Totally OT, help requested
 

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
.. .
..

My son at Durham University needs some data for his undergraduate
dissertation, and has posted a short IQ test at the following site:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/j.a.lyle/index.php

He'd be very grateful to any volunteer guinea pigs kind-hearted enough
to take part. It's anonymous, of course; but anybody who cares to supply
an email address goes into a draw for a prize of £20!


I just got this back

"Your IQ is: 133

Thanks for taking part in the survey.

You will be notified of the prize-draw winner in late Spring."

Which is about what I expected from a short online IQ test. Whenever you
get more than two standard deviations above or below the norm things tend to
get hazy.

I was hoping he would give us access to his completed data though, with
anonymity of course.

Tom

Totally OT, help requested
 

In message , Tom
writes

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
. ..
.

My son at Durham University needs some data for his undergraduate
dissertation, and has posted a short IQ test at the following site:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/j.a.lyle/index.php

He'd be very grateful to any volunteer guinea pigs kind-hearted enough
to take part. It's anonymous, of course; but anybody who cares to supply
an email address goes into a draw for a prize of £20!


I just got this back

"Your IQ is: 133

Thanks for taking part in the survey.

You will be notified of the prize-draw winner in late Spring."

Which is about what I expected from a short online IQ test. Whenever you
get more than two standard deviations above or below the norm things tend to
get hazy.

I was hoping he would give us access to his completed data though, with
anonymity of course.

I haven't heard anything yet.
--
June Hughes

Totally OT, help requested
 

"June Hughes"
Tom writes
I just got this back
"Your IQ is: 133

I haven't heard anything yet.
June Hughes

Me neither.
Jenny

Totally OT, help requested
 

In message , June Hughes
writes
In message , Tom
writes

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
.

My son at Durham University needs some data for his undergraduate
dissertation, and has posted a short IQ test at the following site:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/j.a.lyle/index.php

He'd be very grateful to any volunteer guinea pigs kind-hearted enough
to take part. It's anonymous, of course; but anybody who cares to supply
an email address goes into a draw for a prize of £20!


I just got this back

"Your IQ is: 133

Thanks for taking part in the survey.

You will be notified of the prize-draw winner in late Spring."

Which is about what I expected from a short online IQ test. Whenever you
get more than two standard deviations above or below the norm things tend to
get hazy.

I was hoping he would give us access to his completed data though, with
anonymity of course.

I haven't heard anything yet.
Just got it. 143 but I don't really know what that means. Bas did it
too and he hasn't had a reply yet.
--
June Hughes

Totally OT, help requested
 

June Hughes wrote:
In message , June Hughes
writes
In message , Tom
writes

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
.. .
.

My son at Durham University needs some data for his undergraduate
dissertation, and has posted a short IQ test at the following site:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/j.a.lyle/index.php

He'd be very grateful to any volunteer guinea pigs kind-hearted
enough to take part. It's anonymous, of course; but anybody who
cares to supply an email address goes into a draw for a prize of
£20!


I just got this back

"Your IQ is: 133

Thanks for taking part in the survey.

You will be notified of the prize-draw winner in late Spring."

Which is about what I expected from a short online IQ test.
Whenever you get more than two standard deviations above or below
the norm things tend to get hazy.

I was hoping he would give us access to his completed data though,
with anonymity of course.

I haven't heard anything yet.
Just got it. 143 but I don't really know what that means. Bas did it
too and he hasn't had a reply yet.

To all. (You probably don't want me clogging up the thread with
individual replies.) That's very strange: I'd have expected the scores
to be available immediately, since they must surely be machine-graded.
I'll look into it. Of course his interpretation of the data won't be
done by the computer, and that will take time. I've already let him know
that a lot of those who kindly gave their time would be interested in
some sort of debriefing document; but as that would be based on the
dissertation as a whole it can only be done at the end. But I'll keep
hounding him gently.

--
Mike.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Totally OT, help requested
 

In message , Mike Lyle
writes

To all. (You probably don't want me clogging up the thread with
individual replies.) That's very strange: I'd have expected the scores
to be available immediately, since they must surely be machine-graded.
I'll look into it. Of course his interpretation of the data won't be
done by the computer, and that will take time. I've already let him know
that a lot of those who kindly gave their time would be interested in
some sort of debriefing document; but as that would be based on the
dissertation as a whole it can only be done at the end. But I'll keep
hounding him gently.

No worries, Mike. I would just like to know whether or not Bas has
beaten me:)
--
June Hughes

Totally OT, help requested
 

In article , Mike Lyle
writes

To all. (You probably don't want me clogging up the thread with
individual replies.) That's very strange: I'd have expected the scores
to be available immediately, since they must surely be machine-graded.
I'll look into it. Of course his interpretation of the data won't be
done by the computer, and that will take time. I've already let him know
that a lot of those who kindly gave their time would be interested in
some sort of debriefing document; but as that would be based on the
dissertation as a whole it can only be done at the end. But I'll keep
hounding him gently.

--
Mike.



Good job someone else commented on the scores, I was really miffed that
in my old age I could only get 144 out of poss. 200? But then I am a sad
competitive individual anyway:)
I'll wait and see what intellectually talented people such as Kay clock
up before I assume I'm getting very much thicker as I get older :)

Though on one question I ticked the box only to realise as it faded away
that I had ticked the wrong one! Which probably goes to show I am also
less dextrous than I used to be as well as getting dimmer.

Janet
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

Totally OT, help requested
 

In message , Janet Tweedy
writes
In article , Mike Lyle
writes

To all. (You probably don't want me clogging up the thread with
individual replies.) That's very strange: I'd have expected the scores
to be available immediately, since they must surely be machine-graded.
I'll look into it. Of course his interpretation of the data won't be
done by the computer, and that will take time. I've already let him know
that a lot of those who kindly gave their time would be interested in
some sort of debriefing document; but as that would be based on the
dissertation as a whole it can only be done at the end. But I'll keep
hounding him gently.

--
Mike.



Good job someone else commented on the scores, I was really miffed that
in my old age I could only get 144 out of poss. 200? But then I am a
sad competitive individual anyway:)
Well, Janet, I got 143, so you beat me by 1. From looking at a link on
someone else's posting in this thread, I don't think it works the way
you have posted, although I thought it did before I read the web page.
144 is apparently very high.
snip
Though on one question I ticked the box only to realise as it faded
away that I had ticked the wrong one! Which probably goes to show I am
also less dextrous than I used to be as well as getting dimmer.

IIRC, one of the shapes looked to me as though it had a little curve at
the corner of one of the triangle but that was probably an optical
illusion.
--
June Hughes

Totally OT, help requested
 

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:43:59 +0000, June Hughes wrote
(in article ):

In message , Janet Tweedy
writes

snip

Good job someone else commented on the scores, I was really miffed that
in my old age I could only get 144 out of poss. 200? But then I am a
sad competitive individual anyway:)

Me too - 144. But what makes you think it's out of 200? If it's meant to be
a measure of IQ (though I don't take that seriously), surely no-one has an IQ
of 200? I thought it was a nice bit of fun.

Well, Janet, I got 143, so you beat me by 1. From looking at a link on
someone else's posting in this thread, I don't think it works the way
you have posted, although I thought it did before I read the web page.
144 is apparently very high.

Oh goody! (not to beating you by 1, but to the high score, you understand.
g)

Though on one question I ticked the box only to realise as it faded
away that I had ticked the wrong one! Which probably goes to show I am
also less dextrous than I used to be as well as getting dimmer.

IIRC, one of the shapes looked to me as though it had a little curve at
the corner of one of the triangle but that was probably an optical
illusion.


I must admit, I would really like to know some time which ones I got wrong
and why. I thought some of the shapes were quite hard - and the wheelbarrows
were definitely difficult, as someone else has already said. You'd think
gardeners would get the wheelbarrows right if nothing else!





--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
bed and breakfast near Ludlow: http://www.stonybrook-ludlow.co.uk
Burne-Jones/William Morris window in Shropshire church:
http://www.whitton-stmarys.org.uk

Totally OT, help requested
 

In article et, Sally
Thompson writes


I must admit, I would really like to know some time which ones I got wrong
and why. I thought some of the shapes were quite hard - and the wheelbarrows
were definitely difficult, as someone else has already said. You'd think
gardeners would get the wheelbarrows right if nothing else!



Sometimes. Those of us who do every crossword/questionnaire or quiz we
come across are guilty of looking too hard at questions, suspecting a
drawback or cunningly concealed ulterior motive or catch.

The times I've struggled with a Telegraph question and given it to Tom
who sees it immediately as being what it 'looks like' rather than any
underlying mysterious solution :)

but .............

HOOOOOORAAAAAAY ............... (sort of thread-related)
I got a letter today to say I had won a packet of every Unwin Sweet Pea
PLUS a ten pound voucher in the Gardening Answers Crossword competition
last month! Never won anything before and am really delighted :) :) :)

However ................
I've just received my order of 24 packets of special Sweet Peas from
Roger Parsons ..........
never mind, the Gardening Club will be great to use the seeds if I
germinate, pot up, then sell for Club donations, then I can spread the
good fortune. (Very superstitious, me)

Janet

--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

Totally OT, help requested
 

Sally Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:43:59 +0000, June Hughes wrote
(in article ):

In message , Janet Tweedy
writes

snip

Good job someone else commented on the scores, I was really miffed
that in my old age I could only get 144 out of poss. 200? But then
I am a sad competitive individual anyway:)

Me too - 144. But what makes you think it's out of 200? If it's
meant to be a measure of IQ (though I don't take that seriously),
surely no-one has an IQ of 200? I thought it was a nice bit of fun.
[...]

We shouldn't, as I think I've said, take the scores too seriously: these
things need to be done in controlled conditions. I'm fairly sceptical
about the general usefulness of these tests anyhow. And of course, as a
pedant though no mathematician, I'd say "quotient" is, strictly
speaking, inappropriate language deriving from tests for children, in
which the IQ came from the formula "mental age / chronological age *
100": it's done in a statistical way for adults.

--
Mike.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Totally OT, help requested
 

Mike Lyle wrote:
Sally Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:43:59 +0000, June Hughes wrote
(in article ):

In message , Janet Tweedy
writes
snip

Good job someone else commented on the scores, I was really miffed
that in my old age I could only get 144 out of poss. 200? But then
I am a sad competitive individual anyway:)
Me too - 144. But what makes you think it's out of 200? If it's
meant to be a measure of IQ (though I don't take that seriously),
surely no-one has an IQ of 200? I thought it was a nice bit of fun.
[...]

We shouldn't, as I think I've said, take the scores too seriously: these
things need to be done in controlled conditions. I'm fairly sceptical
about the general usefulness of these tests anyhow. And of course, as a
pedant though no mathematician, I'd say "quotient" is, strictly
speaking, inappropriate language deriving from tests for children, in
which the IQ came from the formula "mental age / chronological age *
100": it's done in a statistical way for adults.

Coincidentally I also got over 140, however there was no time limit and
though I did not use a calculator I was tempted! ;-)

Totally OT, help requested
 

"Broadback" wrote in message
...


however there was no time limit

which makes it a stupid exercise not to be taken seriously.


Mike FEP


--
.................................................. .........
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk
www.nsrafa.com

Totally OT, help requested
 

'Mike' wrote:
"Broadback" wrote in message
...


however there was no time limit

which makes it a stupid exercise not to be taken seriously.

Except that we don't know what was being tested -- as it happens, I have
reason to suspect that it _wasn't_ IQ. Apart from anything else, this
kind of experiment, just like market research, tends to be invalidated
if its subjects know what it's about.

I think, like others, that a "health warning" should have been given
along with the reported score. Of course scores arrived at in these
conditions have little scientific validity, and should be treated mainly
as a bit of fun -- after all, what actual use is it to adults to know
their IQ? We must await the debriefing.

--
Mike.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Totally OT, help requested
 

On 14/2/07 17:35, in article ,
"Mike Lyle" wrote:

'Mike' wrote:
"Broadback" wrote in message
...


however there was no time limit

which makes it a stupid exercise not to be taken seriously.

Except that we don't know what was being tested -- as it happens, I have
reason to suspect that it _wasn't_ IQ. Apart from anything else, this
kind of experiment, just like market research, tends to be invalidated
if its subjects know what it's about.

I think, like others, that a "health warning" should have been given
along with the reported score. Of course scores arrived at in these
conditions have little scientific validity, and should be treated mainly
as a bit of fun -- after all, what actual use is it to adults to know
their IQ? We must await the debriefing.

With regard to the adults and IQ thing, you'd be amazed - or perhaps you
wouldn't - at how many people boast they're members of MENSA. ;-)

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/
(remove weeds from address)