|
|
| Author |
Message |
polytarp
|
|
IQ Tests.
| 
Aug 12 11:30 UTC 2003 |
http://www.emode.com/tests/uiq/
It said my number was 129 and called me an insightful linguist. What does
it say about you?
|
| 47 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 1 of 47:
|
Aug 12 13:21 UTC 2003 |
136
Facts curator. (!)
I declined their offer to sell me a complete IQ report for 15 bucks.
The only question I was unsure about was a pattern recognition problem
on the 2nd page.
|
jep
|
|
response 2 of 47:
|
Aug 12 13:34 UTC 2003 |
127. Precision Processor.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 3 of 47:
|
Aug 12 14:06 UTC 2003 |
O, yeah, I should note two things: One, being: You don't have to give your
E-mail address or anything to get the basic results: Two, being: Anyone who
takes that test, besides me, is an idiot, and those who score higher than me
are, additionally, cheaters.
But it's still a fun test: A real morale booster, I'm sure.
|
jep
|
|
response 4 of 47:
|
Aug 12 15:04 UTC 2003 |
I'll agree with the idiot part. But then, I *am* the dumbest Grexer to
take the test yet so perhaps I'd better.
|
oval
|
|
response 5 of 47:
|
Aug 12 15:16 UTC 2003 |
ya it kills boredom for a while.
131: a Visual Mathematician
|
carson
|
|
response 6 of 47:
|
Aug 12 15:55 UTC 2003 |
(136, "Visual Mathematician." whatever. make mine MENSA.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 7 of 47:
|
Aug 12 16:18 UTC 2003 |
Although I am in fact a mathematician, and their summary mentioned
that I had excellent math skills, they classified me as a "Fact
Curator". Sounds dull, uninteresting, uncreative, bureaucratic.
So much for the morale boost. Now I'm all depressed and stuff.
|
novomit
|
|
response 8 of 47:
|
Aug 12 16:49 UTC 2003 |
That's what I got rated, too. :(
|
sj2
|
|
response 9 of 47:
|
Aug 12 17:31 UTC 2003 |
emode.com - 129, Visual mathematician. Paid $15 and took the EQ test
too - 139.
Didn't know they had automatically subscribed me to some $9/month
service. Unsubscribed!!
Good for flattering yourself but don't know if its any good really.
With a little practise, I guess I could've scored 180-200!! No no, I am
not saying I am a genius but that the difficulty level didn't seem
really high.
The funniest part was getting matched with females with similar scores
etc!!! :))
|
cross
|
|
response 10 of 47:
|
Aug 12 18:21 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 11 of 47:
|
Aug 12 18:28 UTC 2003 |
I got "500 Servlet Exception". I guess I will never know my IQ......
|
gelinas
|
|
response 12 of 47:
|
Aug 12 18:51 UTC 2003 |
I wonder if they are using MS servers.
|
carson
|
|
response 13 of 47:
|
Aug 12 18:54 UTC 2003 |
(that wouldn't be very intelligent.)
|
mary
|
|
response 14 of 47:
|
Aug 12 19:42 UTC 2003 |
The site is again up.
I'm a 135 - Facts Curator. So I guess John and I can be dull,
uninteresting, uncreative, bureaucratic and depressed together.
Cool.
|
remmers
|
|
response 15 of 47:
|
Aug 12 21:03 UTC 2003 |
Think I'll read the World Almanac tonight.
|
dcat
|
|
response 16 of 47:
|
Aug 12 21:19 UTC 2003 |
138/Facts Curator. I'm not sure what knowing popular sayings -- 'a cynic is
one who..." etc -- really has to do with intelligence, though.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 17 of 47:
|
Aug 12 21:51 UTC 2003 |
You know, I suspect the test is faulty, because nearly everyone's getting a
score in the same small range.
|
glenda
|
|
response 18 of 47:
|
Aug 12 23:02 UTC 2003 |
136 - Visonary Philsopher.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 19 of 47:
|
Aug 12 23:14 UTC 2003 |
See? Faulty.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 20 of 47:
|
Aug 12 23:35 UTC 2003 |
126- Visual Mathematician. But a mathematician I am not. Some of
emode's tests are really weird.
|
janc
|
|
response 21 of 47:
|
Aug 13 02:20 UTC 2003 |
140 - Visionary Philosopher.
Well, the test is completely bogus. There is no time limit. The number
of questions is too small. And too many people are scoring too high.
Many of the answers are debatable if taken as serious questions rather
than test questions (ie, it's obvious what answer they want, although that
answer is probably wrong - eg, a five man team does not take exactly twice
as long to paint a house as a ten man team). A person who is actually
smart, as opposed to just be good at taking tests, would likely score
pretty low, or at least be frustrated by the fact that in many cases
none of the choices are correct. Never mind that the whole concept of
IQ is mostly bogus.
I gave "spam@aol.com" as my email addres, and it complained that it
already had my email address in it's database. What a surprise!
This site has so much sleazy marketing encrusted on it, that an accurate
test would be way too much to expect.
|
gull
|
|
response 22 of 47:
|
Aug 13 02:43 UTC 2003 |
Well, naturally it's not an accurate test. You think anyone would pay
for the full results if it told them they were an idiot?
|
sholmes
|
|
response 23 of 47:
|
Aug 13 03:27 UTC 2003 |
Your IQ score is 140 : we can tell your Intellectual Type is a Visionary
Philosopher.
|
sj2
|
|
response 24 of 47:
|
Aug 13 06:49 UTC 2003 |
Re #17, the site does say that the majority of people's IQ lies
between 90-130 or something like that.
I also got a Visual Mathematician. I think what it means is you can
solve problems by visualising them. And you might have a problem
solving things that you can't visualise.
For example, I can solve coordiante geometry problems easily and enjoy
doing it because I try and visualise the objects. But I have a tough
time with trignometery and I don't enjoy the equations at all.
Just theorising, could be wrong though.
|