Im weak on astronomy and temperature
Gunner
One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid. Gunner Asch
The web page is too slow to update since you have to answer a question a page, instead of multiple questions on the same page. I got 9 out of 10 - missed the dinosaur one. Not interesting enough to spend the time to wait for pages with ads to load.
RWL
It was worse than that. There were fifty questions, but it took *two* clicks to move on to the next page: one to submit your answer, then another to move to the next page after the server scored your answer.
Take-our-quiz/Composing-about-78-percent-of-the-air-at-sea-level-what-is-the-most-common-gas-in-the-Earth-s-atmosphere
On dial-up, it got worse than that. After seeing the correct answer displayed, I couldn't bear the interminable wait for my score to get updated up top. Whenever I just clicked *next* and moved on, I was awarded _WRONG_ANSWER_ for doing so.
... Gummer's score is pretty s***ty.
I got 40 out of 50.
Yes -- it takes forever -- in part because it is going off to dozens of web sites, including doubleclick every time you update the page, and you have to do it twice -- once to submit your answer, and once to get the next question. And about eighteen cookies as well.
Enjoy, DoN.
It's just a knowledge test. Says nothing about a person's intelligence, except when a dolt boasts about scoring 39.
The correlation is MUCH higher than most people realize. Note that Mensa, using some research on the correlation as a basis, has produced SAT-based IQ equivalents in the past that proved, in tests, correlations approaching +1.
It's almost impossible to separate the two through conventional test design.
As for the reported scores, I'd apply correction factors based on the historical behavior of the individual. d8-)
This Mechanical Aptitude Test
Gummer's "39" is probably a cumulative score for citizens of Taft.
You look like an idiot, with your constant spewing.
Hmmm, but many of those require some knowledge of the physics involved. I don't believe it's a very good test of reasoning power in isolation.
As a mechanical type of guy, with a lot of electronics background on top of it, I answered all of those almost in knee-jerk fashion. There wasn't a lot of reasoning. I've seen them all before, and I've been tripped up by the pulley questions before , so I knew how to consider them.
It really is tough to construct any conventional test that isolates intelligence from knowledge.
With all due respect to Gunner, I am still laughing. d8-)
IS there any real difference between intelligence and knowledge?
Can one have knowledge without the requisite intelligence?
Can one have intelligence without knowledge?
That's been a debate in the intelligence-measuring business for many years. Maybe they've figured it out; I haven't tried to keep up.
Culture effects are also a confounding influence. The best tests of pure intelligence involve tests of reasoning without words, like those asking one to find the object that best "fits in" a set of other similar but different objects presented as examples. There is a large literature on such things.
The most interesting tests are those made to assess animal intelligence. There is also a literature on this.
They are not the same. I have seen lots of analyses by PhD engineers that were rendered nonsense because the engineer didn't know this or that practical detail or effect, usually one outside their area of specialty. The math was perfect, though.
Knowledge without intelligence: Sure. It's called Common Sense, and Cunning if it's knowledge (or instinct, it doesn't matter) about human behaviour.
Intelligence without knowledge: In the absolute, no. One must know something, although many kinds of knowledge are innate. But, as in my example of the PhD engineer above, one may be highly intelligent and yet not know enough.
But, more generally, we are confusing intelligence with effectiveness. We have all met people who were highly intelligence, and yet are totally ineffectual; and people who sound like idiots, and yet always seem to manage to achieve whatever they were attempting.
How does this work? My theory is that effective people somehow understand how the world really works, covering both human behaviour and technology/science, and so spend little time tilting at windmills.
Joe Gwinn
One of the problems, #31 I think, originally had 2 square boxes sitting on the balance beam. It threw everyone off, including the author of the test - there was *no* correct answer among the choices given. The author corrected the error by making the problem easier, with triangles standing on their pointy ends replacing the boxes.
Here is the original version below. Can anyone answer it? Two square boxes, 2 units in width. Box A occupies first boxwidth space left of fulcrum. Box B occupies third boxwidth space right of fulcrum. __ __ | | | | |A | |B | [][][][][][][][][][][][] /\ /__\
If box A weighs 300 kg, how much does box B weigh?
[] 50 kg [] 100 kg [] 150 kg [] 300 kg
You got 39 too, huh?
No. I didn't bother with it, since I don't play your tiny dick waving game. I really don't give a damn about online tests, since I passed every test & inspection that ever mattered in my life. I know that you think you'll come back with something witty, but it''ll be as pathetic as ever.
Gummer's game. Did you get lost? I haven't mentioned my score.
I really don't give a damn about online tests, since I passed
70% is generally considered a passing grade. So if you're satisfied with it, that's what matters.Exactly.
I dunno, Joe.
It might have something to do with somehow picking the right wind mills?
...
After the ridicule, it becomes "admitted". ...
/Almost/ made it. You're not too swift with language either. Study at the thread title.
isn't it ironic?
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required