Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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! ;-) |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Patio Garden, Cat Friendly help requested | Gardening | |||
Totally, totally OT but wow! | United Kingdom | |||
dendrobium help requested | Orchid Photos | |||
Rhodie help requested | Gardening | |||
Help requested with afflicted Holly trees | United Kingdom |