 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> So, then ... it's adaptive?
Would explain why it doesn't tell you how many questions there are...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I love the way everybody else isn't even trying properly and yet they
>> manage to get much higher scores than me.
>>
>> I guess I have to just rationalise it as "Hey, it's an internet IQ test.
>> It doesn't actually *work* or anything..."
>
> Eh.. looks like my score is about average for this group. Andrew, you're
> well above average (in terms of most humans) you have nothing to worry
> about.
Heh, if only.
Don't go thinking that just because somebody's a nerd, they're
necessarily intelligent. I've met at least one person who had a
fascination with cryptography, and yet was utterly unable to comprehend
even basic facts about it. (E.g., why a polyalphabetic cipher is
stronger than a monoalphabetic cipher.)
> For some reason, this forum tends to attract supergeniuses. I really
> wouldn't worry about what your IQ is compared to others here. It's
> tantamount to some sort of ...brain envy.
Well, so long as it's not brain evy that's fine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I guess I have to just rationalise it as "Hey, it's an internet IQ test.
> It doesn't actually *work* or anything..."
Exactly, those kind of shape matching tests are everywhere, I really doubt
how good they are actually judging intelligence. If you've done a handful
of them (and especially if you've discussed the solutions with others)
you'll remember the basic principles they often use and will be more likely
to solve other ones.
I still remember a maths test we did at school, some of the questions were
about getting the next number in the sequence, the usual stuff. Then there
was something like "3,3,5,4,4,3,5,5,..." and lots of people guessed (some
correctly) but nobody figured it out. Since that day when the teacher told
us the answer and we all went "doh!", remembering that sequence has helped
me solve several similar problems in other tests. I would only call that
intelligence if you figured it out the first time on your own with no prior
knowledge of such "tricks" used in those kinds of tests. Now when I can
answer a question like that, it's mostly memory skills and not much
intelligence.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> For some reason, this forum tends to attract supergeniuses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STeVTzWelns
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> it's mostly memory skills and not much intelligence.
Memory is a very important part of intelligence. However, this isn't memory
skills. This is having already been exposed to the same or very similar
problems before. I.e., memory of exactly the solution for this type of
problem, not memory in general.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:02:57 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 7/30/2010 6:06 AM, clipka wrote:
>
>> Just for fun, I tried giving random answers right from the start: The
>> test ended after just a handful of items, with a score of 78.
>
> So, then ... it's adaptive?
Sounds like it, yes.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:05:47 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
> For some reason, this forum tends to attract supergeniuses.
I was commenting to my wife the other day that this is the only online
forum I've ever participated in where discussions range from "Duck season
!" "Wabbit season!" to discussions about the applications of special
relativity - and everything in between.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 30.07.2010 15:11, schrieb Invisible:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>
>> So, then ... it's adaptive?
>
> Would explain why it doesn't tell you how many questions there are...
Reading is knowing: See <http://www.cerebrals.org/wp/?page_id=44> for a
bit of details...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
