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

[Neonivek]

And there you go the secret to a lot of IQ tests

It isn't JUST about actually being smart

It is also about predicting what the writer actually wants you to say.

So if you eat leaves and apples will kill you... and a test asks you "What is good to eat, leaves or apples?" your answer should be Leaves... No matter HOW much I likely misspelled it.

[Zironic]

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

talk it over and i'll give you the answer in a day.

It depends on your definition of steam and boiling water, however scientifically, boiling water is hotter, because it is producing gaseous water. Steam, or the common definition of it, is mostly water vapor or liquid water suspend in the air and gaseous water, but it is decreasing in temperature, so it has to be cooler than boiling water.

Steam would have to be hotter. If it were cooler, then it wouldn't be steam, it would be sub-boiling water, possibly dissolved in the air. Assuming the air pressure is one atmosphere, and the water is undiluted, the water will only get up to 100 degrees celcius, after that the energy absorbed goes into the phase change. You're then left with steam at 100 degrees, assuming the energy being dumped into the water also gets into the steam, that would leave the steam marginally hotter than the water, but it has significantly more energy than the water regardless of that.

If it's a trick question, you're probably right. Ugh, it's too fucking ambiguous, and depends on whatever particular interpretation was going through the head of the person that wrote it. Shit like that on tests always pisses me off, when a question is ambiguous, wholly subjective, or both. Fortunately, I have a tendency to guess which of the right answers the writer was thinking...

Your still thinking wrong. Visible steam is not GASEOUS water thus it is less hot, because it is suspend water vapor and gaseous water, and it is cooling down and condensing. However boiling water is becoming gaseous water and is not cooling down it is heating up, so in the idea of heat or the excitement of particles and how it transfers - how hot it is, boiling water is hotter than steam. Steam doesn't have to be heated to exist. It can exist below 100 celsius. Boiling water cannot in normal earth pressures (1 atm) exist below 100 celsius.

Pfffft.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

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

talk it over and i'll give you the answer in a day.

It depends on your definition of steam and boiling water, however scientifically, boiling water is hotter, because it is producing gaseous water. Steam, or the common definition of it, is mostly water vapor or liquid water suspend in the air and gaseous water, but it is decreasing in temperature, so it has to be cooler than boiling water.

Steam would have to be hotter. If it were cooler, then it wouldn't be steam, it would be sub-boiling water, possibly dissolved in the air. Assuming the air pressure is one atmosphere, and the water is undiluted, the water will only get up to 100 degrees celcius, after that the energy absorbed goes into the phase change. You're then left with steam at 100 degrees, assuming the energy being dumped into the water also gets into the steam, that would leave the steam marginally hotter than the water, but it has significantly more energy than the water regardless of that.

If it's a trick question, you're probably right. Ugh, it's too fucking ambiguous, and depends on whatever particular interpretation was going through the head of the person that wrote it. Shit like that on tests always pisses me off, when a question is ambiguous, wholly subjective, or both. Fortunately, I have a tendency to guess which of the right answers the writer was thinking...

Your still thinking wrong. Visible steam is not GASEOUS water thus it is less hot, because it is suspend water vapor and gaseous water, and it is cooling down and condensing. However boiling water is becoming gaseous water and is not cooling down it is heating up, so in the idea of heat or the excitement of particles and how it transfers - how hot it is, boiling water is hotter than steam. Steam doesn't have to be heated to exist. It can exist below 100 celsius. Boiling water cannot in normal earth pressures (1 atm) exist below 100 celsius.

Pfffft.

But condensing water isn't steam, if you're speaking in scientific terms. It's referred to as steam in layman's terms...

As I said, assuming pressure of one atm, and that the water is undiluted, the water can get no hotter than 100 celsius, however, the steam can get no cooler than 100 degrees, or it ceases to be steam, and becomes condensing water vapor.

[Zironic]

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

[Neonivek]

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

Water can also reach the freezing temperature but not freeze

[Zironic]

Thus thus thus. Water and Steam are neither hotter. They don't exist. The water is lie.

[Neonivek]

Thus thus thus. Water and Steam are neither hotter. They don't exist. The water is lie.

Alright please don't go into that level of science... it really scares me in the fact that it basically says Nothing exists.

[Sensei]

No, but water is in this case a far less accurate term than H2O. Water is only water at a given amount of energy (thermal or kinetic) at any given amount of pressure.

[AtomicPaperclip]

To be fair, I wouldn't have guessed Areyar wasn't native to english- you're certainly better in text than most of the people on popular forums.

Anyway, those that voted <80 are probably either brave or have serious self-confidence issues.

I voted 130-139 because that's where I usually score on Bellevue school district tests... and Bellevue seems to (generally) be tougher than most, although we took a dent just like everyone else from No Child Left Behind and similar stuff. IMO, people with developmental issues should be in their own programs, not normal people taking everything and a developmentally issued pace...

Anyway, the IQ tests here are probably skewed a bit.

I used to know a guy who's never left Brazil who could totally lose me with his English vocabulary.

Ugh our entire education system is based on trying to pass lazy pot-heads who couldn't care less about school.

I was put in the TAG (talented and gifted) program in kindergarten and they didn't do SHIT except make me take surveys to which every answer was "No, they don't do ANYTHING special", until high school where Honors/AP classes are available and the stupid shit surveys are optional.

Scored 140 on the test in OP, it's mostly math and efficiency of methods.

Like you can mentally add up all the odd numbers, or simply count how many there are and know that it's going to add to an even number if there's an even number of them.

[Cheeetar]

I wasted a few minutes on this test, and never got a result because I didn't want to give them my email. I'm pretty sure that the result is randomised or very innacurate.

[Rowanas]

efficiency is more important than intellect. Unfortunately I appear to have lots of the latter and not a single drop of the former

IQ is a silly way to test intellect. Until we understand the human brain, we shouldn't try to quantify intellect.  It's like counting to 1000 without knowing what 1000 is, or what most of the numbers in between are.

[Areyar]

Why, thank you Sensei.  :blush:

In academia, knowing to write proper english is paramount if you want to be taken serious.  (not using smileys too BTW)
Also reading untranslated books helps, as my favorite genres are scifi,fantasy and pop.sci, which are predominantly in english.
I prefer brittish spelling to americana, not only because my highschool teacher was a pedantic twit, but because my first contact with the language was through early games(+dictionary). hehe

You are right about the methodology thing [AP]: there is always the lazy (smart) way and the stupid (doggedly stubborn) way to solve any problem. Probably smart people are just better at managing their resources.

Water is the generally accepted name for H2O in any form in chemistry. While ice and steam are special cases/states of water, they are immediately translated to water(s) and water(g) by chemists, or H2O(s)/(g) for those very rigidly trained.
Remember too that human normal conditions assume 1bar ambient pressure and 'roomtemperature' (15-25C).
The sementics of special terms for the states of water are critically important only in poetry.
....Can't remember the term used for 'non-scientific name', is it nomenclature?

[Broose]

efficiency is more important than intellect. Unfortunately I appear to have lots of the latter and not a single drop of the former

IQ is a silly way to test intellect. Until we understand the human brain, we shouldn't try to quantify intellect.  It's like counting to 1000 without knowing what 1000 is, or what most of the numbers in between are.

It is also harder to judge when some people have different ideas of an intelligent person. I think, sometimes, I base what I see intelligence as too much on personality

[Areyar]

I find it very hard to fairly rate the intellect of people who cannot be persuaded by logic (or facts!).
Or people who treat you like a moron when they find out you don't belief what they do....maybe I'm guilty of that a little too. 

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.

Maybe a case of that blissfull competence blindness as described for the ignorant in one of the above links,
as he's fairly intelligent/coherent on other subjects.
Probably he just remembered a winery tourguide's blurb wrongly or mixed two ideas together, maybe plant dark-metabolism with fermentation. Couldn't admit he might be mistaken though. :sigh:

[Sir Pseudonymous]

....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.