http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_(unit)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Span_(unit)

Foot.

How smart can they be if they don't realize that sequence questions can be correctly answered with any number?

The best indicator of a high IQ is the level of your grandparents affluence.

So we agree then it's actually childish and rather an indication that intelligence may be absent

It may be unethical for anyone wanting to join those societies to investigate this thread, for those of us who do not care about those societies I don't see an ethical issue here. Mind you that they put this test online themselves.

What's your marginal rate of substitution between dick size and IQ? One cm for 1 sd?

Not necessarily. Childish, yes. Someone may be highly intelligent, but boastful and narcissistic.

What's important is the capacity for understanding and applying concepts, not how fast you solve puzzles, which most standardized IQ tests use as a strong factor in intelligence (how fast you reach the correct answer, not just arriving at the correct answer). As you age your brain gets slower. This doesn't mean you get dumber.

The standardized real IQ tests take age differences into account.

They also don't measure ability to understand and apply concepts. Google "wechsler subtests" to learn.

To extend hardball's answer, it is usually because the world hasn't been impressed with them.

Someone who is successful in intellectual pursuits isn't going to worry about their IQ. Someone who gets laid a lot isn't going to measure their penis.

"I'm smarter than most people, even though..." sounds a lot like "I'm attractive even though no one sleeps with me."

I was thinking basilisk, my reason being that it is phonetically similar to obelisk

It is much harder for us non native speakers. But I think I got four of them

25 is 7 right? or is 6 doable?

edit: 25: 6 is right? or is 5 doable?

Its just a contigent fact. The world is dumb, it overvalues specific almost worthless qualifications/experience over intelligence. With some exceptions like being a surgeon someone cleverer will surpass someone with a qualification very quickly, but you cant expecpt anything good to come out of human resources who for example would rather employ people with experience of the specific version number of the specific software they happen to use over someone who's talented and can learn the specifics in a few hours.

Oh Mother, I can feel the soil falling over my head

?!? The world just is what it is. The ability to navigate it effectively is the entire point of intelligence. Intelligence serves no other purpose.

Taking tests to prove to yourself that you are intelligent instead of doing something intelligent isn't intelligent. In parallel is fine, but has much more to do with personality than intelligence.

Hmmm. Are you trying to say that I am being a little rough here?

Sad song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sQPZ...eature=related

I know the song. That is why I was asking whether he was telling me that I was being mean insensitive and hurtful without realizing it.

Maybe he meant that the conversation is over.

Chezlaw doesn't do that. He is wise and kind enough to let them die on their own. Regardless, it is a decent song that pulls on the heart-strings and makes me pine for the '80s.

but IQ tests should. If you require someone who isvery intelligent to do some job then being able to do well at these questions (not the general knowledge ones so much) should be far more valued than it is, and prior training in the domain of the job should be far less valued.

Sure. Its not something I'd ever come across as a topic until SMP. In the UK no-one except a few mensian nutters even talk about IQ tests and we laugh at them. Far more common is sensible boasting about how fast they have done the times crossword.

If I was unkind it was not giving you enough credit to quote the more obscure title. T'was nothing important just reminded me of those lyrics:

And you even spoke to me, and said :
"If you're so funny
Then why are you on your own tonight ?
And if you're so clever
Then why are you on your own tonight ?
If you're so very entertaining
Then why are you on your own tonight ?
If you're so very good-looking
Why do you sleep alone tonight ?
I know ...
'Cause tonight is just like any other night
That's why you're on your own tonight
With your triumphs and your charms
While they're in each other's arms..."

and yes those few rare gems for the children of the mid/late 60s. A taunting reminders of how it didn't have to be so bleedin' tragic.

Should have, would have, could have argument...

A couple of small housekeeping issues on that line of reasoning.

First, it assumes that there are no ways for someone clever to game the system for their benefit. Emphasizing what is wrong with the world clouds judgement on what is actionable for the individual.

Third, creating effective psychometric tests isn't worth it. Past performance on similar tasks is a better predictor than any psychometric test ever will be.

Precisely the same thing.

No credit should be granted in such things. My memory is faulty as anyone's, and I could have missed the connection if you were more obscure.

More dark comedy than tragedy.

If you wanted to get there earlier you should have left earlier.

It doesn't remotely assume the system cannot be gamed but as cleverness is what you want its not a problem anyway.

I do agree that many companies dont want clever employees, they are probably better off with traditionally qualified people than anyone who has proben they are clever.

Nah its just in the hands of the loonies. Its not unknown for very wise employers to ask IQ type questions at interviews.


We've got thnose damn Olympics next year. People throwing things further than others and running faster than others etc

I couldn't agree more. Except for it not being dark and it not being funny. Maybe that was the tragedy.

That should be the correct brute force method. I'll take your word that it calculates as you say. But if that's the only way of solving it doesn't seem very interesting or a very good IQ type question - too much calculation. It would be cool if there were a clever way to look at it which made the total probability of pulling 10 whites equivalent to something simpler and easy to compute. I've been trying to think of such a way but can't see one. It's the kind of thing I'd expect Sklansky to pop in with.


PairTheBoard

Well, it's not that much calculation: one basically obtains "weights" of 10¹⁰, (10)9¹⁰, C(10,2)8¹⁰, etc. and after calculating C(10,6)4¹⁰ one can ignore the other terms since the question only asks for what the nearest percent is. I'd agree that this question isn't very good other than testing the knowledge of basic combinatorial ideas, unless there is a "clever way": e.g., generalizing to N marbles, what's the tenth number in the sequence 1, 2/3, 1/2, 32/85, ... ?

A better question might be something like what if N = 1000000000 ( one billion ); then, what is the probability ( to three or more significant figures )? Obviously, we're not going to just crunch out some numbers as in the original question that almost any "brute" can; although admittedly, someone could write some code to get the answer when N is large.

"To extend hardball's answer, it is usually because the world hasn't been impressed with them.

Someone who is successful in intellectual pursuits isn't going to worry about their IQ. Someone who gets laid a lot isn't going to measure their penis.

'I'm smarter than most people, even though...' sounds a lot like 'I'm attractive even though no one sleeps with me.'"

Yeah, that's an horrendously inadequate attempt at an explanation, or at a dismissive hand-waving version of one, anyway

Does a gorilla with a massive penis get laid by **** Sapiens females?

Does a dude with a 180 IQ go on to find the comfort in the company of the 120s-140s who could lead him to academic accomplishment that would supposedly then quiet his own introspection regarding the extent of his capabilities?

You speak like a true 110-130, Mick.