Check your IQ [Test]

[spyretto]

Yeah there were two types of logical questions: those that were right (=make sense) and those that were wrong But with the type A=B, B=C, B wasn't always equal to A, I guess that's what you mean.

but why? is it something equal to or is it an attribute? Because the way they said it confused me. I have to go back to the question to check.

If some Wicks are Slicks, and some Slicks are Snicks, then some Wicks are definitely Snicks. The statement is:

to me, this seems a correct statement . Is it not?

Anyway, I feel ok tonight, I could have taken the test when I felt like shit and get 90. I could be pissed drunk and get 20. or when I felt fantastic and get 150.
Or I could take the test again nown and score 160. So as far as I'm concerned IQ tests are a waste of time really.

[russkayatatu]

Originally posted by spyretto
[b]
So, yes I'm not stupid!!! Now it's official!!!!!

I knew that all along. But, well, bravo

to me, this seems a correct statement . Is it not?

I don't think so (although maybe I got it wrong ) So some Wicks are Slicks, and some are not (I think you can assume that). And some Slicks are Snicks (and some are not), so there is no saying that the Slicks that are Snicks are also Wicks. I mean, Slicks can be either Wicks or non-Wicks, and it's possible that only the non-Wicks are Snicks. It's not clear whether or not the Slick-Snick group includes Wicks or not. By the way it would be the same even if it said: All Wicks are Slicks, and some Slicks are Snicks, just because there are those Slicks out there that aren't Wicks and maybe they are the only ones who are also Snicks. I think I put it was wrong because of the word 'definitely': it's not 'neither', because the 'definitely' in the sentence says you definitely can assume some Wicks are Snicks, and although it's possible that some Wicks are Snicks it's also possible that no Wicks are Snicks, so it's not definite at all.

[teeny]

I don't think so (although maybe I got it wrong )

I said yes at first. But thought about it for a while. And it's not a quarrantee.. just because it's the way it goes one way, doesn't mean it goes the other way around I would say no

[coolasfcuk]

Originally posted by russkayatatu
I don't think so (although maybe I got it wrong) So some Wicks are Slicks, and some are not (I think you can assume that). And some Slicks are Snicks (and some are not), so there is no saying that the Slicks that are Snicks are also Wicks. I mean, Slicks can be either Wicks or non-Wicks, and it's possible that only the non-Wicks are Snicks. It's not clear whether or not the Slick-Snick group includes Wicks or not. By the way it would be the same even if it said: All Wicks are Slicks, and some Slicks are Snicks, just because there are those Slicks out there that aren't Wicks and maybe they are the only ones who are also Snicks. I think I put it was wrong because of the word 'definitely': it's not 'neither', because the 'definitely' in the sentence says you definitely can assume some Wicks are Snicks, and although it's possible that some Wicks are Snicks it's also possible that no Wicks are Snicks, so it's not definite at all.

Tru Dat russkaya that's how i thought about it too.... just saw the word 'definitely' and didnt think twice about it anymore..... some Wicks are NOT definitely Snicks - they could be.... but NOT definitely there is the possibility that NONE Wicks are Snicks

http://community.webshots.com/photo/...04006921vIzUVI ... here is the example of how NO Wicks are Snicks - hope it helps better - some Wicks (blue) are still Slicks (green) and some Slicks (green) and still Snicks (yellow) .. but NO Wicks (blue) are Snicks (yellow) of course there are other options/possibilities... but that's the one that shows you that the answer is they are NOT

booo... well, too busy lately so I am behind on the IQ testing... I feel like I am getting dumber by the minute, not keeping up with you guys ... will catch up .... ja

[denial]

coolasfcuk, good to hear from you ... because I kinda .. miss you .... . .... ewwww...can't believe I'm saying this ..

[spyretto]

I don't think so (although maybe I got it wrong ) So some Wicks are Slicks, and some are not (I think you can assume that). And some Slicks are Snicks (and some are not), so there is no saying that the Slicks that are Snicks are also Wicks. I mean, Slicks can be either Wicks or non-Wicks, and it's possible that only the non-Wicks are Snicks. It's not clear whether or not the Slick-Snick group includes Wicks or not. By the way it would be the same even if it said: [b]All Wicks are Slicks, and some Slicks are Snicks, just because there are those Slicks out there that aren't Wicks and maybe they are the only ones who are also Snicks. I think I put it was wrong because of the word 'definitely': it's not 'neither', because the 'definitely' in the sentence says you definitely can assume some Wicks are Snicks, and although it's possible that some Wicks are Snicks it's also possible that no Wicks are Snicks, so it's not definite at all.

Yes, you're right. But I got it wrong cause I assumed that some Wicks are Slicks and out of those Slicks some were Snicks. So out of the category of the Wicks who are also Slicks it's quite definite that some of them would be Snicks, some not, but all of them Wicks. So the phrasing of the conundrum pointed me towards that direction.

Instead I would put it like this: If some Wicks are Slicks, and some Snicks are Wicks, then some Snicks are definitely Slicks.

Anyway...Slicks and Snicks

[coolasfcuk]

Originally posted by spyretto
Instead I would put it like this: If some Wicks are Slicks, and some Snicks are Wicks, then some Snicks are definitely Slicks.

you would? worded that way the question CONFUSES me more... lol.. i mean .. i had to think harder about it.... because it is not a 'chain' (for lack of better words to describe this). See the original question... my thought was a 'chain' or a str8 line thought... some Wicks(1) are Slicks(2).. some Slicks(2) are Snicks(3)... so some Wicks(1) are defnitely Snicks(3)....so, simply if some 1s are 2s and some 2s are 3s then some 1s are definitely 3s.
while yours is not a 'chain' (at least to me)... 'cause it goes: some Wicks(1) are Slicks(2) and some Snicks(3) are Wicks(1) .. so some Snicks(3) are definitely Slicks(2).....yours in numbers: if some 1s are 2s and some 3s are 1s then some 3s are definitely 2s
But yes, they used the Snicks and Slicks to make it harder on our poor brains LOL thats why i think of them as 1,2,3

and to finish... the answer to your question is NO, some Snicks are NOT definitely Slicks. so the statement is INCORRECT

[spyretto]

you're all right but the phrasing of the sentence was such that made me think that out of those Slicks who are Wicks some are Snicks. Maybe it was deliberately made that way, so lets say that I blew it on that one

[teeny]

culture fair test all done and I join Denial at the 115 score
101-115 Above the population average, but in the normal range.
116-125 Significantly above average
How I hate being one freaky point from the next level.

[denial]

TLFdk, that was really fun test .. right? right? .. LoL .. hey you need to put your biorythem status too .. other wise its hard to compare. I know of someone who waiting for her intellectual status at 100% than only she'll take the test. hump.. women ..

btw, Tina this weekend maybe we can go through the questions again together what you think? I can catch you on MSN. I don't have any plan yet ..

[teeny]

btw, Tina this weekend maybe we can go through the questions again together what you think? I can catch you on MSN. I don't have any plan yet ..

awww would love to. But this weekend my parents are visiting so pretty much planned every single hour already.
Friday: they will arrive + they are going to the dentist, saturday: get-together at my aunts place. Sunday: going to see a liveshow "Christmas greetings to and from Greenland" - Danish show held every year. It's so much fun. Afterwards going out for dinner with the family.
Tuesday I don't have any plans. Wednesday: going to the cinema and see "Return of the king". Few days later leaving to visit my parents for the holidays. I love December. So much to do
Edit: woops.. looks like monday got lost in there. I think they are leaving at Monday. Otherwise both Monday and Tuesday busy. At least some parts of the days.

TLFdk, that was really fun test .. right? right? .. LoL .. hey you need to put your biorythem status too .. other wise its hard to compare.

My what? is that a part of the test too? You lost me there

[denial]

Tina .. here the link http://www.dailybiorhythm.com/

Sorry I lost you ..

[teeny]

Tina .. here the link http://www.dailybiorhythm.com/

Don't know how to read it.. but yesterday:
Physical: 27%
Emotional: -96%
Intellectual: -96%

No hard feelings, denial I just didn't have a clue. Thought I was at my best any given day.. Looks like december 18 would have been a good day to do the test (intellectual 19% by then)

[febrika]

During the test, you answered four different types of questions — mathematical, visual-spatial, linguistic and logical. We were able to analyze how you did on of those questions, which reveals the way your brain processes information.

We also compared your answers with others who have taken the test, and according to the sorts of questions you got correct, we can tell your Intellectual Type is an Inventive Inquisitor.

You have the unusual distinction of being equally good at math and verbal skills. This means you are a creative thinker and are uniquely good at teaching others through experiences. You are also a great improviser and very good at handling change.

101-115 Above the population average, but in the normal range.

fiuh ...

[elf]

Your IQ score is 161

[xmad]

I did and heres the result:
Your IQ score is 124
"Your Intellectual Type is Visual Mathematician. This means you are gifted at spotting patterns — both in pictures and in numbers. These talents combined with your overall high intelligence make you good at understanding the big picture, which is why people trust your instincts and turn to you for direction — especially in the workplace. And that's just some of what we know about you from your test results."

I think I have to improve my English to get a better result.

[Linda16]

I also took the test. Results: Your IQ score is 127

This number is based on a scientific formula that compares how many questions you answered correctly on the Classic IQ Test relative to others.

Your Intellectual Type is Insightful Linguist. This means you are highly intelligent and have the natural fluency of a writer and the visual and spatial strengths of an artist. Those skills contribute to your creative and expressive mind. And that's just some of what we know about you from your test results.
You are gifted with the natural fluency of a writer and the visual and spatial strengths of an artist. Those skills contribute to your creative and expressive mind. Insightful linguists can take complex concepts and articulate them to just about anyone. You have a gift with words and insight into processes and the way people think. These talents enable you to explain things clearly to people.

I did quite well in mathematics:
You scored in the 80th percentile on the mathematical intelligence scale.

Absolutely well in visual-spatial intelligence:
You scored in the 100th percentile on the visual-spatial intelligence scale.

and in linguistic intelligence:
You scored in the 100th percentile on the linguistic intelligence scale.

But I failed in logics
You scored in the 40th percentile on the logical intelligence scale.

Jobs that they recommend for me:
Publicist
Translator
Graphic designer
Teacher
Broadcaster
Public speaker
Attorney
Politician

At least, I have not made mistakes in my life and have chosen right paths

[Rachel]

I haven't the patience to take a test like this LOL

Plus, I'd probably embarrass myself

[zelda05]

Rachel, feel embarrass?... highly doubt that.

As for me, I haven't got the time to register...

[KillaQueen]

Originally Posted by Rachel

Plus, I'd probably embarrass myself

LOL, yeah me too...