford/Cambridge.
> Usually in the very low single figures. Perhaps a reflection of current
> standards in education considering the annual intake of around 100 11+
> first formers in the mid 1950's.

I remember a total of 11 pupils winning open exhibition scholarships
being announced in assembly one year, because the headmaster was proud
that a state Grammar School could get such an unusually high number.

--
Colin Bignell

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 02:57:35 +1000, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

> On 15/04/2024 12:12, SteveW wrote:
>> On 15/04/2024 12:03, Bob Eager wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:09:53 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/04/2024 06:52, Paul wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> From our little study, of the effectiveness of "practicing",
>>>>> we estimated from our test results that we could boost our number by
>>>>> ten points or so. ...
>>>>
>>>> In the days of the 11+, which was essentially an IQ test aimed at
>>>> channelling the top 20% into Grammar School, the estimate for the
>>>> improvement from studying old exams was nearer five points. Enough to
>>>> make a difference for those who were marginal cases, but either not
>>>> needed or not worth the effort for most pupils.
>>>
>>> And that still happens in some parts of the country.
>> We still have the 11_ here.
>> I do wonder whether it is actually a good thing for all, as, perhaps
>> in competition with the Grammars, the whole school system regularly
>> outperforms other areas of the country.
>>
>
> When the state abandoned the Grammar School system, those took 20% and
> universities took around 5% of the population. With the current target
> being to get 50% into higher educations, I am not sure there is much
> point in segregating the top 20% any more.

Still no point in the dregs going to higher education
and dropping out when they can't handle it.

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 04:33:17 +1000, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

> On 15/04/2024 18:43, Tim Lamb wrote:
>> In message <7P-cnVr7gM79wYD7nZ2dnZeNn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Colin
>> Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> writes
>>> On 15/04/2024 12:12, SteveW wrote:
>>>> On 15/04/2024 12:03, Bob Eager wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:09:53 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15/04/2024 06:52, Paul wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> From our little study, of the effectiveness of "practicing",
>>>>>>> we estimated from our test results that we could boost our number
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>> ten points or so. ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the days of the 11+, which was essentially an IQ test aimed at
>>>>>> channelling the top 20% into Grammar School, the estimate for the
>>>>>> improvement from studying old exams was nearer five points. Enough
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> make a difference for those who were marginal cases, but either not
>>>>>> needed or not worth the effort for most pupils.
>>>>>
>>>>> And that still happens in some parts of the country.
>>>> We still have the 11_ here.
>>>> I do wonder whether it is actually a good thing for all, as, perhaps
>>>> in competition with the Grammars, the whole school system regularly
>>>> outperforms other areas of the country.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When the state abandoned the Grammar School system, those took 20% and
>>> universities took around 5% of the population. With the current target
>>> being to get 50% into higher educations, I am not sure there is much
>>> point in segregating the top 20% any more.
>> My County Grammar proudly displayed the names of those 6th. formers
>> passing the entrance exams for Oxford/Cambridge.
>> Usually in the very low single figures. Perhaps a reflection of current
>> standards in education considering the annual intake of around 100 11+
>> first formers in the mid 1950's.
>
> I remember a total of 11 pupils winning open exhibition scholarships
> being announced in assembly one year, because the headmaster was proud
> that a state Grammar School could get such an unusually high number.

John Rae, headmaster of Westminster for 15 years diary, Old Boys
is a surprisingly interesting read, particularly on the shenanigans
those with contacts get up to get their brats into Oxbridge.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:46:52 +0100, Tim Lamb
<tim@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <uvirgd$700j$1@dont-email.me>, wasbit <wasbit@nowhere.com>
>writes
>>On 14/04/2024 18:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> Anyone else watch this show? I can't see how the questions are
>>> ordered. They're supposed to be in order of difficulty, but I find
>>> personally a pretty random distribution with some of the supposedly
>>> hard ones really easy and vice versa. Anyone else noticed something
>>> similar?
>>> Incidentally, for questions of the kind posed on the show, it's
>>> possible to train to improve your score. These are very similar the IQ
>>> test questions and the more you do, the better you get at them over
>>> the course of time.
>>>
>>
>>+1
>>The questions seem to have got easier as each series progresses. That's
>>not my brain being trained. Anyone who does crosswords can normally
>>spot an anagram or word puzzles eg clodogver (dog in clover).
>>The £50k to £80k questions seem to be the easiest.
>>I've only ever answered the £100,000 question once.
>
>Don't know about *mind training* but I find answers to crosswords can
>come unexpectedly when re-visited after several days. Has the mind been
>busy or simply using a fresh set of parameters.
>
>Sad to say, I also cheat! The Chambers Crossword Dictionary is a huge
>help with clear instructions on spotting compositors *mis-direction* and
>lists of alternative words with similar meanings.
>>
Yes, 'flower' gets me every time, purporting to be a plant but really
a river.

On 15/04/2024 11:46, Tim Lamb wrote:
> In message <uvirgd$700j$1@dont-email.me>, wasbit <wasbit@nowhere.com>
> writes
>> On 14/04/2024 18:18, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> Anyone else watch this show? I can't see how the questions are
>>> ordered. They're supposed to be in order of difficulty, but I find
>>> personally a pretty random distribution with some of the supposedly
>>> hard ones really easy and vice versa. Anyone else noticed something
>>> similar?
>>> Incidentally, for questions of the kind posed on the show, it's
>>> possible to train to improve your score. These are very similar the IQ
>>> test questions and the more you do, the better you get at them over
>>> the course of time.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>> The questions seem to have got easier as each series progresses.
>> That's not my brain being trained. Anyone who does crosswords can
>> normally spot an anagram or word puzzles eg clodogver (dog in clover).
>> The £50k to £80k questions seem to be the easiest.
>> I've only ever answered the £100,000 question once.
>
> Don't know about *mind training* but I find answers to crosswords can
> come unexpectedly when re-visited after several days. Has the mind been
> busy or simply using a fresh set of parameters.

Yes, quite often when I peruse an old crossword before throwing it away,
I instantly spot a missing answer.
Common occurrence when doing a jigsaw puzzle. Can't find anything that
will fit, walk away & when you return several pieces magically fall into
place.

> Sad to say, I also cheat! The Chambers Crossword Dictionary is a huge
> help with clear instructions on spotting compositors *mis-direction* and
> lists of alternative words with similar meanings.

Roget's Thesaurus

--
Regards
wasbit

wasbit <wasbit@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > Sad to say, I also cheat! The Chambers Crossword Dictionary is a huge
> > help with clear instructions on spotting compositors *mis-direction* and
> > lists of alternative words with similar meanings.
>
> Roget's Thesaurus
>
Another obvious way is to use the dictionaries in your computer with
'grep' (if you're Linux/Unix), e.g. if you're looking for a five
letter word that starts 'bli' :-

chris$ grep '^bli..$' /usr/share/dict/british-english
blimp
blind
bling
blink
blips
bliss
blitz
chris$

The matching letters don't have to be adjacent as in the above example,
it's just one I did recently!

It's even better with longer words, the ^ and $ in the search fix
the ends so you're only looking for words of a specific length.

--
Chris Green
·

In message <ovr1fk-eb741.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
writes
>wasbit <wasbit@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Sad to say, I also cheat! The Chambers Crossword Dictionary is a huge
>> > help with clear instructions on spotting compositors *mis-direction* and
>> > lists of alternative words with similar meanings.
>>
>> Roget's Thesaurus
>>
>Another obvious way is to use the dictionaries in your computer with
>'grep' (if you're Linux/Unix), e.g. if you're looking for a five
>letter word that starts 'bli' :-
>
> chris$ grep '^bli..$' /usr/share/dict/british-english
> blimp
> blind
> bling
> blink
> blips
> bliss
> blitz
> chris$
>
>The matching letters don't have to be adjacent as in the above example,
>it's just one I did recently!
>
>It's even better with longer words, the ^ and $ in the search fix
>the ends so you're only looking for words of a specific length.
Full confession mode.. I also use an ancient *Franklin Spellmaster*!
Fits the breakfast table much more readily than my PC.
Saves a lot of pain with an anagram feature (words list).
>

--
Tim Lamb

On 16/04/2024 12:05, Tim Lamb wrote:
> In message <ovr1fk-eb741.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
> writes
>> wasbit <wasbit@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Sad to say, I also cheat! The Chambers Crossword Dictionary is a huge
>>> > help with clear instructions on spotting compositors
>>> *mis-direction* and
>>> > lists of alternative words with similar meanings.
>>>
>>> Roget's Thesaurus
>>>
>> Another obvious way is to use the dictionaries in your computer with
>> 'grep' (if you're Linux/Unix), e.g. if you're looking for a five
>> letter word that starts 'bli' :-
>>
>>    chris$ grep '^bli..$' /usr/share/dict/british-english
>>    blimp
>>    blind
>>    bling
>>    blink
>>    blips
>>    bliss
>>    blitz
>>    chris$
>>
>> The matching letters don't have to be adjacent as in the above example,
>> it's just one I did recently!
>>
>> It's even better with longer words, the ^ and $ in the search fix
>> the ends so you're only looking for words of a specific length.
> Full confession mode.. I also use an ancient *Franklin Spellmaster*!
> Fits the breakfast table much more readily than my PC.
> Saves a lot of pain with an anagram feature (words list).
>>
>
https://www.crosswordsolver.org/
https://anagram-solver.net/

--
“it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalin’s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.”

Vaclav Klaus