Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

- 80

11 (4.8%)

80 - 89

1 (0.4%)

90 - 99

1 (0.4%)

100 - 109

7 (3%)

110 - 119

21 (9.1%)

120 - 129

44 (19%)

130 - 139

58 (25.1%)

140 - 149

38 (16.5%)

+ 150

50 (21.6%)

Total Members Voted: 231

[Granite26]

Wrong. In a perfect scenario, water can reach way about boiling point temperatures through surface tension.

But then it's not boiling (Not that that negates your point, just saying)

[Rafal99]

This is the standardized test. I have not taken it in 2 years. I'm going to retake it now.
http://www.3smartcubes.com/pages/tests/iq-test/iq-test_instructions.asp

I got 159 in this test. The only 2 questions i didn't know the answer for were the ones with some scrambled words. I bet they will be much easier for me if I was a native english speaker...

I voted before making this test and I voted 130-139, because I remember that I had done a test by a psychologist when I was about 12, and i had a result of 139 then.

[jaked122]

15, asbergers+ADHD, 140 .
asberger's+aderal=paranoia(heightened state of awareness)=cheating on IQ test.

[ToonyMan]

You cheat by actually paying attention to the test?!  I SHOULD OF THOUGHT OF THAT.   

[Im_Sparks]

This thread is horrible, the poll is bullshit and the quality of posting has hit HFS bottom.

[ToonyMan]

This thread is horrible, the poll is bullshit and the quality of posting has hit HFS bottom.

Hah, delicious irony is delicious.

[jamoecw]

hehe, looks like all those that answered are smarter than every test that i have taken that wanted to know what i knew about the subject.  of course that also means that everyone would have failed with the answers they gave.  every child knows that it takes longer to get burnt by steam, than boiling water, and when a person is taught about boiling point and the transition to gas, for some reason we are supposed to forget all of our past experiences with the subject.  so if you understood the subject matter taught, then at the very least you should be quite confused by the question, or you understand that it is a trick question and don't care what you answer, or you know what answer they want and just give it to them.  since i have only encountered this question on multiple choice tests, i would say that in such a circumstance it is impossible to answer the question correctly.

which also means that on the subject of non native english speakers speaking english better than native english speakers is also not a simple answer, the simplest answer is that they speak more academically.  since native english speakers are the stick to which english speaking is measured it would be impossible to speak english better than a native english speaker, unless you put that native english speaker in a different category of english, such as non-academic english.

....Can't remember the term used for 'non-scientific name', is it nomenclature?

"Layman's terms" is all that comes to mind. "Nomenclature" is usually used in the sense of "scientific nomenclature", if I'm not mistaken.

layman nomenclature would be laymen's terms, scientific nomenclature would be scientific terms, basically nomenclature is the terms a group uses.

[Ohaeri]

heh. My neighbours for example: they cannot have a discussion, if you disagree then it becomes an argument.
A while back we were having a wineparty in the garden (neighbour is a wino) and he was talking about fermentation etc, he made a very basic mistake (it requiring O2 I think) and I corrected him, while thinking "finally, a topic I know about". This was not acceptable. While I have a degree in biology and have done some microbrewing, even after showing him some diagrams of the Crebs cycle and fermentation he was not convinced but just grudgingly dropped the subject.

There's a book that deals in this subject that I'm very fond of, called "How to Win Friends and Influence People." From the title it sounds like it should be the most terrible tract on manipulation known to man, but surprisingly it actually isn't. It's more about phrasing things in such a way as to be an unoffensive as possible, and ways to make yourself a more pleasant person to be around. (For example, it includes rules like "become genuinely interested in people" and "talk in terms of the other person's interest.") From reading that book, and from my own experiences, being unable to accept education or correction is a common human failing--but luckily one that can be gotten around with enough work. It does take work and a lot of patience though.

ok if we are going to talk about questions that are flawed but are in tests:
what is hotter, boiling water, or steam?

It seems to me that this would depend on several different factors, including how pure the water is, whether it has been superheated, what altitude we are at, where you are measuring the steam in relation to the water (remembering that the further away from steam you go, the less hot it gets, though it might not necessarily condense back to water), ambient temperature, and whether we are talking about steam that comes from the same boiling water or a different source. For example, the steam that comes from a cup of hot cocoa on a cold winter's day will be cooler than the water that has been boiled under extreme pressure in the middle of a volcano. Does the steam come from the same source?

The problem is that steam doesn't have a set heat. Without a set heat we can't absolutely say that in every situation steam would be hotter than water.

[Granite26]

There's a book that deals in this subject that I'm very fond of, called "How to Win Friends and Influence People."

Widely regarded as the first self help book.  Changed my life.  I still use it's lessons on a daily basis. 

Mostly because prior to that I had crap for social skills, and there was a lot of 'holy crap, I can see how that's true' moments while reading it.

[Sowelu]

The questions I'm used to seeing on IQ tests are usually stuff like "The fish's tail is twice the length of its head; its total length is twice the length of its head plus the length of its tail; if the fish is 72 inches long then how long is its tail", and random stuff like "mary is taller than ellen, ellen is taller than stacy, is mary taller than stacy yes/no/impossible to determine".

People who can't answer those questions, there's just no way to relate to them--all communication beyond the most formal of communication is based on assumed knowledge, and if you can't assume that someone knows the same rules of logic that you do, well, they're going to be a wild card.

[Ohaeri]

There's a book that deals in this subject that I'm very fond of, called "How to Win Friends and Influence People."

Widely regarded as the first self help book.  Changed my life.  I still use it's lessons on a daily basis. 

Mostly because prior to that I had crap for social skills, and there was a lot of 'holy crap, I can see how that's true' moments while reading it.

Same here. I basically picked it up because I wanted to see how many manipulative, horrible techniques I could spot. Now I read it at least twice a year to make sure it stays cemented in my brain.

[Areyar]

hehe, looks like all those that answered are smarter than every test that i have taken that wanted to know what i knew about the subject.  of course that also means that everyone would have failed with the answers they gave.  every child knows that it takes longer to get burnt by steam, than boiling water, and when a person is taught about boiling point and the transition to gas, for some reason we are supposed to forget all of our past experiences with the subject.  so if you understood the subject matter taught, then at the very least you should be quite confused by the question, or you understand that it is a trick question and don't care what you answer, or you know what answer they want and just give it to them.  since i have only encountered this question on multiple choice tests, i would say that in such a circumstance it is impossible to answer the question correctly.

which also means that on the subject of non native english speakers speaking english better than native english speakers is also not a simple answer, the simplest answer is that they speak more academically.  since native english speakers are the stick to which english speaking is measured it would be impossible to speak english better than a native english speaker, unless you put that native english speaker in a different category of english, such as non-academic english.

....Can't remember the term used for 'non-scientific name', is it nomenclature?

"Layman's terms" is all that comes to mind. "Nomenclature" is usually used in the sense of "scientific nomenclature", if I'm not mistaken.

layman nomenclature would be laymen's terms, scientific nomenclature would be scientific terms, basically nomenclature is the terms a group uses.

So true!
I once met a bunch of english teens on a holiday, all were pretty drunk, and I could not understand half they were saying. Naturally they were using cockney or londonese street slang, while I had only been exposed to 90sTV+oxford english. They kept shouting at me they were "totally pissed!" etcetera. ah, mamaries... 

yeah 'laymans terms' is one way of putting it, but I was looking for
'common name / nomenclature', I think... or maybe 'trivial name', as opposed to 'rational name' (literal translation from Dutch).
Don't have access to a chemists catalog to make sure.

--
My best friend has a few of those books... '180 rules of seducing women' or some such... also one about 'power' and how to get people to do what you want. . . more in fun than for practical purposes. He's one of the nicest, most timid people I know and used to be a real pushover. Naturally now that he has a GF, she's the boss of him exclusively.

[de5me7]

i usually pull in at 119/120 Ive had an education physcologist report carried out on me because im dyslexic, i got 119 on that (I am smarter than the average bear). my scores on the internet tests usually come pretty close to the 120s. i think they are reasonably good. Ive just graduated witha  1st so 119 whilst not an absolute score of intellegence seems pretty good to me. Ive got 138 on the one linked above, unless ive become a lot smarter in the last 3 years its a crap test.

Oxbridge grads tend to pitch in around the 130 mark and above, and 150  = genius. I find it difficult to believe that 40+ of the people on this pole are certified genius.

Having said this DF does seem to be a more interlectual game than gears of war or halo, which are pitched at people with IQs bellow 60.

[woose1]

Hah! I love the post results. Just reinforces my opinion that 90% of DF players have a bloated ego.

[Muz]

Well, seriously, though, I think DF players do have a higher IQ. Because looking at ASCII guys scurrying about indicates patterns. Pretty much two thirds of IQ tests are about pattern recognition.