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

[ToonyMan]

Wisdom is like being a Jedi!

[Grimlocke]

Well, that test scored me at 140.

Which cant be all that accurate as I guessed a bunch due to language problems and impatience.

[Kalimar]

Logic/reasoning/patterns (dwarf fortress is one big logic puzzle)

Yes bro, figuring out 2cat and purple spade = purple helmet was an impressive feat of my heuristic mind.

[zarmazarma]

No online test could ever possibly guage your IQ, especially not the ones that ask you purely factual knowledge questions... I don't consider IQ to have much to do with how intelligent you are... It appeals mainly to the idea that some one with a altered way of thinking has the potential to elaborate more, absorb more, and more easily, and have a higher potential to learn... I never pull an online IQ test as a way to brag. There's also extreme flaws in IQ test, the biggest being that online ones are multiple choice, normally consisting of 4-9 answers. After evaluating the problem you may just be guessing...

[ToonyMan]

Logic/reasoning/patterns (dwarf fortress is one big logic puzzle)

Yes bro, figuring out 2cat and purple spade = purple helmet was an impressive feat of my heuristic mind.

You'll be amazed by some people.

[G-Flex]

Logic/reasoning/patterns (dwarf fortress is one big logic puzzle)

Yes bro, figuring out 2cat and purple spade = purple helmet was an impressive feat of my heuristic mind.

I think he was referring to a hell of a lot more than that, but if you like your strawman version of the argument, I guess that's your choice.

[diefortheswarm]

147 bitches

On the test Sparks posted.

[PencilinHand]

I took the IQ test that the OP posted and it suggested I had an IQ of 134(I am 25 and am job hunting hence have no profession at the moment) which seemed to me to be within a reasonable margin of error(+20 points...probably -20 points....).

I don't think I am any smarter than most people.  However, I do think that I have applied myself more effectively than many.  In this way I am not smarter but I have trained myself to try to think along different lines and from multiple approaches compared to "the average" approach.  Which is, I think, a more generally useful indication of mental ability than what IQ tends to measure, until you get out into the far extremes in either direction which are anomalous anyway.

If nothing else were wrong with the concept of testing someones raw intelligence, the application of an IQ test score is misleading.  Intelligence can not accurately be turned into a linear system without dramatic oversimplification.  Furthermore, the accuracy of a score becomes increasingly less significant as you increase the distance from the mean.  Lastly, the only thing a test can ever conclusively determine is the ability of a person to succeed at taking said test!

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.

I have given some thought to this and have found there to be many layers of uncertainty which could swing an answer.

The first thought is to ask if the boiling water and steam are under the same relative ambient conditions.  Second, depending on what those conditions are, the idea of separate water and steam isn't necessarily valid(see "supercritical steam".  Generally speaking in practical applications steam can attain a much higher temperature than that of "liquid" water(see "superheated steam").  Let us however discard such thinking and assume that the steam is from a pot of boiling water on a stove in some typical kitchen(neglecting property differences caused by any minor elevation change from steam rising a trivial distance).

A rudimentary analysis of this steam tells us that it begins to cool as soon as it exits the immediate vicinity of its heat source.  More precisely, the kinetic energy(on the atomic level) has an increasing probability of decreasing as time and distance increase from the moment/place of the escape of the steam from the heat source.  For the sake of practical analysis and simplicity we will then talk in terms of time and space averaged samples.

As the exact nature of the boiling water and the steam generated there from will vary with spacial position let us assume that we are considering a pot with a trivial quantity of water in it(so the temperature is consider the same throughout the content of water and the heat input to the system immediately exits in the form of steam) and are only measuring steam in the immediate vicinity of boiling water.

The last critical point in the analysis, and the point which I think most have overlooked is how we are measuring and defining "hotter."  If we talk in terms of how "hot" something feels, using the human sense and experience, then steam is hotter because what we feel as heat is actually heat flux which steam is superior at compared with boiling water as it penetrates flesh quicker.  However, if we are speaking in terms of temperature, and bear in mind that the concepts of heat and temperature are distinct and different, then the steam and boiling water in our simplified example should be the same(unless I am forgetting some factor).  Suppose, instead that the measure of "hotter" is actually a question of which has more heat in it then the answer is again steam.

If, however and this one is stretching it a bit, we take a approach more befitting a limit analysis(if we think of the transition to steam as passing through a peak) then the boiling water to steam system is at its hottest the moment the water is turned to steam which would make the boiling water the hotter of the two.

There you have 3(maybe 4) reasonable approaches to a simplified system of a vague and imprecise question that each has some plausible argument. 
So which is the correct one?

 

Heck if I know I only have an internet IQ score of 134, but if I had to guess I would say that the question was based on human sense interpretation so steam is the hotter of the two.

[Sindayven]

That test gave me 156. It's clearly full of shit.

Not to mention the knowledge bias it has. IQ shouldn't be about memorizing European country capitals or any facts.

[Rowanas]

eurgh. I hate those american ones with questions about dimes and nickels. These are not memory tests, nor are they foreign currency/location tests. they should be purely about things you have to process.

Anyway, IQ tests are (when they're done right) merely tests to show operating speed. Imagine if someone sold you a computer and would only tell you the rough specs, and that it ran on a linux variant without tech support. Not very useful.

[ToonyMan]

I rate my brain 5 TB/s.

[Floirt]

Actually the brain processes, like, 20 MB/s of data, roughly the equivalent of a LAN cable's maximum rate of transfer.
This means we could jack DF into our mind and play it at a reasonable speed!


Also, 149 at the test. I guess it would have been more if English was my first language.
This test IS full of shit. I bet it doesn't compare past results with the present ones, thus those numbers mean actually nothing.

The last official IQ test I took, through, rated me over 140, but that was a few years ago.

[jamoecw]

stuff

There you have 3(maybe 4) reasonable approaches to a simplified system of a vague and imprecise question that each has some plausible argument. 
So which is the correct one?

 

Heck if I know I only have an internet IQ score of 134, but if I had to guess I would say that the question was based on human sense interpretation so steam is the hotter of the two.

while you have grasped the purpose of asking the question (as it is effectively a trick question), you are perhaps the first to try to equate the test to an everyday encounter applicable to everyone regardless of intelligence.  however your answer given for this angle is wrong, and in fact even stresses one reason why i do not consider school an institution of learning.  pretty much everyone has boiled water in which to use at one point or another, and then reached into the steam in which to manipulate an object in the boiling water, or to place an object into it, etc.  a very early lesson in life is that boiling water will burn you, while steam is just hot.  in school we are taught, before higher levels of instruction, that steam is hotter than boiling water.  many people accept this fact even though throughout their life they have first hand experience to the contrary.

and for the factors you gave in which will sway the answer one way or the other, isn't nearly as many as there is.  just contemplating the variables in such a question puts you at above the average college graduate in my book.

[edit]
@Areyar:
i finally looked up the term: colloquial
[/edit]

[Soadreqm]

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.

That is indeed a very interesting question to be in an IQ test. If there was a human analyzing the results and the subject was required to also say WHY he think whatever he answered is hotter, you could get some information about how the subject thinks, but internet IQ tests don't have those.

But yeah. In a typical scenario of boiling water in a kettle, the steam pretty much instantly mixes with the cold air of the kitchen, leaving the boiling water exactly 100°C, meaning that the water would be hotter. If you're boiling water in a sealed container, they'll probably be equally hot. Most steam-powered machinery, such as turbines, are made of a boiler, a cooler and some machinery in between; and since you're boiling the water and cooling the steam, the steam should probably be colder.

Actually, you'll be heating the water and cooling the steam in pretty much ALL systems that include both boiling water and steam, so unless you keep them in separate containers (which would really be cheating), the water will be hotter.

And if by "hot" you mean that it feels hot, the water will STILL be hotter, since it's a lot denser than the steam, resulting in more collisions with the cruel, uncaring water molecules and the surface of your scalded skin.

And if you were using "hot" as in "She's hot" or perhaps "hot-headed", I really have no idea. We are treading in dangerous, uncharted territory and may go mad with the revelation should we pursue the elusive answers any farther. We are standing in the Sea of Knowledge, on an Island of Ignorance, from whose shores it was not meant for Man to journey far, lest we end up in a current of Truth without a paddle.

[PencilinHand]

while you have grasped the purpose of asking the question (as it is effectively a trick question), you are perhaps the first to try to equate the test to an everyday encounter applicable to everyone regardless of intelligence.  however your answer given for this angle is wrong, and in fact even stresses one reason why i do not consider school an institution of learning.  pretty much everyone has boiled water in which to use at one point or another, and then reached into the steam in which to manipulate an object in the boiling water, or to place an object into it, etc.  a very early lesson in life is that boiling water will burn you, while steam is just hot.  in school we are taught, before higher levels of instruction, that steam is hotter than boiling water.  many people accept this fact even though throughout their life they have first hand experience to the contrary.

and for the factors you gave in which will sway the answer one way or the other, isn't nearly as many as there is.  just contemplating the variables in such a question puts you at above the average college graduate in my book.

[edit]
@Areyar:
i finally looked up the term: colloquial
[/edit]

Thank you for taking the time to consider my lengthy response. 

However, for the record, I have been burned by boiling water(kitchen accident) and by steam(bumped the cap on the overflow reservoir on a car that had just been overheating).  The boiling water reddened the skin and was tender for a few days.  The steam seemed to cook the skin of my hand which pealed over then next few days and felt tender for over a week.

Granted my experience with steam was not an ideal reference and hence may not be entirely applicable in addition to situational uncertainties(length of expose is presumed by me to be approximately the same for boiling water and steam, etc. etc.) and subjective nature of memories and personal experience.  It remains my opinion that, for a human, steam would feel hotter than boiling water for the duration of expose*.  Until we start using hard numbers I do not want to get into an argument about which is hotter but do wish to clarify my position and explain my reasoning.

*The tendency of water to stay on the surface of the skin combined with its relatively high specific heat capacity might tend to burn more by continuing to transfer heat even after exposure(dipping ones hand in a pot of boiling water for example) was stopped.  Where steam would stop burning almost immediately as a hypothetical hand was removed from the flow of steam.