I'm looking for an IQ test.
This is usually a sign of low intelligence :-)
I'm aware of all the usual caveats & limitations and assorted doubts
about such things.
Notwithstanding, I have good enough reason to want such and,
unfortunately, I want it NOW.
Or, almost now - in fact within the next 16 hours or so would be OK.
Google has much to say on IQ tests, but much is rubbish and much that
may be accessible has people or delays in the loop. My hope is that
someone may know something which meets my spec and allow me to avoid
haystack searching.
The test needs to be
- Generally acknowledged as useful. (Mensa certified (whoever they are
:-) ) or whatever or otherwise rated by some official rater of such
things).
- Online accessible.
- Results available essentially immediately.
- Free would be nice but a sensible cost would be OK (say <=$US20 for
a certified test)
- Not too long to complete. Say up to 30 minutes would be OK.
- I'd prefer something which dealt rather less in shapes and patterns
and the like than Mensa tend to - but I'll take what comes. (I seem to
do pattern type tests about as well as expected for my putative IQ - I
just dislike them severely).
The test is for me. I'm going to see someone at the end of tomorrow
and IQ will feature peripherally. I know well enough what my IQ is and
how much or how little it signifies in various real world situations
(a lot or a little, depending vastly on circumstance). But I'd like to
be able to provide at least reference to a formal test, even if the
circumstances under which I took it were 'open loop" so there was no
proof that I didn't cheat. ie I can say I scored xxx on test yyy under
these circumstances, and they can make what they will of that.
Russell McMahon
FWIW - I believe my IQ is about the same as the much maligned US
President. Despite the things frequently said about him, and despite
published claims that he has a tested and low IQ (fabricated
comparison tables have been promulgated), he is no dumb bunny. He may
act like a dumb bunny on occasions (don't we all) but he is smarter
than most Democrats,and, I hasten to add, than most Republicans :-).
ie his IQ is up in the higher percentiles. How high you can try to
determine for yourself. You may be surprised. Which, if I'm correct on
both counts, doesn't make me a genius, but does make me "smarter" than
most democrats and most republicans. Alas, or perhaps fortunately, IQ
alone isn't what counts in life.
Russell McMahon wrote:
> I'm looking for an IQ test.
It's 5 o'clock, do you know what time it is?
What color is my red shirt?
Guess how many coins are in my hand and you can have both of them.
> But I'd like to
> be able to provide at least reference to a formal test, even if the
> circumstances under which I took it were 'open loop" so there was no
> proof that I didn't cheat.
I would think that if anyone cared enough to want to know, they want it
properly certified or administer the test themselves. There must be a way
to take the Mensa test. Don't they require that you have to score a certain
level to become a member? If so, that would imply that anyone can take the
test. You don't hear much about them so they may be hard to find (maybe
that't the real test ;-) ).
Russell, Mensa accepts results from IQ tests such as Cattell III B,
Cattell Culture Fair, Ravens Advanced Matrices, Ravens Standard
Matrices and Wechsler Scales. All of these are supervised and not
in the public domain, so you won't find them on line. You could try
here
Note - the Mensa Workout is similar to what was used in the
past. For you in particular (as an educated English-speaking
person) it would present no comprehension problems. Nowadays
tests are mostly spatial problem solving, whch is culturally and
educationally fairer, as they involve no language, maths, or
general knowledge
>> But I'd like to
>> be able to provide at least reference to a formal test, even if the
>> circumstances under which I took it were 'open loop" so there was
>> no
>> proof that I didn't cheat.
> I would think that if anyone cared enough to want to know, they want
> it
> properly certified or administer the test themselves.
If they wanted to depend on it, yes.
If they were willing to trust me, and only I was hurt by giving a
wrong result, then not necessarily.
I don't serve to gain in any normal manner from any particular
result - and any gain I might get would not be at the 'expense' of the
person I'll be talking to - but a knowledge of the rough range from a
certified test would be useful.
Thanks.
Yep - that's the sort I hate :-).
I can do them as relatively well as i can do the "culturally unfair"
ones - I just like them less.
I'll look at it later today (2am+ now)
Read some more and you may find his probable IQ :-)
FWIW - I just did the Mensa workout.
They say I got 25/30. On looking I find only 4 I know I got 'wrong'.
Shows a lack of IQ not being able to remember what the 5th was :-)
I missed #1 "Sally likes"
Annoyingly obvious in retrospect.
I got not the scrambled word
HCPRAATEU
Nor the other arrangement of
INSATIABLE
I got #30 wrong - I find such arguments about patterns questionable.
Some other questions also had doubtful ambiguous answers (even though
I got them right).
I dislike ambiguous questions where you are at the whim of the asker.
I got 7 right for the wrong reason - my rule was sound and worked but
wasn't their rule. They related but were not identical and just
happened to coincide.
Similar with 21. Too much ambiguity.
I got 25 correct and my rule was correct but more complex than their
rule - mine was a superset of theirs.
As I said - I don't like this sort of test.
I'd guess from their comment "very strong chance of passing the Mensa
test" that they rate that 120+ but I really wanted a numeric estimate
(be it ever so meaningless ;-) ).
There doesn't appear to be the slightest relationship
between being having a high IQ score and being
successful in life.
This is one of those things that can derail your life
needlessly.
In fact, even the relationship showing higher education
bringing greater wealth over a lifetime is nebulous, because
the people able to attend college have a stronger financial
standing anyway, so would be successful whether they actually
attended class or not.
Trust me, I was a member of Mensa for a couple of years,
and it meant absolutely nothing to me then or now.
>>>FWIW - I believe my IQ is about the same as the much maligned US
>>>President
>>>
>>>
>>www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm
>>
>>
>
>Indeed.
>
>Read some more and you may find his probable IQ :-)
>
>FWIW - I just did the Mensa workout.
>They say I got 25/30. On looking I find only 4 I know I got 'wrong'.
>Shows a lack of IQ not being able to remember what the 5th was :-)
>
>I missed #1 "Sally likes"
>Annoyingly obvious in retrospect.
>
>I got not the scrambled word
> HCPRAATEU
>
>Nor the other arrangement of
> INSATIABLE
>
>I got #30 wrong - I find such arguments about patterns questionable.
>Some other questions also had doubtful ambiguous answers (even though
>I got them right).
>I dislike ambiguous questions where you are at the whim of the asker.
>
>I got 7 right for the wrong reason - my rule was sound and worked but
>wasn't their rule. They related but were not identical and just
>happened to coincide.
>
>Similar with 21. Too much ambiguity.
>
>I got 25 correct and my rule was correct but more complex than their
>rule - mine was a superset of theirs.
>
>As I said - I don't like this sort of test.
>
>I'd guess from their comment "very strong chance of passing the Mensa
>test" that they rate that 120+ but I really wanted a numeric estimate
>(be it ever so meaningless ;-) ).
>
>
> RM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 07:17:03AM -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Russell McMahon wrote:
> > I'm looking for an IQ test.
>
> It's 5 o'clock, do you know what time it is?
>
> What color is my red shirt?
>
> Guess how many coins are in my hand and you can have both of them.
Sounds more like a senile dementia test.... Here's to hoping I don't
encounter any of those soon, it's my 21st birthday tomorrow after all.
:)
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 07:18:27AM -0700, Bob Axtell wrote:
> Why waste all the time and effort on an IQ test?
>
> There doesn't appear to be the slightest relationship
> between being having a high IQ score and being
> successful in life.
An interesting study I once saw was a very different relationship...
Namely a babies ability to put off eating a marshmellow now to get more
marshmellow's later. Corrolated over a few decades, that test was a
pretty good predictor of later financial wealth.
Pretty obviously likely of course, if you save $1 as a teenager, with
invested savings you can easilly end up with $50 when you retire...
Which is why my current savings are... er... almost zero...
> In fact, even the relationship showing higher education
> bringing greater wealth over a lifetime is nebulous, because
> the people able to attend college have a stronger financial
> standing anyway, so would be successful whether they actually
> attended class or not.
As it is even my career studies teachers in highschool told you that
getting a PhD was something you should only do for yourself, rate of
return on that one, if you account for the opportunity cost, is
definetely in the negative for most people.
> FWIW - I believe my IQ is about the same as the much maligned US
> President. Despite the things frequently said about him, and despite
> published claims that he has a tested and low IQ (fabricated
> comparison tables have been promulgated), he is no dumb bunny. He may
> act like a dumb bunny on occasions (don't we all) but he is smarter
> than most Democrats,and, I hasten to add, than most Republicans :-).
> ie his IQ is up in the higher percentiles. How high you can try to
> determine for yourself. You may be surprised. Which, if I'm correct on
> both counts, doesn't make me a genius, but does make me "smarter" than
> most democrats and most republicans. Alas, or perhaps fortunately, IQ
> alone isn't what counts in life.
You had me until this pointless political diatribe.
Well since you decided to be insulting I won't help. Yeah such tests
are online and I have taken them. Since you are claiming to be such a
genius and smarter than the rest of us, find it yourself.
------------------------------------- Notice of Confidentiality ----------------------------------------------------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify .....postmasterKILLspam.....vgt.net. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified
that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
is strictly prohibited.
William Killian wrote:
> You had me until this pointless political diatribe.
>
> Well since you decided to be insulting I won't help.
It's you're right to help or not, but I read Russell's post too and didn't
find anything insulting in it. Yes, there was yet another unneccessary
political commentary but it certainly wasn't a "diatribe". I truly fail to
see what you're getting all upset about.
> There doesn't appear to be the slightest relationship
> between being having a high IQ score and being
> successful in life.
Actually the relationship with wealth seems to be *inverse*. More
exactly it seems that average people are wealthiest and happiest. How
surprising (since they define who is average, who is wealthy, and who is
happy).
>On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, Bob Axtell wrote:
>
>
>
>>There doesn't appear to be the slightest relationship
>>between being having a high IQ score and being
>>successful in life.
>>
>>
>
>Actually the relationship with wealth seems to be *inverse*. More
>exactly it seems that average people are wealthiest and happiest. How
>surprising (since they define who is average, who is wealthy, and who is
>happy).
>
>Peter
>
>
Yes, I agree.
> > There doesn't appear to be the slightest relationship
> > between being having a high IQ score and being
> > successful in life.
IQ is only one factor in who we are. There are so many others
that determine self-motivation. Character, opportunity, "street
smarts", and so on. I note that "wealth" immediately pops up
as a qualifier of success. It's an indicator (unreliable IMHO), but
not necessarily the goal. Many people, whatever their IQ, EQ or
current flavour Q test, would probably, if they thought about it,
prefer that they be able to pursue their dreams and ideas and be
fulfilled, whatever their financial situation. Take artists, writers,
musicians - and amateur programmers - for example. Money,
rather than wealth, does oil the cogs though, no denying that
> You had me until this pointless political diatribe.
William - and others - my apologies if I didn't make myself clear.
That was meant to be a joke. My humour doesn't always translate well
:-(.
It was indeed "pointless" for practical purposes, but perhaps not from
a humour point of view. My point was that, spread across the entire
population, the average person essentially has an IQ of 100, by
definition. As I assume that the IQ of both Republicans and Democrats
is more or less normally distributed (despite probable claims to the
contrary from both groups about the others :-) ) then ANY person with
an IQ > 100 by more than a tiny amount will have an IQ higher than
most Republicans and most Democrats. As George Bush's IQ (and mine)
is, by any normal measure, somewhat > 100 (regardless of how useful or
meaningful this may be) then my statement is (probably) true. It also
applies to most people on this list. (ie You are not likely to be here
if you are not at least SLIGHTLY more intelligent than the average
person. There may be some people on this list with IQs < 100 or even
<< 100 but the numbers will be few.
As to my remark that ' ...George Bush is not a dumb bunny even though
he may act like a dumb bunny on occasions ...' - I'd hope that he
would agree with and be reasonably pleased with that observation. We
all have our bad moments, and GB and I are certainly no exceptions to
that. There have been quite scurrilous 'reports', masquerading as
factual surveys, published on the web which purport to show that he
has an IQ of slightly < 100. Jinx published a link to a rebuttal of
one such. In fact his IQ is higher than that of a significant majority
of people. Note that this statement would be true of a person with an
IQ of 110, 120, 130 or higher, so by itself it doesn't tell you much.
I believe I have a reasonable idea of his IQ, based on publicly
available information. It's not at Newton/Einstein level, but it's
respectable by any standard. What the implications of this are not
relevant to the actual figure.
Again, no political diatribe intended. We don't have either
Republican's or Democrats here so it's less of an issue :-).
> ... such tests are online and I have taken them.
I've seen many online tests and done a few for fun but, alas, none
I've seen have met the criteria I listed. What I want a test which is
certifiably acceptable if taken under controlled conditions but
available to be taken under uncontrolled conditions. The Mensa
'workout' offered by Jinx probably comes as close as one is liable to
get.
>>>There doesn't appear to be the slightest relationship
>>>between being having a high IQ score and being
>>>successful in life.
>>>
>>>
>
>IQ is only one factor in who we are. There are so many others
>that determine self-motivation. Character, opportunity, "street
>smarts", and so on. I note that "wealth" immediately pops up
>as a qualifier of success. It's an indicator (unreliable IMHO), but
>not necessarily the goal.
>
As my old friend Harry N used to say, "wealth is not everything, just a
way to keep
score!"
>Many people, whatever their IQ, EQ or
>current flavour Q test, would probably, if they thought about it,
>prefer that they be able to pursue their dreams and ideas and be
>fulfilled, whatever their financial situation. Take artists, writers,
>musicians - and amateur programmers - for example. Money,
>rather than wealth, does oil the cogs though, no denying that
>
>
>
In my life, I have been at one time wealthy, at one time happy. The
happy time
is the best of times, of course.. but money allows one to purchase a better
grade of misery.
>> There doesn't appear to be the slightest relationship
>> between being having a high IQ score and being
>> successful in life.
>
> Actually the relationship with wealth seems to be *inverse*. More
> exactly it seems that average people are wealthiest and happiest.
Sources? If we're going to get into the IQ debate and people are
going to make assertions like the above, I'd really like to see
references rather than just "I've heard." For instance, I've
heard (From Jerry Pournelle, NOT what I consider a particularly
reliable source) that there was a POSITIVE correlation between
IQ as measured by standardized tests and wealth in latter life.
So now we reports of at least three different studies, spanning
all possible outcomes: negative, zero, or positive correlation
with wealth... Attach to your favorite political agenda as
appropriate...
I would assumes that the broader one defines "intelligence", the
less likely it is to correlate with anything. It's all very well
to come up with language-neutral, culture-neutral, fully objective
measures of "intelligence", but that doesn't remove the language,
culture, and subjective aspects of all the things (success, wealth,
school performance, happiness, etc) that one might hope to
correlate intelligence WITH.
Of the team, Watson and Crick, who discovered the DNA molecule structure,
one of them, and I can't remember which, had an IQ in the 90's. I think IQ
may be very misleading, just as education. When I was a young engineer, I
worked for a senior engineer who everybody said was a genius. With only an
undergraduate at the time I was awed. But later I found out the guy had
only graduated from High School; but he had a wall full of patents and lots
of awards. I think the argument that these are exception needs to explain
exception to what rule.
Just my 2 cents. BTW, I did perceive the story as humor. The bit about
Bush was a dead give away.
> Of the team, Watson and Crick, who discovered the DNA
> molecule structure,
> one of them, and I can't remember which, had an IQ in the
> 90's. I think IQ
> may be very misleading,
IMHO even a statement like '... has an IQ of ...' is grossly misleading.
There are tests that can be applied to a person that will produce a
figure, but there is no guarantee that two such tests will agree. The
only scientific definition of IQ is 'the figure that results from this
test'.
Wouter van Ooijen
-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu
Thanks to all for the various interesting observations on IQ tests -
even though most were not especially relevant to the requirement.
Interesting is often enough a good enough reason :-)
As it happened, Jinx's suggestion of the Mensa 'workout' test did the
job well enough.
It filled the need far better and more usefully than I would have
expected.
> Of the team, Watson and Crick, who discovered the DNA molecule
> structure,
> one of them, and I can't remember which, had an IQ in the 90's.
I'd be immensely surprised if that low figure were true.
Other sources place Crick's IQ at 115 - still surprisingly low.
However, judging from his book "Life Itself" that estimate may be high
:-).
I haven't read any of his other books so that one may be, perhaps, an
outlier.
Some give Richard Feynman's IQ as 124 - also surprising.
List compiled in 1926 by Cox of estimates of IQs of 300 past greats
He puts Newton at 190 and da'Vinci at a paltry 180 so the list is
suspect 9as all such lists must be).
Goethe top at 210. I seem to be somewhere between Drake & Cromwell
(perhaps).
> Of William "Chops" Westfield
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 7:31 PM
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [OT] IQ test wanted.. .
>
> On Mar 13, 2006, at 10:24 AM, Peter wrote:
>
> >> There doesn't appear to be the slightest relationship
> >> between being having a high IQ score and being
> >> successful in life.
> >
> > Actually the relationship with wealth seems to be *inverse*. More
> > exactly it seems that average people are wealthiest and happiest.
>
> Sources? If we're going to get into the IQ debate and people are
> going to make assertions like the above, I'd really like to see
> references rather than just "I've heard." For instance, I've
> heard (From Jerry Pournelle, NOT what I consider a particularly
> reliable source) that there was a POSITIVE correlation between
> IQ as measured by standardized tests and wealth in latter life.
> So now we reports of at least three different studies, spanning
> all possible outcomes: negative, zero, or positive correlation
> with wealth... Attach to your favorite political agenda as
> appropriate...
>
> I would assumes that the broader one defines "intelligence", the
> less likely it is to correlate with anything. It's all very well
> to come up with language-neutral, culture-neutral, fully objective
> measures of "intelligence", but that doesn't remove the language,
> culture, and subjective aspects of all the things (success, wealth,
> school performance, happiness, etc) that one might hope to
> correlate intelligence WITH.
>
> BillW
There are no sources to show a negative proportion between intelligence
as measured by IQ tests and wealth. I'm certainly a data point to show
otherwise as are several of my friends. And I know a few people living
hand to mouth that aren't exactly mensa material.
I've chosen to be very comfortable but not weathy by my measuring stick.
Others though do consider me wealthy. It's a matter of perspective.
IQ test type intelligence doesn't exactly relate to wealth but those of
higher IQ have far more choice as to defining success and then achieving
what they consider to be success.
Even if my company puts obnoxious tags at the end of email...
------------------------------------- Notice of Confidentiality ----------------------------------------------------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify spamBeGonepostmasterspamBeGonevgt.net. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified
that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
is strictly prohibited.
There is an IQ test that is not Mensa acceptable as Mensa does not
accept any un-monitored testing. I believe they though did start
accepting scores in the very high range on SAT tests.
I have not found any online testing that measures accurately over the
whole spectrum - that would not be a short test certainly - and most
basically seem to lose accuracy near or even below the Mensa cut off of
about the top 2%.
Those that are on list like this are yes almost certainly in the normal
to gifted ranges with far fewer on the lower ends compared to the
general population.
> > But later I found out the guy had only graduated from High
> > School; but he had a wall full of patents and lots of awards
>
> And there are "late bloomers", or people who just don't do
> well in exams but excel in their subject in real life
Or those for whom their natural subject isn't taught at schools - computing, in my case, but think of all the
jobs that need skills that aren't even touched at school: airline pilots, ship's captains, racing drivers,
SCUBA divers, mountain-rescue people, entrepreneurs, commodity traders, politicians, estate agents... in no
particular order (honest!).
> I once watched a mime who was trapped in a glass box
> (which wasn't there)
I'd hate to be trapped in one of those things. The feeling of
isolation would probably render you speechless. Luckily they
catch mostly guys in black leotards
> On Mar 13, 2006, at 10:24 AM, Peter wrote:
>
>>> There doesn't appear to be the slightest relationship
>>> between being having a high IQ score and being
>>> successful in life.
>>
>> Actually the relationship with wealth seems to be *inverse*. More
>> exactly it seems that average people are wealthiest and happiest.
>
> Sources? If we're going to get into the IQ debate and people are
This comes from a number of sources along the years, with the happiest
being the average, from a different source than for the richest being
average. While trying to find th link I found other more or less
relevant sociological studies:
> IMHO even a statement like '... has an IQ of ...' is grossly
> misleading.
> There are tests that can be applied to a person that will produce a
> figure, but there is no guarantee that two such tests will agree.
> The
> only scientific definition of IQ is 'the figure that results from
> this
> test'.
Your point is well understood, but I believe you can get a bit better
than that. The "meaning" of IQ is a position on a distribution
relative to the population as a whole. The weightings will indeed vary
with culture, education, context, phase of moon. last bank holiday,
and more. But, if a person rates in eg the top quartile on a given
test that is meant to be appropriate to general performance in a given
society, it seems unlikely that they would rate in say the bottom
quartile in another test with the same intended target group. One
would hope (perhaps forlornly) that two tests which had the same
general objectives and were based on substantial experience would rate
the same person within say 5% or so on the same distribution. If they
failed to do so and the difference was substantial then it may point
to a specific factor in the individuals performance / mindset /
education / cognitive ability etc that was explored substantially
differently by the different tests. Such a difference could be
extremely valuable in identifying certain aspects of a subjects
capabilities.
I generally rate "well up the scale" on a range of IQ tests. A while
ago I took one online in uncontrolled circumstances without an
adequate understanding of certain conditions under which the test was
run. It was a reputable enough test that the score should have been
meaningful. It went very badly indeed and AFAIK I got a result in the
105-110 range. I understand why and if I took a similar test again I
would score differently BUT it is quite possibly valid to say that
within the overall circumstances of that test my IQ was validly around
the range assessed. ie I blew it because it found and exploited a
weakness in my 'system'. The key was that the test was timed on a per
question basis and you did each question in order and were not able to
go back. Failure to complete any question in the relatively short
allotted time presumably returned a zero score. I did not expect and
was unprepared for this approach and by the time I had adjusted to it
I had irrevocably dropped out of "the top of the tail". If I had been
subjected unprepared to a similar situation in real life I may have
failed as badly. This is exactly the sort of thing that I (and most of
us) try to avoid in real life as life tends to be real-time,
sequential and the time-arrow usually only points one way :-). As I
rode a motorcycle on and off road for many years and am still alive
(only one head-on collision with a car on road :-) ) it suggests that
I am usually reasonably OK at this process :-).
This highlights another problem with many tests. As they are designed
to sort IQs across a wide distribution and as the majority of the
distribution has the majority of the data points they tend to "cram"
the top end into the outcome of a small range of questions. (Badly
put). eg in the Mensa workout I scored 25/30. Several questions that I
got right were open to interpretation and I could as well have got
them wrong (poor) and several I got right for valid (I thought)
reasons which were not their reasons. Two I could well have got right
but didn't and I judge it happenstance as to whether I did or didn't.
It's quite possible that a Goethe or James [:-)] would have got them
correct "as of right" and this would have reflected their high IQ but
my result could presumably have been pushed quite substantially up or
down the distribution by happenstance.
On 3/14/06, Russell McMahon <apptechEraseME.....paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> >> I'm looking for an IQ test.
>
> > Maybe you should take the nerd/geek/dork test instead:
>
> > http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=9935030990046738815
>
> Agh.
> (Descriptive labels are mine)
>
> Their rating "Pure Nerd"
>
> Nerd 73% Techo obsessor
> Geek 21% Specialty obsessor
> Dork 43% Social inept
>
Modern, Cool Nerd
52 % Nerd, 69% Geek, 43% Dork
We're the same dork level. :)
Other people that I sent this to last week scored lower on the dork
scale but I suspect they weren't being honest with themselves.
What concerns me about this IQ test business is that some youngsters
take it seriously, when in fact the results, regardless of what they are,
have no RELEVANCE whatever.
A sensitive person could be emotionally damaged by a low score, and
perhaps "give up".
In truth, an IQ test indicates (1) the ability to make decisions
swiftly, and
(2) indicates a kind of cultural bias. Neither of these capabilities should
be the determiner of ANYTHING. MOST people that make rapid decisions
make a lot of errors as well.
It reminds me of the early 20th century scientists who were determining
intelligence based on bumps on the head, i.e. Frenology, I think it was
called.
>>>I'm looking for an IQ test.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>Maybe you should take the nerd/geek/dork test instead:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=9935030990046738815
>>
>>
>
>Agh.
>(Descriptive labels are mine)
>
>Their rating "Pure Nerd"
>
>Nerd 73% Techo obsessor
>Geek 21% Specialty obsessor
>Dork 43% Social inept
>
>
>I resemble that !
>
>I'll have to work on that last figure (but should it be up or down?)
>
>
>
> RM
>
>
>
> > Maybe you should take the nerd/geek/dork test instead:
>
> > www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=9935030990046738815
>
> Agh.
> (Descriptive labels are mine)
>
> Their rating "Pure Nerd"
>
> Nerd 73% Techo obsessor
> Geek 21% Specialty obsessor
> Dork 43% Social inept
>
>
> I resemble that !
>
> I'll have to work on that last figure (but should it be up or down?)
>
That was fun!
31% on nerdiness "Generalist"
72% on geekosity "Specialist"
68% on dork points "Social Ineptitude"
But then it says I'm primarily a Nerd, which I don't understand from the
percentages given.
Geek is the old Circus word for people who did shocking things or were
possessed of shocking attributes. Geek is sticking a knitting needle through
your arm for the audience. I suppose that could relate to having an extreme
specialty, but that is not how I would define it.
Nerd (to me) means someone who puts more importance on knowing than doing or
being. Especially with regard to sci/tech.
Dork is pretty well defined by them, IMHO.
Mentally, I'm a Geek. I think WAY outside the box. I shock people and I have
seen people talk to me just to see what insane point of view I'm willing to
argue. But their definition is not mine, so I wonder how I scored so high on
that... I don't think I obsess about one subject at all.
Emotionally, I'm a Nerd. I would love to know everything. I don't have the
energy to do it all and I don't have the discipline to be much, but ahhh...
To know it all! I think I should have scored higher on that.
And I'm a Dork over all! I do NOT fit in. I ask embarrassing questions that
are none of my business and I'll tell people about my bowl movements, sex
life and anything else. I pick my nose, I pick my friends, and if they
didn't stop me, I might even try to pick my friends nose! So 68% or higher
is telling.
> What concerns me about this IQ test business is that some youngsters
> take it seriously, when in fact the results, regardless of what they
> are,
> have no RELEVANCE whatever.
And me. But, what also concerns me is that some oldies don't take any
of it seriously and think they have no relevance whatsoever :-)
The 'truth' lies between these extremes. A 'well designed' and well
used IQ test does have some value and some indicative power. It is not
the be all and end all of assessment and can certainly throw up some
completely misleading results. For example, look at all the tests I've
tried over the years that give quite a consistent result when the
national IQ television test gave a quite different result. Clearly the
TV test knew what it was about and all those other rubbish tests have
been misleading people all these years ;-).
> A sensitive person could be emotionally damaged by a low score, and
> perhaps "give up".
Indeed. That's a real danger. Any tool needs to be used with wisdom
and understanding. Shame that Crick didn't get the message early on
though ;-)
> In truth, an IQ test indicates (1) the ability to make decisions
> swiftly, and
> (2) indicates a kind of cultural bias. Neither of these capabilities
> should
> be the determiner of ANYTHING. MOST people that make rapid decisions
> make a lot of errors as well.
I disagree fairly thoroughly there.
Swiftness of decision may be part of a test or may not - it depends
entirely on the design. If swiftness is deemed relevant then it may be
tested for - and, if not, it may not be. It's up to the designer to
get it right.
"Cultural" bias is unavoidable in the broadest sense. As long as your
test is successfully designed to test for the culture you are
interested in testing for then you may be OK.
Rapid decision making prowess is crucial to many requirements. And not
at all to others. 'Thinking on one's feet' may be indicative of a
Rommel and being brilliant in other areas but without this capability
may find you an eg Einstein. As long as your test is designed to
elicit such differences and doesn't do so by mistake then it may well
be valid. And a test that establishes my !Kung* cultural survival
skills may be useful in establishing my suitability as a NZ Forest
Park ranger but less useful in the culture of a QM research lab. OR
the two may actually correlate quite well. It's up to the test
designer to know her stuff well enough to ensure that this is covered.
In the case of the Mensa workout test that I did a few days ago, the
results were of immense value to me in a manner I had not initially
expected and allowed a very substantial data point to be established -
even though it was a less than rigorous and open test with definite
'techno-cultural' biases.
Russell "All models are wrong. Some models are useful" McMahon
> Geek is the old Circus word for people who did shocking things or were
> possessed of shocking attributes. Geek is sticking a knitting needle through
> your arm for the audience. I suppose that could relate to having an extreme
> specialty, but that is not how I would define it.
>
> Nerd (to me) means someone who puts more importance on knowing than doing or
> being. Especially with regard to sci/tech.
>
> Dork is pretty well defined by them, IMHO.
While on the eymology, "dork" is the more officious name for the genitalia
of a male cetacean.
On Mar 14, 2006, at 3:41 PM, Russell McMahon wrote:
> But, if a person rates in eg the top quartile on a given
> test that is meant to be appropriate to general performance in a given
> society, it seems unlikely that they would rate in say the bottom
> quartile in another test with the same intended target group.
Hmm. I think I'm currently prepare to believe that for any
arbitrary cognitive skill, there's probably a form of mental
handicap that affects that particular skill without necessarily
having detrimental effects on other cognitive skills. Some of
these have been identified (dyslexia, for instance), and some
perhaps not (what if you just can't DO those spatial orientation
things that are so popular on IQ tests?) And then there are those
famous savant/ idiot-savant skills where someone gets "extra" skill
in some odd area... That means that any particular test is very
likely to give completely off-base results for some segment of
the population (and with 6 billion in the world, that might be
a significant number of people.)
On a completely different tangent, it's interesting that artistic
talent is often associated with both a high IQ and general
"cluelessness." And seldom with "success" in modern terms.
One of my current worries, now that we're identifying different
forms of mental ... deviations from normalcy, is that we'll
accidentally manage to CURE what people generally recognize
as 'genius.' (For instance, what if some degree of ADD is
needed to lead to the sort of multi-threaded parallel thinking
associated with some classes of "genius", only we manage to
detect and treat the ADD before the related skills develop.)
> One of my current worries, now that we're identifying different
> forms of mental ... deviations from normalcy, is that we'll
> accidentally manage to CURE what people generally recognize
> as 'genius.' (For instance, what if some degree of ADD is
> needed to lead to the sort of multi-threaded parallel thinking
> associated with some classes of "genius", only we manage to
> detect and treat the ADD before the related skills develop.)
Yes and no. I grew up during the early days of ADD research,
and I remember kids who had it before ritalin. In those days,
ADD was a very serious thing. The kids I'm thinking of were
incapable of attending class in any normal, meaningful way.
During the middle of a lecture (as far as a lecture can be had
in 5-7 grade), they would suddenly stand up and begin
wandering about, looking for some tiny, insignificant object
that their brains had suddenly demanded attention to.
While I agree that ADD is overdiagnosed and overmedicated,
and that it is likely that a touch of it makes for geniuses and
more, I'd like to note that in this day and age, it is unlikely
that many geniuses will ever manage to apply their genius in
a meaningful way without higher education. A brilliant but
severely ADD friend of mine is now managing a restaurant
because he was unable to finish university. A shame, that;
he'd have made one hell of an engineer.
I'll make an exception for those dedicated to art- I've never
believed that true art can be best served by college (except
perhaps music, owing to the need for practice and instruction
in the methods).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTKILLspammit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspammit.edu] On
Behalf
> Of Bob Axtell
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:50 PM
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [OT] IQ test wanted.. .
>
> Russell,
>
> What concerns me about this IQ test business is that some youngsters
> take it seriously, when in fact the results, regardless of what they
are,
> have no RELEVANCE whatever.
Uh. No. They have meaning. More meaning in life than the ability to
throw a baseball or football as more professions are suitable for people
with higher intelligence than
>
> A sensitive person could be emotionally damaged by a low score, and
> perhaps "give up".
>
> In truth, an IQ test indicates (1) the ability to make decisions
> swiftly, and
> (2) indicates a kind of cultural bias. Neither of these capabilities
> should
> be the determiner of ANYTHING. MOST people that make rapid decisions
> make a lot of errors as well.
No. Higher IQ lets you make better decisions faster so a higher IQ
would apply to the ones that are not "MOST" people. That is the
difference between the "MOST" and the minority.
A higher IQ does not indicate a cultural bias. Some tests have a
cultural bias that makes the results from that test biased but not the
IQ itself. You just have errors in the results. A proper understanding
of the problems in UI testing is that tests have inaccuracies and that
IQ is potentially inaccurate of a predictor if you don't also understand
that like "sports ability" it is not a universal. Some natural athletes
are better basketball players and others are better bowlers. In general
better athletes are better at most sports than the general population.
But there are specialties and the same is true of IQ. There are those
that are more mentally suited for something like mechanical engineering
while others for governmental policy. But like the natural athlete the
higher IQ someone has the more likely they are to be better at all
mental activities than those of lower IQ despite having specialties.
>
> It reminds me of the early 20th century scientists who were
determining
> intelligence based on bumps on the head, i.e. Frenology, I think it
was
> called.
You have a right to that connection in your mind. I don't share it
anymore than I connect alchemy with bio-chemistry.
------------------------------------- Notice of Confidentiality ----------------------------------------------------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify EraseMEpostmasterspamspamBeGonevgt.net. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified
that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
is strictly prohibited.
On Mar 15, 2006, at 9:20 AM, William Killian wrote:
> No. Higher IQ lets you make better decisions faster so a higher IQ
> would apply to the ones that are not "MOST" people. That is the
> difference between the "MOST" and the minority.
>
A lot of the problem is in distinguishing the difference between
IQ (roughly your percentage of "intelligence" compared to average),
and "score on some particular IQ test", which is potentially much
different.
I find the second-guessing of the probable IQ of well-known
historical geniuses particularly amusing. Observing a man's
life and his works in their entirety, and judging his intelligence
thereby, is quite a different thing than trying to judge someone
based on a test spanning a couple hours at a particular instant
in their lives...
> Of William "Chops" Westfield
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:42 PM
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [OT] IQ test wanted.. .
>
>
> On Mar 15, 2006, at 9:20 AM, William Killian wrote:
>
> > No. Higher IQ lets you make better decisions faster so a higher IQ
> > would apply to the ones that are not "MOST" people. That is the
> > difference between the "MOST" and the minority.
> >
> A lot of the problem is in distinguishing the difference between
> IQ (roughly your percentage of "intelligence" compared to average),
> and "score on some particular IQ test", which is potentially much
> different.
Absolutely!
That is the point I had tried to make. Your (or my) IQ is based
normally on a particular version of a particular test. The score would
likely be different from an earlier or later version of the same test.
Most tests are also tuned to specific ranges - general IQ type tests are
aimed at "average" so are most accurate with in a range above or below
100 (or their center) These tests have more questions right at that
range and fewer ar the extreme ends so if say there is only one question
aimed at separating oh 160 from 165 it might be that some people who
would miss most of the 165 questions happens to get that one while some
people that would get most of the 165 questions miss that one.
IQ is never absolutely known. Its always known to some percentage of
certainty with a margin of error. Eyes glazing over out there? I do
casino gaming right now and am learning far more about statistics and
probability tha I needed to know before.
> I find the second-guessing of the probable IQ of well-known
> historical geniuses particularly amusing. Observing a man's
> life and his works in their entirety, and judging his intelligence
> thereby, is quite a different thing than trying to judge someone
> based on a test spanning a couple hours at a particular instant
> in their lives...
Yeah I agree. Personally I am similarly amused by attempts to diagnose
people from the past with certain mental or emotional disorders.
Yes there are connections between certain IQ ranges and certain mental
or emotional conditions.
------------------------------------- Notice of Confidentiality ----------------------------------------------------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify spamBeGonepostmasterSTOPspamEraseMEvgt.net. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified
that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
is strictly prohibited.
> Of Peter
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 5:47 PM
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [OT] IQ test wanted.. .
>
>
>
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, William Chops Westfield wrote:
>
> > On Mar 13, 2006, at 10:24 AM, Peter wrote:
> >
> >>> There doesn't appear to be the slightest relationship
> >>> between being having a high IQ score and being
> >>> successful in life.
> >>
> >> Actually the relationship with wealth seems to be *inverse*. More
> >> exactly it seems that average people are wealthiest and happiest.
> >
> > Sources? If we're going to get into the IQ debate and people are
>
> This comes from a number of sources along the years, with the happiest
> being the average, from a different source than for the richest being
> average. While trying to find th link I found other more or less
> relevant sociological studies:
>
> http://wvs.isr.umich.edu/fig.shtml
> http://wvs.isr.umich.edu/find.shtml
> http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3157570.stm (it's good to be a
> 419er ?)
I saw nothing that supported an assertion that "average" was happier.
Either average in intelligence or average in wealth.
Some charts implied that Sweden was about as good as it gets. Some
articles stated that something about Nigerians was good and I suspect it
has nothing to do with IQ.
I'd join the list of those who find the book described in that article
as probably akin to "The Bell Curve" by Charles Murray which was
politics thinly viewed by pseudo-science. "Probably akin" is very
conservative in assessment.
Education is not the same as raw intelligence. But raw intelligence
makes it far easier to become educated.
------------------------------------- Notice of Confidentiality ----------------------------------------------------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify @spam@postmaster@spam@spam_OUTvgt.net. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified
that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
is strictly prohibited.
On Mar 15, 2006, at 12:52 PM, William Killian wrote:
> But raw intelligence makes it far easier to become educated.
>
Ah. Perhaps this is the root of the problem. We give IQ tests
to children, primarily, and they're pretty much used as a measure
of how "educate-able" the children might be (within a particular
educational system, or not...) Perhaps, even, the modern
more-accurate, less-culture-dependent tests take into account
variations in educational techniques that might be available, and
are even MORE a measure of educate-ability.
When the kids are "fully educated", we turn them loose, saying
"yeah, you are educated as suits your measured intelligence. Now
go and DO something." And everyone learns that actually DOING
something is a rather different thing than becoming educated.
I took that nerd/geek/dork test. One of the things I found
particularly interesting was the number of questions I would
have answered differently before college vs after college. I
did not have a fun time in college compared to previous experience,
and it pretty much cured me of interest in further education. (and
yet I've heard many people related the exact opposite experience;
college being a welcome change from the awful preceding years.)
>> I find the second-guessing of the probable IQ of well-known
>> historical geniuses particularly amusing. Observing a man's
>> life and his works in their entirety, and judging his intelligence
>> thereby, is quite a different thing than trying to judge someone
>> based on a test spanning a couple hours at a particular instant
>> in their lives...
That sounds 'backwards' to me.
ie it sounds (to me with my IQ :-) ) like you are suggesting a 2 hour
test is a better way of testing IQ.
But, I would have suspected that "Observing a man's life and his works
in their entirety, and judging his intelligence thereby" would be a
reasonably profitable exercise compared with using a 2 hour test. For
instance, with Newton we get the calculus, Principa Mathematica,
gravitation and more ("The tyger is known by its stripes') plus
Alchemy and other. The latter two account for about 1/3 each of
Newton's output. We don't hear much about it today. We also get his
general behaviour towrds others, religious persuasions, various
occupations (head of the Royal Mint, Fellow of the Royal Society, ...)
to get an idea of where and how he fitted into society. Overall it
seems that one could fit him quite well into a continuum of high
ranking IQ-peers with fine adjustments for whatever "cultural" factors
one deemed important.
> Yeah I agree. Personally I am similarly amused by attempts to
> diagnose
> people from the past with certain mental or emotional disorders.
I agree that that is harder - but given enough data an expert should
have as good a chance as say a vet does now of getting their diagnosis
right :-). Few would doubt that Vincent van Gogh had problems, or that
experts are liable to be able to identify what they are with
reasonable accuracy. Would you doubt that King Saul of David / Goliath
/ Jonathon fame almost certainly had a debree of "bipolar disorder".
> Of William "Chops" Westfield
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:32 PM
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [OT] IQ test wanted.. .
>
>
> On Mar 15, 2006, at 12:52 PM, William Killian wrote:
>
> > But raw intelligence makes it far easier to become educated.
> >
> Ah. Perhaps this is the root of the problem. We give IQ tests
> to children, primarily, and they're pretty much used as a measure
> of how "educate-able" the children might be (within a particular
> educational system, or not...) Perhaps, even, the modern
> more-accurate, less-culture-dependent tests take into account
> variations in educational techniques that might be available, and
> are even MORE a measure of educate-ability.
Intelligence and ability to learn are rather tied together except in a
few cases of brain damage.
> When the kids are "fully educated", we turn them loose, saying
> "yeah, you are educated as suits your measured intelligence. Now
> go and DO something." And everyone learns that actually DOING
> something is a rather different thing than becoming educated.
That I won't disagree with. Intelligence/ability to learn are not the
same as desire to achieve.
------------------------------------- Notice of Confidentiality ----------------------------------------------------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify TakeThisOuTpostmaster.....TakeThisOuTvgt.net. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified
that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
is strictly prohibited.
> Thanks to all for the various interesting observations on IQ tests -
> even though most were not especially relevant to the requirement.
> Interesting is often enough a good enough reason :-)
>
> As it happened, Jinx's suggestion of the Mensa 'workout' test did the
> job well enough.
> It filled the need far better and more usefully than I would have
> expected.
>
>
>
> RM
>
>
>
>> As it happened, Jinx's suggestion of the Mensa 'workout' test did
>> the
>> job well enough.
>> It filled the need far better and more usefully than I would have
>> expected.
> And of course your score was perfect on it :-)
No. As I had already posted, I attained 25 correct out of 30. And it
could have easily been a few either side of that. I've already
discussed my thoughts about the pros and cons of this particular test,
which is meant to be an introduction to Mensa style tests and not a
full IQ test.
The 25/30 score places you at the "almost certainly would achieve
membership of Mensa if taking a full test" level. ie they are being
cagey for obvious reasons but it is above their hurdle level. But,
that was not the main value to me. My visit was to a neurologist to
check up on possible problems (almost certainly a complete false alarm
but it pays to check - internet browsing suggests everything from MS
to Leprosy as a possible cause - and happenstance seems more likely -
a little knowledge can be a very very dangerous thing). The test
served to confirm that my general mental problem solving capability on
typical IQ tests was of the same order as it had been previously (see
discussion elsewhere on my perceived uncertainty level in this test).
This as a useful data point in our discussion. As such it served a
very useful purpose - as the setter and sitter and chooser of what I
wanted from the test I was a biased observed but also able to
intelligently [that word again] use it to do what I wanted it to do
and use it accordingly.
> My visit was to a neurologist to check up on possible
> problems (almost certainly a complete false alarm but it pays
> to check - internet browsing suggests everything from MS to
> Leprosy as a possible cause - and happenstance seems more
> likely - a little knowledge can be a very very dangerous
> thing). The test served to confirm that my general mental
> problem solving capability on typical IQ tests was of the
> same order as it had been previously (see discussion
> elsewhere on my perceived uncertainty level in this test).
As my mother died of Alzheimer's, and I don't "feel" as intelligent in my
old age as I did when I was a young pup, I have the same need to test myself
and the same (or more) fear of loosing my ability to reason. IQ tests and
puzzles help to reassure me that I'm still in the game.
We had a guy come to the.. Err... Lecture club... And give a talk about
living wills and choosing the time and manner of your death. It made me
think long and hard about it and I was almost surprised by my conclusion: I
don't care how little of my physical body remains functional or how much
pain I'm in; I want to live as long as my mind can be active and perform
useful tasks. But even if my body is just fine, as soon as my mind is not
able to function to some useful level, I would rather be killed.
> The key was that the test was timed on a per question basis and you did
> each question in order and were not able to go back. Failure to complete
> any question in the relatively short allotted time presumably returned a
> zero score. I did not expect and was unprepared for this approach and by
> the time I had adjusted to it I had irrevocably dropped out of "the top
> of the tail". If I had been subjected unprepared to a similar situation
> in real life I may have failed as badly. This is exactly the sort of
> thing that I (and most of us) try to avoid in real life as life tends to
> be real-time, sequential and the time-arrow usually only points one way
> :-).
Hm... one of the key skills in life (not only professionally) is IMO to
time things adequately. Such a test obviously doesn't test that type of
intelligence.
In general, the tests put people into an artificial, purposeless situation.
Which for many people is already a problem in itself. They maybe test some
capability of abstraction, but probably not much else. And this capability
may be something good, or not... nobody really knows about /that/ :)
It's this capability that allows us to launch H bombs, for example.
> In the case of the Mensa workout test that I did a few days ago, the
> results were of immense value to me in a manner I had not initially
> expected
Re culturally biased: I know that I generally do (did) such word puzzles
quite well in German, and I also suspect that I have a decent command of
the English language -- but I was pretty much lost on all the word puzzles
in that test. There is something different between the native language and
other languages (at least in my brain), even when I know them well.
Something similar but less obvious may be going on with the other types of
questions in such tests.
> Re culturally biased: I know that I generally do (did) such
> word puzzles quite well in German, and I also suspect that I
> have a decent command of the English language -- but I was
> pretty much lost on all the word puzzles in that test. There
> is something different between the native language and other
> languages (at least in my brain), even when I know them well.
>
> Something similar but less obvious may be going on with the
> other types of questions in such tests.
>
> Gerhard
>
Now that is really interesting. Would you be willing / able to post one of
the word problems that you had trouble with along with what your train of
thought was in trying to solve the problem? It would be a glimps into the
mind of an ESL (English Second Language) and might help some of us who write
english with the hope of ESL readers being able to understand it.
On the other hand, it is a very personal question in some ways so I would
totally understand your not being willing to do that.
>> Re culturally biased: I know that I generally do (did) such word puzzles
>> quite well in German, and I also suspect that I have a decent command
>> of the English language -- but I was pretty much lost on all the word
>> puzzles in that test. There is something different between the native
>> language and other languages (at least in my brain), even when I know
>> them well.
>>
>> Something similar but less obvious may be going on with the other types
>> of questions in such tests.
>
> Now that is really interesting. Would you be willing / able to post one
> of the word problems that you had trouble with along with what your
> train of thought was in trying to solve the problem?
No problem with that. There also isn't really a train of thought... it's a
different process.
For example this question:
13. Which word of four letters can be added to the front
of the following words to create other English words?
CARD BOX CODE BAG HASTE
When I do something like that in German, I simply look at the words and let
my brain "travel" a bit, and out of a cloud of a number of words that fit a
few of them it kind of targets in on words that fit more until it has one
that fits all. This usually goes rather fast (not always, but mostly), and
simply doesn't work at all (or very badly) in English.
It might be a question of vocabulary only, but my feeling is that the
processing is different. I can't easily say why though. Thinking about it,
it's maybe because I read a /lot/ (in German) when I was young. Overall, I
probably wrote more in English than I wrote in German (because most of my
business activities happened in English and I never wrote much besides
business-related texts), but I definitely read much more German than I read
English. And my English writing, even though more in quantity, is not very
diverse: mostly technical. This may explain the much greater ease of my
brain to match German words than to match English words.
Similar are in this respect the questions 15 ... 19.
> It would be a glimps into the mind of an ESL (English Second Language)
> and might help some of us who write english with the hope of ESL readers
> being able to understand it.
>From your question, it seems that I might have not expressed myself
clearly, and there was a misunderstanding about the term "word puzzles"
that I used. The problems I had were not with the understanding of the
questions; these are all clearly formulated, and should be clear to any ESL
speaker with more than rudimentary knowledge of English (except maybe 4 and
11, which require a somewhat deeper analysis of the phrases involved). The
problems I was talking about were of the sort where my subconscious
obviously does a lot of detail work in German that it can't do in English
when trying to match words with other words or a combination of letters.
Regarding the understandability of an English text for an ESL speaker, IMO
there are no ESL-specific criteria. As far as manuals, instructions,
technical descriptions go, just write with a clear train of thought,
adequate structure and precise (and of course correct) language -- things
one should do for any target audience. Maybe the correctness is of higher
importance for ESL speakers, but maybe not. (In any case, it should be of
the highest importance for the writer :)
You might think that there's the question of the vocabulary, but this is
not really an ESL problem. The vocabulary problems I have (at least with
European languages -- I don't know how it would be with languages not
related to German, like Chinese or Japanese) are not with the rare and
generally considered "difficult" words (the ones that commonly indicate a
large vocabulary :), they are with the simple words. The rare words tend to
be more similar among different languages, so I can use vocabulary from
other languages to understand or even derive them. (Deriving can go wrong,
too, but usually results at least in something that can be understood.) But
the more frequent, more common words differ more between languages (I think
the more frequent use also causes more differences over time), and thus
they are more difficult for me: I need to actually remember them. OTOH they
also tend to be not very specific in their meaning and to get a lot of
their meaning from the context, which again makes it easier to derive all
of their meaning from the context -- especially if I understand the more
"difficult" words specific to the topic at hand.
So, the short of this is that IMO with ESL speakers, the vocabulary is more
determined by general (and topic-specific) education background (just like
with native speakers) than by the fact that they are ESL.
> > It would be a glimps into the mind of an ESL (English
> Second Language)
> > and might help some of us who write english with the hope of ESL
> > readers being able to understand it.
>
> >From your question, it seems that I might have not expressed myself
> clearly, and there was a misunderstanding about the term
> "word puzzles"
> that I used. The problems I had were not with the
> understanding of the questions; these are all clearly
> formulated, and should be clear to any ESL speaker with more
> than rudimentary knowledge of English (except maybe 4 and 11,
> which require a somewhat deeper analysis of the phrases
> involved). The problems I was talking about were of the sort
> where my subconscious obviously does a lot of detail work in
> German that it can't do in English when trying to match words
> with other words or a combination of letters.
Ah. I understand. I was thinking more about the issues of English (or what
ever the second language is) being translated into your primary language in
your head and that causing confusion.
As an example, I will, from time to time, try to communicate with someone in
a language other than English using an online translator like babblefish or
whatever. One trick I've found is to translate my text into that language,
and then back from that language into English. If the result makes any sense
at all, there is a good chance that the interim result, in their language,
will also make sense.
What surprises me is how hard it is to make it "there and back." It often
takes 4 or 5 rewordings of the same idea to get something stable. And it
seems the largest problem is with words that have more than one possible
meaning. When I translate something, I try to find the English words that
mean "exactly that, only that, and nothing more" and it is quite difficult
to do just that. It seems to me, that English (and probably other languages)
actually have words that are the length of the sentence. Each word could
mean several different things, and only in the context of a full sentence is
the desired meaning made clear.
So I was thinking that this may have been the sort of thing that happened to
you and I was curious to hear...
I think the pictures that come to mind when one person hears a word or
sentence are, quite often, very different than what appears to another
person. The "tower of babble" may not have been different languages at all,
but simply different points of view.
And redefining words can, in a very real sense, change the world you live
in. I came to understand that hate only happens when one person doesn't
understand and fears another person. SO when I hear "hate" I substitute
"don't understand" and when I have been hated, I ask what the other person
doesn't understand about me. Sometimes it helps. Other times it doesn't.
For an IQ test to work, the words used to describe the problem have to mean
the same thing to each person taking the test. I don't think that is really
possible, but perhaps passing each question back and forth through a
translation engine between different languages and working on the wording
until it comes back the same every time would be of value...
part 1 2139 bytes content-type:text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; (decoded 7bit)
> As an example, I will, from time to time, try to communicate with
> someone in
> a language other than English using an online translator like
> babblefish or
> whatever. One trick I've found is to translate my text into that
> language,
> and then back from that language into English. If the result makes
> any sense
> at all, there is a good chance that the interim result, in their
> language,
> will also make sense.
That may work less well than you may hope.
That is exactly what I did when dealing intensively with Chinese only
speaking engineers in Taiwan recently.
*BUT* I find that when I translate their Chinese into English with the
same program that it not only often doesn't make total sense and it is
very evident that there are differences in basic structures and
relationships that make relatively mindless translation a major trap.
Its probably common to attribute the numerous examples of Jinglish and
Chinglish, which often seem so uproarious, to a lack of understanding
of English on the part of the writer. And that is of course a
significant factor. But what we are also seeing is a transference of
the structure and imagery of their language into our words - and it is
our lack of understanding of the source language which adds to the
humour for us.
eg The Chinese woman's name "Min" may remind oldies amongst us of the
Goon Show. The direct translation is "Shining" or perhaps radiant. The
character is made up of the two characters for Sun & Moon. Deciding
which combination of these should be translated or inferred in a mere
name or managing to translate the nuances in a single word is not
reasonably possible. Untranslated it sounds (and is) foreign and to
our ear slightly quaint and maybe slightly funny. Translated as
"shining" it would sound quaint due to our perception of appropriate
names. (Just as our names "Melody" or "June" may sound unusual if
translated into the direct Chinese equivalent).
Whole sentences are harder again :-)
RM
part 2 1624 bytes content-type:image/jpeg; (decode) part 3 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii" (decoded 7bit)
> For example this question:
>
> 13. Which word of four letters can be added to the front
> of the following words to create other English words?
>
> CARD BOX CODE BAG HASTE
I think I can write reasonable English and read it very well, but I
simply can't find an answer to the above question. I think it probably
has something to to with learning a language as child versus learning it
later.
Wouter van Ooijen
-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu
> Ah. I understand. I was thinking more about the issues of
> English (or what
> ever the second language is) being translated into your
> primary language in
> your head and that causing confusion.
For me that does not happen. I read and write English, I often even
think in English. When I later want to translate something I have
written in English into Dutch I run into al sort of problems (grammar,
vocabulaire, word combinations).
> When I translate something, I try to find the
> English words that
> mean "exactly that, only that, and nothing more" and it is
> quite difficult
> to do just that.
Which is easier in English than in some other languages. English tends
to have different verbs for various subtly different things, which in
Dutch would be expressed by one verb and different adverbs. [ Now this
is something I had to bablefish: I never use the word 'adverb', and it
is the wrong word anyway, I wanted 'bijvoegelijk naamwoord' but the fish
did not get that. ] English also easily creates combination words. Dutch
prefers a chain of separate words.
Another difficulty is that USA-english tends to make new words from the
physical appearance of a thingy ("penny-in-the-slot-machine"), but Dutch
prefers to use the function of the beast. So a literal translation of a
new word often feels wrong. But in most cases a new English word is
adapted unchanged anyway. That is: in the Netherlands. In Flanders they
often invent a Dutch-style word for a new thing. I always wonder what
they made (or would make) of a non-impact dot-matrix printer.
Also note that your idea of "exactly that, only that, and nothing more"
is shaped by the language you speak. I have seen cases (but I can't
recall one now) where an English word covers meanings A and B, and there
is another word for meaning C. Yet Dutch has one word for meanings B and
C, and a separate word for A. Without knowing English I would not even
realise that B and C are different concepts.
Wouter van Ooijen
-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu
> For example this question:
>
> 13. Which word of four letters can be added to the front
> of the following words to create other English words?
>
> CARD BOX CODE BAG HASTE
I think I can write reasonable English and read it very well, but I simply
can't find an answer to the above question. I think it probably has
something to to with learning a language as child versus learning it later.
Wouter van Ooijen
-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl consultancy, development,
PICmicro products docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu
On Mar 22, 2006, at 12:04 AM, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>> 13. Which word of four letters can be added to the front
>> of the following words to create other English words?
>>
>> CARD BOX CODE BAG HASTE
>
> I think I can write reasonable English and read it very well, but I
> simply can't find an answer to the above question.
"Post", I think. Postcard, postbox, posthaste. Postcode and
postbag are a bit questionable, but they show up in webster.
My thought process goes a bit like "scan, scan, Four letter
prefix for HASTE? Could it be anything other than "posthaste"?
Does that fit with the others? Maybe; postbag and postcode are
PROBABLY words... (heh, if they had "news" up there it'd be a
unix IQ test, sorta.)"
part 1 309 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset=windows-1250 (decoded 7bit)
> Post ;-)
> > CARD BOX CODE BAG HASTE
If they'd included "TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER BROUGHT
ON BY CHIPS BEING HORRIBLE LITTLE NIGHTMARES WHEN
ALL I WANT TO DO IS JUST FINISH MY WORK, PLEASE GOD
I'LL BE GOOD, PROMISE" I might have got that one
part 2 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii" (decoded 7bit)
>> For example this question:
>>
>> 13. Which word of four letters can be added to the front
>> of the following words to create other English words?
>>
>> CARD BOX CODE BAG HASTE
>
> I think I can write reasonable English and read it very well, but I
> simply can't find an answer to the above question. I think it probably
> has something to to with learning a language as child versus learning it
> later.
Given the relatively simple and common solution, I tend to think that it
may have also a lot to do with vocabulary and reading. I know that what I
read in English is possibly not much less than what I read in German, but
it is much more focussed and less vocabulary-rich. In German, I read a lot
of prose when I was young, in English I'm reading a lot of technical
material now. For this and other reasons, my German vocabulary is probably
a lot wider.
But I also feel that there are probably some processing differences, due to
having acquired it when young. Maybe one more reason to expose children to
multiple languages when young. The only examples I've read about for this
where about two European languages. Would be interesting to see whether
there are differences when the languages are so different as English and
Chinese.
> Given the relatively simple and common solution, I tend to
> think that it
> may have also a lot to do with vocabulary and reading. I know
> that what I
> read in English is possibly not much less than what I read in
> German, but
> it is much more focussed and less vocabulary-rich.
I don't think that holds for me, I hardly read Dutch prose at all. But I
am an SF fan, so what I read in English is probably still limited. And
it is limited to reading! Most English-as-a-first language people will
be exposed to a lot of spoken streat English. The only spoken English I
hear is TV and the occasional BBC news.
I think for me there is some big difference in
language/letter/word-image processing in Dutch and English. It is not in
the vocabulary, but I think I would not stand a decent chance of doing
crosswords, cryptograms, or other word-image related games in English. A
pure knowledge quizz would probably be less of a problem.
Wouter van Ooijen
-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu
>Would be interesting to see whether there are
>differences when the languages are so different
>as English and Chinese.
Chinese (I assume Mandarin) is now being taught as a compulsory second
language in a handful of UK secondary schools, as there is a recognition
that by the time those children get into the work place, dealing with
Chinese businesses will be quite widespread.
One of my colleagues was recently in Beijing on business, and was approached
by a number of Chinese young people as they were out and about. Most of the
approaches were oblique attempts at selling paintings or other items, on the
excuse of practising their English, but a handful were genuinely wanting
just English conversation, to improve their vocabulary so they could apply
for jobs at the 2008 Olympics.
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> 13. Which word of four letters can be added to the front
> of the following words to create other English words?
>
> CARD BOX CODE BAG HASTE
So what's the answer?
I find these kind of "word manipulation" problems difficult too, but I don't
thinks it's an ESL thing. I've never been much good at word games like
anagrams, scrabble, or high speed reaction games, but generally decent at
strategy and "thinking" games. Technically german is my first language too,
but I consider english my primary language and am unquestionably better and
more comfortable at reading, writing and speaking english.
******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014. #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year. http://www.embedinc.com/products
William Chops Westfield wrote:
>>> 13. Which word of four letters can be added to the front
>>> of the following words to create other English words?
>>>
>>> CARD BOX CODE BAG HASTE
>
> "Post", I think.
I think some of those "words" are questionable. Who says "postbox"? I
guess that is supposed to mean what we call "mailbox"? Postcode is also a
bit strange. Unless they really mean power up self test code, which is the
only thing I ever use "postcode" for, it seems to me they meant "postal
code" (like ZIP code here in the US). And what the heck is a "postbag"
supposed to be? Again maybe a mailbag, the kind you find in the back room
of a post office?
I wonder what the authors of this question think it measures? It doesn't
seem to me it measures anything remotely like what most people would think
"intellegence" is.
******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014. #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year. http://www.embedinc.com/products
generally I suck at these kind of things.
english is my first language and according to the experts I have an above
average
vocabulary so i don't think that its related to language skills too
reliablly.
I think its more of a brain wiring issue.
there seem to be 2 different types of person.
science/eng people and language/art people.
I'd rather devise a program that dictonary attacks a "findaword" than
actually do it.
At 02:54 PM 3/22/2006 +0200, you wrote:
>Someone said earlier (though it was a bit hidden).
>
>Postbox, postcard, postcode, postbag, and posthaste.
>
>I didn't get it.
I got it, but I cheated. ;-) I think that matching up the *ends* of words
is more difficult for some people than matching the beginnings. <shrug>
> > CARD BOX CODE BAG HASTE
> >
> > "Post", I think.
>
> I think some of those "words" are questionable. Who says "postbox"?
> It doesn't seem to me it measures anything remotely like what most
> people would think "intellegence" is.
That's why the swing towards "culturally fair" testing. A test like the
above is appropriate and significant for a relatively small group, ie
those who are familiar with UK English. You could come up with a
similarly "unfair" test in German or Dutch
One of my pursuits is compiling cryptic crosswords and I would not
expect anyone with weak English (or even those with good English but
the inability to think abstractly) to be able to solve them, not least of
all
because of the complexity and variety of English idioms. Being able to
manipulate idioms and language is not a sign of intelligence in itself of
course
For example, how would you class savants ? Mozart was a musical
genius, but how smart was he in general ? Steven Hawking knows
black holes, but can he balance a cheque book ?
>I think some of those "words" are questionable.
>Who says "postbox"? I guess that is supposed
>to mean what we call "mailbox"?
That is exactly what a mailbox is called in the UK, and many other countries
in the British Commonwealth.
>Postcode is also a bit strange.
It is exactly the word used in the UK for what is called a ZIP code in the
USA. Note also that a postcode uses letters and numbers, and not just
numbers like a ZIP code.
>>>> 13. Which word of four letters can be added to the front
>>>> of the following words to create other English words?
> I wonder what the authors of this question think it measures? It
> doesn't
> seem to me it measures anything remotely like what most people would
> think
> "intellegence" is.
I think it measures several things, some intended and some not.
Some of the respondents have demonstrated that they cannot answer the
question for reasons that *may* fall within the gamut of an "IQ" test
even though raw intelligence per se is not what stops them doing so.
"I'm very good at xxx but not at yyy" is the sort of thing that a
tester may wish to elicit. [I dislike the shape type problems which
seem to feature increasingly in tests due to their perceived culture
etc independence. I can do them, it seems, about as well as I can do
other types of problems, but they annoy me and hurt my thinkery).
But it seems the question above is also a filter for ESL people, even
those who are steeped in English usage and who even think of English
as their first language. Which I find quite amazing. I'd say there is
a PhD topic or two lurking in this, for any who would be interested.
Not I! - but it's fascinating.
fwiw all the postxxx words make perfect sense in New Zealand.
Presumably the setter is English. I'd expect the terms to all make
sense in the UK too. A friend who tried this identified the correct
prefix essentially instantaneously. AFAIR I took a moment - maybe
inside a second? Which, as Olin rightly says, is not necessarily
closely tied to IQ, even when one is familiar with all the words. BUT
it is likely that a person of significantly low IQ in NZ or UK would
also not be able to answer this, and odds are a fair number in the
100-110 range may also have problems. xxxxhaste is the big give away I
think as "haste" is a rare enough word in general usage that any fancy
usage of it tends to be memorable.
I think Mensa's reaction to these responses would be interesting.
> One of my pursuits is compiling cryptic crosswords and I would not
> expect anyone with weak English (or even those with good English but
> the inability to think abstractly) to be able to solve them, not
> least of
> all because of the complexity and variety of English idioms. Being
> able to
> manipulate idioms and language is not a sign of intelligence in
> itself of
> course
I am, arguably, more intelligent than my wife is. (She has far more
"practical intelligence"). My general word knowledge is substantially
greater than hers.
I dislike cryptic crossords severely and am very poor at them. She
likes them and can do them far better than I can. I suspect (perhaps
wrongly) that I could learn to do them as well or better than she.
Russell McMahon wrote:
> xxxxhaste is the big give away I
> think as "haste" is a rare enough word in general usage that any fancy
> usage of it tends to be memorable.
I actually briefly thought of posthaste for that reason, but dismissed post
as the prefix because it didn't make sense for several of the other words.
Did any americans not that familiar with UK english get this question
correctly?
******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014. #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year. http://www.embedinc.com/products
At 01:04 AM 3/22/2006, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > For example this question:
> >
> > 13. Which word of four letters can be added to the front
> > of the following words to create other English words?
> >
> > CARD BOX CODE BAG HASTE
>
>I think I can write reasonable English and read it very well, but I
>simply can't find an answer to the above question. I think it probably
>has something to to with learning a language as child versus learning it
>later.
Celebrating 22 years of Engineering Innovation (1984 - 2006)
.-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-
`-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-'
Do NOT send unsolicited commercial email to this email address.
This message neither grants consent to receive unsolicited
commercial email nor is intended to solicit commercial email.
Olin wrote regarding 'Re: [OT] IQ test wanted.. .' on Wed, Mar 22 at 10:03:
> Russell McMahon wrote:
> > xxxxhaste is the big give away I
> > think as "haste" is a rare enough word in general usage that any fancy
> > usage of it tends to be memorable.
>
> I actually briefly thought of posthaste for that reason, but dismissed post
> as the prefix because it didn't make sense for several of the other words.
> Did any americans not that familiar with UK english get this question
> correctly?
Yup, I thought "there's no such word as 'postbox', 'postcode', or
'postbag', so that can't be it". :)
>> "Post", I think.
>
> I think some of those "words" are questionable.
I did say that, as well.
> Who says "postbox"?
Postbox I think I've heard; sort of distinguished as one of the big
public drop-boxes, instead of the "mailbox" which is a thing at the
end of your driveway.
Webster.com claims that "postbag" is British.
I suspect the "native speaker advantage" comes in when one tries
to guess whether a word you've never heard or seen in use is
likely to actually be a "real" word.
(so can anyone think of ANY other four-letter prefix for "haste"?
/usr/share/dict/words has only "overhaste", but I wouldn't expect
it to be complete.)
Word games are interesting. We like, more or less, "Scrabble" and
"anagrams" (which is a sort of guerilla scrabble that involves
rearranging words into other words while adding letters. In realtime.)
You'd think that they would be similar, but I can usually beat my
wife at scrabble by a reasonable margin, but she ALWAYS completely
overwhelms me at anagrams. I think I have a hard time deconstructing
words back into individual letters, which I think is a different
skill than finding words in an otherwise random assortment of letters.
But it's still pretty weird...
I think I could have gotten it, being fairly word-oriented, but I made
the mistake of continuing to read the other posts. 'Posthaste' indeed
would have been the tipoff for me, as it is a word still used in
fiction, which is what I used to read before datasheets ;). 'Card' has
a lot of possible prefixes, 'postbag' and 'postbox' are not really
used in the USA, as was observed, and 'postcode' is old usage for 'zip
code'. This is definitely more a test of word knowledge than any kind
of intelligence, IMHO. My (Dutch) mother used to do the crosswords that
frustrated me, despite her not having the benefit of my much vaster
experience of American English. As an exercise, I recently tried to do
the word puzzles in 'The Nation' magazine, which are much harder than
regular crosswords, and I was able to learn to do some of them after a
lot of struggle. It required a knowledge of English usage, a feeling
for puns, reading the rules of their website, and a fair amount of
general knowledge (e.g. names of authors and their books). Some of
these may be somewhat correlated with 'general intelligence' and that
may or may not be correlated with what IQ tests measure.
BTW, 'bijvoegilijk naamwoord' is 'adjective' in English. 'Adverb' is
'bijwoord' (I had to look these up in my Dutch dictionary).
> Russell McMahon wrote:
>> xxxxhaste is the big give away I
>> think as "haste" is a rare enough word in general usage that any fancy
>> usage of it tends to be memorable.
>
> I actually briefly thought of posthaste for that reason, but dismissed
> post
> as the prefix because it didn't make sense for several of the other
> words.
> Did any americans not that familiar with UK english get this question
> correctly?
>
>
> ******************************************************************
> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014. #1 PIC
> consultant in 2004 program year. http://www.embedinc.com/products
> Did any americans not that familiar with UK english get
> this question correctly?
>
I don't consider myself particularly familiar with "UK english",
though I've read Pratchett in the original British, and watched
Dr Who... (and I got it right. Quickly. It *did* occur to me
that the British use "post" as a prefix where Americans would
use "mail" to mean the same thing.) (BTW, "postbag" was the
only one of the three questionables that Webster.com specifically
tagged as "british.")
On Mar 22, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>> I don't consider myself particularly familiar with "UK english",
>> though I've read Pratchett in the original British
>
> Wait a minute - do you imply that UK books like Pratchett's are
> translated into US-english??
>
Yes. Sometimes. Depending on publisher, etc. Usually little
things like lorry->truck, lift->elevator and such. I don't know
offhand to what extent Pratchett gets edited this way (I'm not
enough of a purist to hunt down both editions, or INSIST on the
British editions, but not-yet-published-in-the US editions of
some books were proud souvenirs of my trips to England.) There
was quite a bit of flack about Rowling's initial Harry Potter
book being "dumbed down" to "The Sorcerer's Stone" in the US
edition however... (later volumes have had noticeable Britishisms.)
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 09:04 +0100, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > For example this question:
> >
> > 13. Which word of four letters can be added to the front
> > of the following words to create other English words?
> >
> > CARD BOX CODE BAG HASTE
>
> I think I can write reasonable English and read it very well, but I
> simply can't find an answer to the above question. I think it probably
> has something to to with learning a language as child versus learning it
> later.
Well, to an "English as a first language" person like myself the answer
did come pretty easily: post (I think).
However, that question DOES have a slight bias to WHERE in the world of
English you are from.
To my "Canadian English" brain, post is the answer, but there are
doubts.
The word "postcard" makes 100% sense to me.
The words: postbox, postcode and postbag are NOT words you'd likely hear
in Canada. A postbox is called a mailbox here, a postcode is called a
postal code, and a postbag would be correctly called mail bag.
Posthaste is clearly english, but also a word you'd likely rarely hear
in Canada.
My point in all this is the answer to this question is likely very
obvious to almost any person born and raised in Britain, no matter what
their relative intelligence might be.
To a person born and raised in english Canada this question is a little
more difficult, and I'm certain a smaller percentage of Canadians would
get it vs. a similar distribution of Brits.
The only reason I think it was so easy for me is alot of the media I
watch is from Britain.
Personally I think ANY "language" stuff on a "intelligence" test is
useless, there is just to much room for cultural bias to make it
useful.
> > Wait a minute - do you imply that UK books like Pratchett's are
> > translated into US-english??
> >
> Yes. Sometimes.
Yuk. No wonder the US gets so self-centred. I *hate* Dutch translations
english texts, with a few exceptions for things that I found to
difficult to read in english (but I managed 'feersum endjin'!). I prefer
to read the original texts, with all the word-jokes and other things the
author put in.
Wouter van Ooijen
-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu
> I dislike cryptic crossords severely and am very poor at them.
> She likes them and can do them far better than I can. I suspect
> (perhaps wrongly) that I could learn to do them as well or better
> than she
There's a way to put them together -> there's a way to pull them
apart. But the answer can still elude you if the compiler's vocabulary
or general knowledge base is bigger than yours
21. A young engineer's plaything ? No no, a place of reverence (5)
Any mental exercise is valuable. Research strongly suggests that
the phrase "use it or lose it" applies to the brain. Most of my days
(currently, but I need a break) are spent programming to classical
music. But I don't consider myself a nerd - far too worldly
On Mar 22, 2006, at 11:47 AM, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> I prefer to read the original texts, with all the word-jokes
> and other things the author put in.
Well, a "translator" of reasonable quality ought to preserve much
of that, and there are probably enough good translators for British
to American that little is lost. Other languages are less fortunate,
and less similar.
There was a very interesting side-discussion on R.A.SF.W where a
women who had done some of the official translations of Bujold
into Italian described some of the difficulty translating
descriptions of the characters' meaningful yet subtle hand gestures
into Italian, where apparently hand gestures are seldom subtle, and
therefore literal translations were just ... not right. A more
surprising and unexpected example of the "Chinglish" issue, in a
situation where you would have expected the cultures to be similar.
I took a 'so called' IQ test I received in email or something. Did very
well on it. But while I did not consider it a valid IQ test, I was
impressed to discover how much programming had improved my thinking and
problem solving skills.
> Russell McMahon wrote:
>> xxxxhaste is the big give away I
>> think as "haste" is a rare enough word in general usage that any fancy
>> usage of it tends to be memorable.
>
> I actually briefly thought of posthaste for that reason, but dismissed
> post
> as the prefix because it didn't make sense for several of the other words.
> Did any americans not that familiar with UK english get this question
> correctly?
>
>
> ******************************************************************
> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014. #1 PIC
> consultant in 2004 program year. http://www.embedinc.com/products
>> Would be interesting to see whether there are differences when the
>> languages are so different as English and Chinese.
>
> Chinese (I assume Mandarin) is now being taught as a compulsory second
> language in a handful of UK secondary schools, as there is a recognition
> that by the time those children get into the work place, dealing with
> Chinese businesses will be quite widespread.
Makes perfect sense. But I was talking about the (much rarer) case of
actual bi-lingual upbringing, with starting the second language much
earlier than school (even primary school). There are a number of people who
have related quite some success with that, but all of these I've read about
or known are talking about two European languages, usually closely related,
and not about two languages as different as Chinese and English.
> Well, a "translator" of reasonable quality ought to preserve much
> of that, and there are probably enough good translators for British
> to American that little is lost. Other languages are less fortunate,
> and less similar.
- a good translator must exist, be available, and be selected (not be
too expensive)
- there are unsolveable problems.
take names. BornNaked is a very normal name in Dutch, but
afaik not in English. A literal translation would give a very different
effect, another tranlastion
might loose some of the connection with the story.
take accents. a certain accent has a specific association (rich, poor,
stupid, brave, etc). a similar accent might not be available in the
target language, or if it is some of the word jokes might no longer fit.
take languages! there are books where Luftwaffe pilots speak german, and
RAF pilots English. How would one translate taht? (OK, mabe to
Japanese/Chinese....)
but most of all: colour locale. a know a little of the UK country, so a
story set in the LakeDistrict has a certain automatic flavour. put it on
Skye and the setting is very different. If the author did this I'd
rather have to check for the properties of the countryside he choose,
that going through an interpreter's re-interpretation to ZuidLiburg and
Schiermonnikoog (Dutch analogs, only approximate).
A Dutch equivalent to UK->USA translation would be to translate Flemish
authors into Dutch. Yuk!
Wouter van Ooijen
-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu
It seems to me that a Postbag is the bag that a postman carries around when
delivering door to door, but the term mailbag is also used in the UK, and
seems to be used for large bags of mail going between distribution centres.
See for an example this story of the Great Train robbery that occurred in
1963. http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/caseclosed/greattrainrobbery.shtml
>I prefer to read the original texts, with all
>the word-jokes and other things the author put in.
But I do like the English versions of Asterix the Gaul. Apparently they have
all sorts of innuendo and double entendre that doesn't exist in the original
French.
> "balance a cheque book ?"
>
> How did you get that "check" past your spell checker. Please don't tell me
> that computers have cultural bias.
Computers may not have, but computer programmers have. And therefore
computer programs have. Just look at the ASCIIdeology movement... ("Real
men don't use any character that can't be found on a Teletype keyboard" :)
> Spellchequer Spellchecker
Hm... While a check may be a cheque for some, and a checker a chequer, I
don't think a spellchecker can be considered a spellchequer :)
FWIW, spellcheckers are prime examples for "culturally biased" programs:
they are by definition culturally biased, that's their purpose.
> "balance a cheque book ?"
>
> How did you get that "check" past your spell checker. Please don't
> tell me that computers have cultural bias
I just wondered if Stephen Hawking was able to balance Kafka's
autobiography on his head, but spellchecker threw "Czech" out
But seriously....both check and cheque are acceptable UK English
but cheque is used a lot more, cf exchequer. "check" is the original
form of the word, so US usage is not incorrect. At some point the
UK version must have been Frenchified. Interesting that all forms
of check stem from chess. Hence "checkers" presumably, from the
appearance of the board. Whereas the name of the UK version of
checkers, draughts, describes the movement of the pieces
> But seriously....both check and cheque are acceptable UK English
> but cheque is used a lot more, cf exchequer. "check" is the original
> form of the word, so US usage is not incorrect. At some point the
> UK version must have been Frenchified. Interesting that all forms
> of check stem from chess. Hence "checkers" presumably, from the
> appearance of the board. Whereas the name of the UK version of
> checkers, draughts, describes the movement of the pieces
Got my mind going. Can be dangerous.
cf Larry Niven's "Checker" as the title/role of the AI, disembodied persona
of one long dead Sharls Davis Kendy, in charge of the starship that
delivered representatives of mankind to "The Smoke Ring" - in stories "The
Integral trees", "The Smoke Ring". The checkers role was that of political
officer to ensure that the crews actions were, very literally, PC.
Derivation from one assumes 'Chekists' of Russian Revolution.
ex Cheka ex ...
Checkers, a game where any piece can become a king. Chess, a game where the
lowly pawn can improve their station in life, even become royalty if they
stick their neck out far enuff. The lottery, where anyone can gain great
wealth suddenly and without effort if they are foolish.
> Checkers, a game where any piece can become a king. Chess, a game
> where the
> lowly pawn can improve their station in life, even become royalty if
> they
> stick their neck out far enuff. The lottery, where anyone can gain
> great
> wealth suddenly and without effort if they are foolish.
> William Chops Westfield wrote:
>>>> 13. Which word of four letters can be added to the front
>>>> of the following words to create other English words?
>>>>
>>>> CARD BOX CODE BAG HASTE
>>
>> "Post", I think.
>
> I think some of those "words" are questionable. Who says "postbox"? I
> guess that is supposed to mean what we call "mailbox"? Postcode is also a
> bit strange. Unless they really mean power up self test code, which is
> the
> only thing I ever use "postcode" for, it seems to me they meant "postal
> code" (like ZIP code here in the US). And what the heck is a "postbag"
> supposed to be? Again maybe a mailbag, the kind you find in the back room
> of a post office?
>
> I wonder what the authors of this question think it measures? It doesn't
> seem to me it measures anything remotely like what most people would think
> "intellegence" is.
I think some of the words are more English English than American English.
> Russell McMahon wrote:
>> xxxxhaste is the big give away I
>> think as "haste" is a rare enough word in general usage that any fancy
>> usage of it tends to be memorable.
>
> I actually briefly thought of posthaste for that reason, but dismissed
> post
> as the prefix because it didn't make sense for several of the other words.
> Did any americans not that familiar with UK english get this question
> correctly?
Yes: but only by a decision that it couldn't be anything else, and that the
resulting words seemed 'reasonable'. Also, I was aware that Canada called
there equivalent of a Zip code a 'postecode'.
As mentioned before, it was xxxxhaste that was the primary clue for me.
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 09:57 -0500, Robert Ammerman wrote: {Quote hidden}
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Olin Lathrop" <olin_piclistspam_OUT@spam@embedinc.com>
> To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <spamBeGonepiclist@spam@mit.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 11:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [OT] IQ test wanted.. .
>
>
> > Russell McMahon wrote:
> >> xxxxhaste is the big give away I
> >> think as "haste" is a rare enough word in general usage that any fancy
> >> usage of it tends to be memorable.
> >
> > I actually briefly thought of posthaste for that reason, but dismissed
> > post
> > as the prefix because it didn't make sense for several of the other words.
> > Did any americans not that familiar with UK english get this question
> > correctly?
>
> Yes: but only by a decision that it couldn't be anything else, and that the
> resulting words seemed 'reasonable'. Also, I was aware that Canada called
> there equivalent of a Zip code a 'postecode'.
Actually, in Canada it's a postal code. Postcode (or postecode as you
have it spelled) isn't a word you'd normally hear in Canada.
> >Whereas the name of the UK version of
> > checkers, draughts, describes the movement of the pieces
>
>
> And can you explain to us forners exactly how you pronounce
> 'draughts' ? Is it 'drots' or 'drafts' or '?'
Drafts. Draughts is a variant of draft/drag/draw (hence draughthorse)
> > For example this question:
> >
> > 13. Which word of four letters can be added to the front
> > of the following words to create other English words?
> >
> > CARD BOX CODE BAG HASTE
>
> I think I can write reasonable English and read it very well, but I
> simply can't find an answer to the above question. I think it probably
> has something to to with learning a language as child versus learning it
> later.
The answer is "Post", but when I first looked at this my mind froze in panic! :-) Then I concentrated on
"Haste" because it's an unusual word, unlike the others, and looked for anything that would precede it, and
found it within a few seconds. "Posthaste" is an archaic word, rarely used these days, and I wouldn't expect
many native English speakers to use it, or anyone for whom English is a foreign language to have heard of it.
I think the last time I heard it was at school (say 35 years ago).
It means "quickly", in the sense of "soon", "without delay". Such as "I want you to complete this task
posthaste". (I nearly said "Send this letter posthaste", then realised how confusing that might be! :-)
>
>
> > > CARD BOX CODE BAG HASTE
>
>
> It means "quickly", in the sense of "soon", "without delay". Such as "I
> want you to complete this task
> posthaste". (I nearly said "Send this letter posthaste", then realised
> how confusing that might be! :-)
I thought of that, and discarded it because I had never heard or read the
word "Postbag" in my life, as far as I'm aware. "postcode" I took as
dubious but possible, and the others were of course ok.
I suspected a rather british "slant" in this question.
>>>> CARD BOX CODE BAG HASTE
>
> I thought of [post], and discarded it because I had never heard
> or read the word "Postbag" in my life, as far as I'm aware.
Huh. It's a TEST, people. You put down the best answer you
come up with, even if you're not 100% positive. Even the last
exam I took that actually deducted extra for wrong answers (as
opposed to "no answer" turned out statistically to work in
favor of guessing if you could eliminate even one of the multiple
choice answers (and break even if it was a complete guess.)
If you can't come up with any ideas other than "post", you
shouldn't discard that answer over a couple of "maybes."
>From this and other Americans' replies, I think it's clear that the test was set for English rather than
American speakers. We tend to use the word "Post" in a lot of places that you use "Mail" (although the
organisation that delivers the stuff is called the "Royal Mail" :-)
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:12:35 -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> William Chops Westfield wrote:
> >>> 13. Which word of four letters can be added to the front
> >>> of the following words to create other English words?
> >>>
> >>> CARD BOX CODE BAG HASTE
> >
> > "Post", I think.
>
> I think some of those "words" are questionable. Who says "postbox"?
We do! :-)
> I guess that is supposed to mean what we call "mailbox"? Postcode is also a
> bit strange. Unless they really mean power up self test code, which is the
> only thing I ever use "postcode" for, it seems to me they meant "postal
> code" (like ZIP code here in the US).
A lot of people don't know that ZIP is an acronym for "Zoning Improvement Program", a specifically USAmerican
project which produced the 5-digit code that you use today. Using it outside the USA is nonsense, as would be
asking someone from outside the USA for their Social Security Number or which State they live in (some web
sites selling things can be really silly about this, making the State a madatory field in the address, even
when they allow selection of a country other than the USA). In the UK (and I think New Zealand) the
short-code we use is called the postcode, I think in Germany they call it Postbus.
Incidentally, when filling up a friend's car in California, when I inserted my (English) credit card it asked
for my ZIP code. I entered the one that was local for that place, and it accepted it! :-)
> And what the heck is a "postbag" supposed to be?
In the UK postal deliveries are done on foot (a particular delivery round is called "a walk"). The postman
(-woman) carries everything in a large shoulder-slung bag, called a postbag.
> Again maybe a mailbag, the kind you find in the back room of a post office?
Interestingly we do call those mailbags - the ones used for moving the stuff around the system - usually only
the bag carried around the houses is called a postbag.
Since you call it "Going postal" and it's called the US Postal Service, why is it apparently difficult to
associate post with mail?
Howard wrote regarding 'Re: [OT] IQ test wanted.. .' on Fri, Mar 24 at 11:35:
> A lot of people don't know that ZIP is an acronym for "Zoning
> Improvement Program"
It's also a registered trademark of the US Postal Service...
> Incidentally, when filling up a friend's car in California, when I
> inserted my (English) credit card it asked for my ZIP code. I
> entered the one that was local for that place, and it accepted it!
> :-)
Many stores around here (midwest USA) have card scanners which ask for
a ZIP code. It's almost universally used as a statistic gathering
tool, something to determine how far people are driving to get to the
store, etc. It's good to be able to predict where the next location
should be built, and that sort of thing. I *never* give my real ZIP,
generally just making up a 5 digit number on the spot. So far, I've
been questioned "where's that" once. Then again, I usually sign some
random name - like printing "John Doe" or some famous person's name -
in the signature box, and that's never been questioned...
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 11:56 -0600, Danny Sauer wrote: {Quote hidden}
> Howard wrote regarding 'Re: [OT] IQ test wanted.. .' on Fri, Mar 24 at 11:35:
> > A lot of people don't know that ZIP is an acronym for "Zoning
> > Improvement Program"
>
> It's also a registered trademark of the US Postal Service...
>
> > Incidentally, when filling up a friend's car in California, when I
> > inserted my (English) credit card it asked for my ZIP code. I
> > entered the one that was local for that place, and it accepted it!
> > :-)
>
> Many stores around here (midwest USA) have card scanners which ask for
> a ZIP code. It's almost universally used as a statistic gathering
> tool, something to determine how far people are driving to get to the
> store, etc. It's good to be able to predict where the next location
> should be built, and that sort of thing. I *never* give my real ZIP,
> generally just making up a 5 digit number on the spot. So far, I've
> been questioned "where's that" once. Then again, I usually sign some
> random name - like printing "John Doe" or some famous person's name -
> in the signature box, and that's never been questioned...
Odd. Last time I was at Masters (in Phoenix) I filled up at a local to
the hotel gas station a few times.
That station had "pay at the pump" and didn't ask for a zip code.
However, on my way to the airport I had to fill up at a station close to
the airport (so my rental had a full tank). That station also had pay at
the pump but asked for a zip code. I, being from Canada, didn't have
one, so I entered the standard: 90210. The machine rejected it. Had to
leave "colateral" with the cashier so I could put in my $5 worth of gas,
what a pain...
> "Posthaste" is an archaic word, rarely used these days, and I wouldn't
> expect many native English speakers to use it, or anyone for whom
> English is a foreign language to have heard of it.
You may be right :) It's probably a thing about either having lived long
enough to still know it from everyday use, or having read the right type of
literature. Neither is my case...
> Which word of four letters can be added to the front
> of the following words to create other English words?
With a new list of US_culture_fair_(sez_me) words.
(Same prefix in each case).
TIME YOURSELF (mentally)
- time to near certainty
- time to certainty
**** DON'T ****
**** DON'T ****
**** DON'T ****
**** DON'T **** provide the answer on list.
By all means discuss how long it took, whether you got it, what caused
you to realise what it was etc.
I suspect, for reasons which I won't explain yet, that this will be an
epiphany for the Yankees. Even I think for the actually german but
essentially yankees :-).
There's a teaser in there, but you should be able to handle it :-)
On Mar 24, 2006, at 11:54 PM, Russell McMahon wrote:
> By all means discuss how long it took, whether you got it, what caused
> you to realise what it was etc.
>
> real show arm winder step
>
Took me about a minute, and another minute to check the one I
wasn't sure of. Wasted a bit of time checking whether it was
supposed to be four letters again. The process was a bit less
clear, but there aren't really that many four-letter prefixes.
I think probably "winder" was key. Since there was only one
questionable, the path from suspicion to certainty was quicker...
> I suspect, for reasons which I won't explain yet, that this will
> be an epiphany for the Yankees.
Not for me. Except for the teaser, one might wonder whether
the prefix had a consistent definition, but I found it within
bounds. Certainly within the same space as supposedly consistent
latin/greek word-components.
> There's a teaser in there, but you should be able to handle it :-)
>
REAL teasers like that create certainty faster than mere
questionable words like the last set, IMO.
> Which word of four letters can be added to the front
> of the following words to create other English words?
With a new list of US_culture_fair_(sez_me) words.
(Same prefix in each case).
TIME YOURSELF (mentally)
- time to near certainty
- time to certainty
**** DON'T ****
**** DON'T ****
**** DON'T ****
**** DON'T **** provide the answer on list.
By all means discuss how long it took, whether you got it, what caused
you to realise what it was etc.
I suspect, for reasons which I won't explain yet, that this will be an
epiphany for the Yankees. Even I think for the actually german but
essentially yankees :-).
There's a teaser in there, but you should be able to handle it :-)
On Sat, 2006-03-25 at 19:54 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote: {Quote hidden}
> For our poor deprived US friends.
>
> I hereby put the original question:
>
> > Which word of four letters can be added to the front
> > of the following words to create other English words?
>
> With a new list of US_culture_fair_(sez_me) words.
>
> (Same prefix in each case).
>
> TIME YOURSELF (mentally)
>
> - time to near certainty
>
> - time to certainty
>
>
> **** DON'T ****
> **** DON'T ****
> **** DON'T ****
> **** DON'T **** provide the answer on list.
>
> By all means discuss how long it took, whether you got it, what caused
> you to realise what it was etc.
> I suspect, for reasons which I won't explain yet, that this will be an
> epiphany for the Yankees. Even I think for the actually german but
> essentially yankees :-).
Time to near certainty and certainty, a few seconds, which to me is a
surprise since I normally am horrible at language type questions.
Russell McMahon wrote:
> For our poor deprived US friends.
We're OK, not to worry ;-)
> By all means discuss how long it took, whether you got it, what caused
> you to realise what it was etc.
It took about 5 seconds. Definitely less time than finding the windows
clock and positioning it on the screen so that I could start at a known
time. I looked at each word in sequence and apparently thought about each
for about a second, but knew the answer as soon as I saw WINDER. Then a
quick check back to make sure it fit with the other 4 words. Actually I'm
not so sure about xxxxREAL, but that seems a lot less dubious than POSTBAG
for example. I haven't looked it up so see if my xxxxREAL is really a word.
There is another prefix I was thinking of before seeing WINDER that may in
fact be the "correct" one. The problem is that xxxxARM is probably a word,
but would be specialized to a particular discipline or piece of equipment.
I'm not sure that makes it a real word, just an obvious concatenation used
by those working in the specialty. Similarly, the alternate xxxxSTEP sounds
like it fits in this catagory too.
> Even I think for the actually german but
> essentially yankees :-).
I assume that was in reference to me? All I said was that german is
technically my first language. You seem to have made an incorrect
conclusion from that about my nationality. For the record, I was born in
California. I am and have always been a US citizen. I have been outside
the US for only a few months total on vacation and the like. I have been to
Germany only once for about a week in the late 1990s.
******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014. #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year. http://www.embedinc.com/products
One of the words didn't appear to work until I realized that it was a word,
but isn't pronounced as the two separate words next to each other would be
pronounced. I verified the spelling of the word by running it through my
dictionary web site: http://www.massmind.org/dict/sidereal
> For our poor deprived US friends.
>
> I hereby put the original question:
>
>> Which word of four letters can be added to the front
>> of the following words to create other English word
> With a new list of US_culture_fair_(sez_me) words.
>
> (Same prefix in each case).
>
> TIME YOURSELF (mentally)
>
> - time to near certainty
>
> - time to certainty
>
>
> **** DON'T ****
> **** DON'T ****
> **** DON'T ****
> **** DON'T **** provide the answer on list.
>
> By all means discuss how long it took, whether you got it, what caused
> you to realise what it was etc.
> I suspect, for reasons which I won't explain yet, that this will be an
> epiphany for the Yankees. Even I think for the actually german but
> essentially yankees :-).
>
> There's a teaser in there, but you should be able to handle it :-)
>
>
> Page down.
> Time yourself .....
>
> |
> \/
>
>
> |
> \/
>
>
> |
> \/
>
>
>
> real
> show
> arm
> winder
> step
>
>
>
> RM
>
>By all means discuss how long it took, whether you got it, what caused
>you to realise what it was etc.
Total time: couple of seconds. I actually had no idea while looking
at the first two words but knew with absolute certainty as soon as I
saw the fourth word. Seeing the fifth word just confirmed it.
It helps that a former roommate was very heavily into SETI research
and I had frequent exposure to the first word.
Celebrating 22 years of Engineering Innovation (1984 - 2006)
.-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-
`-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-'
Do NOT send unsolicited commercial email to this email address.
This message neither grants consent to receive unsolicited
commercial email nor is intended to solicit commercial email.
Russell McMahon wrote:
> For our poor deprived US friends.
>
<snip>
>
> real
> show
> arm
> winder
> step
>
>
about 5 seconds, not more than 10. Had to
mentally recheck "real".
On Mar 25, 2006, at 8:59 AM, James Newtons Massmind wrote:
> That was hard. Took several minutes.
Huh. The americans don't seem to be doing as well as the
non-americans on this one. I got the impression from Russell's
message that he expected the opposite to be true...
> On Mar 25, 2006, at 8:59 AM, James Newtons Massmind wrote:
>
> > That was hard. Took several minutes.
>
> Huh. The americans don't seem to be doing as well as the
> non-americans on this one. I got the impression from Russell's
> message that he expected the opposite to be true...
I'm an American (US) and got it in less than 30 seconds. I had only a
single false start (well, it matched *some* of the words). Strange
because this is normally the type of puzzle I do poorly at.
--
D. Jay Newman ! Author of: jay@spam@sprucegrove.com ! _Linux Robotics: Building Smarter Robots_ http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! (Now I can get back to building robots.)
That was my guess when you mentioned a particular song.
As for that first word, my extensive recent exposure to the
name of a particular newspaper (the "XXXXreal Daily Mentioner")
in the Most Famous Douglas Adams Book sewed that one up.
Strange,
I couldn't get the earlier "POST" post - although I didn't spend much
time thinking about it.
This one however dropped out straight away - first result I tried worked.
Again, the "*winder" was the givaway for me.
> That was my guess when you mentioned a particular song.
>
> As for that first word, my extensive recent exposure to the
> name of a particular newspaper (the "XXXXreal Daily Mentioner")
> in the Most Famous Douglas Adams Book sewed that one up.
>
> Mike H.
>
> On 3/26/06, Wouter van Ooijen <spamBeGonewouter@spam@voti.nl> wrote:
> > > 5 seconds to first guess, 10 seconds to certainty.
> > > "Winder" was the key...
> >
> > REM?
> >
> > Wouter van Ooijen
> >
> > -- -------------------------------------------
> > Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
> > consultancy, development, PICmicro products
> > docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu
> >
> >
> > --
> Which word of four letters can be added to the front
> of the following words to create other English words?
This one is meant to be hard (!) but (almost) fair.
For some it will pop out in a trice.
For others it will take days and then suddenly epiphinate after a
period of not thinking about it at all.
James should avoid using his prefix list :-).
My wife didn't get it after several minutes thought - and she's very
good at this sort of thing.
I've not told her the answer to see if it does indeed suddenly resolve
unexpectedly.
I've kept the list to 4 words as, while there are many more words I
could have added, these 4 are relatively 'tricky'.
The actual words are mostly common.
Two should be known by most, even if not always used.
The meaning of one is semi-jargon, instantly obvious, even if seldom
heard and a little unusual.
One is most obscure and may be considered a teaser - foreign related
and derived. Valid English methinks, but ...
____
As before:
(Same prefix in each case).
TIME YOURSELF (mentally)
- time to near certainty
- time to certainty
**** DON'T ****
**** DON'T ****
**** DON'T ****
**** DON'T **** provide the answer on list.
By all means discuss how long it took, whether you got it, what caused
you to realise what it was etc.
There's a teaser in there, but you should be able to handle it :-)
On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:58 PM, Russell McMahon wrote:
> elan ration or ling
>
Hard. Resorted to tools and still can't get it.
"or" and "ling" are useless, being common endings for MANY words.
"ration" is nearly useless for the same reason. That leaves "elan",
and my online dictionary (not that it's a good one) lists only a
single 8-letter word ending in "elan."
I guess there's a possibility that test-taking skills would compel
me to answer given a time limit, but I REALLY don't like the "elan"
word that it gives (and neither does the webster online dictionary.)
It does fit your "clue" re jargon, though. Timing would be hard,
since I came up with it early and rejected it pretty thoroughly before
being forced to come back...
I still want to know why you thought your first quiz would be
such a "revelation"?
>On Mar 26, 2006, at 10:58 PM, Russell McMahon wrote:
>
>
>> elan ration or ling
>>
>>
>>
>Hard. Resorted to tools and still can't get it.
>"or" and "ling" are useless, being common endings for MANY words.
>"ration" is nearly useless for the same reason. That leaves "elan",
>and my online dictionary (not that it's a good one) lists only a
>single 8-letter word ending in "elan."
>
>I guess there's a possibility that test-taking skills would compel
>me to answer given a time limit, but I REALLY don't like the "elan"
>word that it gives (and neither does the webster online dictionary.)
>It does fit your "clue" re jargon, though. Timing would be hard,
>since I came up with it early and rejected it pretty thoroughly before
>being forced to come back...
>
>I still want to know why you thought your first quiz would be
>such a "revelation"?
>
>BillW
>
>
>
Good :-).
Given that I STARTED with the answers it's hard to be sure how hard
others would find it. But it looked like something that I may well
have pored over indefinitely unless a background process provided ther
answer - which is often enough how the brain works (mine anyway).
> "or" and "ling" are useless, being common endings for MANY words.
> "ration" is nearly useless for the same reason. That leaves "elan",
> and my online dictionary (not that it's a good one) lists only a
> single 8-letter word ending in "elan."
A clue, of sorts.
xxxxelan is the "foreign referring foreign based" word. It's fairly
marginal and intended largely to be 'redeemed' by the other 3 which
are highly legitimate english words. Even though the 'jargon' word may
annoy some. There are many USAites who will happily use this jargon
word without noticing and anyone who has any idea of their subject at
all will happily follow them.
> I still want to know why you thought your first quiz would be
> such a "revelation"?
My 2nd I think you mean.
That was not an especially erudite assessment :-).
What i meant was that I had seeded it with several words that were
very USAish and, just as the first one had UK oriented words that made
it hard on a 'foreign' mind, I expected the second to trigger day to
day memories. Especially xxxxwinder and xxxxwalk as they would be
known by almost everyone in the US (one in two quite different
contexts) while neither is at all common here by comparison.
For the latest set, consider xxxxelan a marginal teaser and take the
others as more likely to give success.
One could keep on churning out lists like this forever, and even I
know that one should only do so much of this on PICList OT :-) - but I
find the range of responses fascinating.
RM
easy: cyclone clockwise social depressant (arguably
hyphenated in some cases)
Lindy Mayfield wrote:
> Ok, I finally got it, too. I cheated though and wrote a Perl script
> that searched through a large wordlist.
>
> Would you like a hint?
I didn't get it in the first minute and don't have more time to muse on it.
I'm not in the office now where the large word list is, or I'd run a quick
editor hack to find the answer too.
I don't know why Russell is being silly about not giving the answer here.
Anyone giving the answer should wait a few hours so that others will see the
original post before any answer, but after that I think it's counter
productive not to discuss the answer. Once you've formed your own opinion
or decided to give up you want to know what others came up with. Russell
doesn't own the list, so go ahead, tell us your answer.
For the record, my answer to the previous question was "SIDE". SIDEWINDER
was the key. OK, be honest, how many of you thought of that as the missile
versus the snake (which the missile was named after) first? I thought of
the missile first even though that is a proper noun and the snake is the
"real" word. SIDEREAL had me going for a bit. I knew of the astronomic
word, but somehow thought there was an extra letter in there until seeing it
written out.
I also thought of FILM as the prefix. FILMREAL, FILMWINDER make sense, but
FILMARM and FILMSTEP sounded like plausible words although jargin at best.
I can't remember the fifth word, but I thought it made sense with FILM.
******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014. #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year. http://www.embedinc.com/products
Russell wrote regarding 'Re: [OT] IQ test wanted.. .' on Mon, Mar 27 at 02:37:
> One could keep on churning out lists like this forever, and even I
> know that one should only do so much of this on PICList OT :-) - but I
> find the range of responses fascinating.
Here. For those who insist that this is entertaining, get yourself a
copy of perl and a list of words. You'll get a whole list of words
with common prefixes - 4-char prefixes, unless you change the
constant.
--Danny
#!/usr/bin/perl
use warnings;
use strict;
use constant PREFIXLENGTH => 4;
use constant MINWORDLENGTH => 6;
use constant MINLISTLENGTH => 6;
my $wordlist = '/usr/share/dict/words';
open (WORDS, $wordlist)
or die "failed to open $wordlist: $!\n";
my(
$prefix, $word, $list,
%words, %list,
);
foreach $word (sort(<WORDS>)){
chomp($word);
# prune out things like fly/flys/flying/flyer...
next if ($words{ ($word =~ m/^(.*)(?:er|s|ing)$/)[0] || '' });
$words{$word} = 1;
next if(length($word) < MINWORDLENGTH);
$prefix = substr($word,0,PREFIXLENGTH);
$list{$prefix} ||= [];
push(@{ $list{$prefix} }, $word);
}
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 18:58 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:
> elan
> ration
> or
> ling
Hmm, this one is much tougher then the last two.
I have a guess (after about 10 minutes) which matched in my mind the 2nd
and 3rd, the 4th I had to look up. Unfortunately the first word formed
seems to be a proper name, so I don't think it's the correct one.
> I don't know why Russell is being silly about not giving the answer
> here.
I presume you mean "IMNSHO Russell is being silly about not ... " :-)
The reason (or a reason) is that not everyone, unlike some of us,
reads the list material as soon as it is posted, and some people are
still answering the original questions some days after they were
posted. Why let the advance guard spoil their fun? Somewhere about
now it's about time (IMNSHO) to give the first 'answer' but the others
seem to have a bit of mileage in them yet.
Also, where such 'puzzles' do not yield an instant answer some are
happy to take it no further, and finding the answer a few posts
further on would not matter. However, some like to let such problems
lie awhile, either to return to a while later or in the expectation
that the answer may be provided by the brain's background processes.
(Works for me :-) ). Or, long enough to write a Perl script to solve
it :-). Each to their own, but a shame to spoil their fun too soon.
> Russell doesn't own the list, so go ahead, tell us your answer.
Nor, as has been noted more than once before now (not by me), does
Olin. Why spoil other people's fun just because Olin wants to?
Russell McMahon
(Coming to a jail near you sometime soon? :-) )*
* Lest anyone worry - it's a joke, of sorts, based on a recent
unrelated post.
Russell McMahon wrote:
> The reason (or a reason) is that not everyone, unlike some of us,
> reads the list material as soon as it is posted, and some people are
> still answering the original questions some days after they were
> posted.
But they would read it in order, so the absolute time difference wouldn't
matter. I do agree that the wait should be long enough to ensure that the
list server can't reverse the order of the messages, and also leave a little
time for hints that don't give it away. However I thought the last puzzle
went on way too long without anyone spelling out the answer.
I also don't remember ever seeing the answer to what plant that specific
person thought was the "most important". Not that it will likely change my
opinion, but it is interesting to hear others' reasoning about it.
******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014. #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year. http://www.embedinc.com/products
> I also don't remember ever seeing the answer to what plant that
> specific
> person thought was the "most important". Not that it will likely
> change my
> opinion, but it is interesting to hear others' reasoning about it.
Chinchona Palm, named after Countess of Chinchon.
More anon mayhaps from me on that :-)
The test to be met was
> Without doubt this is the plant that has done
> most to shape world history"
Grasses (properly monocotyledons) are right up there with the
finalists, but the Chinchona Palm (especially its bark), despite its
Johny come lately status) is a worthy adversary.
> > I also don't remember ever seeing the answer to what plant that
> > specific person thought was the "most important". Not that it will
> > likely change my opinion, but it is interesting to hear others'
> > reasoning about it.
>
> Chinchona Palm, named after Countess of Chinchon.
> More anon mayhaps from me on that :-)
>
> The test to be met was
>
> > Without doubt this is the plant that has done
> > most to shape world history"
>
Members of the developed world should be more concerned about sofas, fast
food, cigs, smog and cars. At least if the USA is any example: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm (of the "accidents" about 60,000
are automotive) Just to put that in perspective: Terrorists have an ALL TIME
record of about 2,700 in the USA. http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/911.htm
Interestingly, one of the best weapons against Malaria is not Quinine, but
our old friend DDT. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/28/154924.shtml DDT is, much
like Nuclear power; one of those things that "everybody" knows is just plain
"evil" and should never be allowed no matter what, but which, in fact, are
quite often the lesser of several evils.
As to the Historical Impact: I don't see any proof that Cinchona has done
more to shape history than any of the plants that have fed the hungry mouths
of our ancestors. I would guess that rice, grains, or even potatoes have had
more impact on history by staving off starvation or allowing humans to
populate new areas.
Some references note that spellings vary. Both are used.
And whether it was really used to cure said Duchess is moot.
It was certainly known about by the locals long before then, and
probably by the Jesuits somewhat before the Duchesses entrance.
> Quinine was the first (somewhat) effective
> treatment for Malaria
And remained THE primary treatment up until WW2 when the Japanese and
Germans both captured strategic areas and forced rapid development of
alternatives of a sort.
> As to the Historical Impact: I don't see any proof that Cinchona has
> done
> more to shape history than any of the plants that have fed the
> hungry mouths
> of our ancestors.
1. Obviously not a gin drinker.
2. You'd need to actually look, and to work out a method of
"scoring" that anyone interested in debating the matter could agree
with.
A long and interesting debate could ensue :-). I think it may be more
profitable to select a handful or two of peers who all had pivotal
roles. Many wothy ones were mentioned when the subject was first
raised.
Taking Smitts perspective, if history is what visibly shaped our
present postions, then the last 500 years or so has a greater role
than most [ :-) ] prior events.
Note that Alexander the Great died (they say) of malaria, not knowing
about quinine.
And Oliver Cromwell, knowing about quinine, but considering it a
Papist innovation, also died of malaria.
The Romans in Britain used to drain swamps to minimise mosquitos and
attendant malaria infection from their camps.
The whole face of the modern map was hewn out by the empires of the
Western powers spreading across the globe. Africa en toto, South
America and much of middle America and India and Asia and .... would
not have been considered 'fit' for colonisation had Malaria been, if
not beaten, then very very much subdued. (Quinine has a lot to answer
for :-) ).
Quinine does not cure malaria per se - it makes the attacks bearable,
within reason.
> I would guess that rice, grains,
It's nice to see james agreeing with Olin :-)
> or even potatoes have had
> more impact on history by staving off starvation or allowing humans
> to
> populate new areas.
Or, in the case of potatoes, failing to crop well due to disease and
thereby 'persuading' my ancestors to emigrate to Australia and New
Zealand - AND the US :-). (There was no Potato Famine.)(Well, there
was, but there was no shortage of edible crops. It's just that the
other crops 'belonged' to the 'landowners' so the Irish locals had to
eat 'their' potatoes, which they had not got*).
Russell McMahon wrote:
>> Without doubt this is the plant that has done
>> most to shape world history"
>
> Chinchona Palm, named after Countess of Chinchon.
Hmpf. Rather a let down. There are many plants that have been used
medicinally and saved many lives. This one did allow increased human
habitation in parts of the world where malaria is common. However, it had
no impact on human history outside of South America except for the last 500
years. Many very significant and highly relevant to where we are today
history events occurred well before that. And various plants played
important roles.
Of course one can go on forever arguing about which plant was most
important, but that's pointless as it's impossible to replay history without
the plant, nor to decide which outcomes would be more different from today
if you could. So everyone can have their favorite and make their case. I
do however object to the "without a doubt" clause in the question. This
squarely states that there is only one right answer and all others are
wrong, which is just plain wrong and arrogant.
******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014. #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year. http://www.embedinc.com/products
> I do however object to the "without a doubt" clause in the question.
> This
> squarely states that there is only one right answer and all others
> are
> wrong, which is just plain wrong and arrogant.
Object all you wish.
I'm sure Tim Smit won't mind at all :-)
I explained the context clearly enough at the start - it was always
one person's opinion against those who chose to differ. He just gets
more votes than most when people are considering what he says :-).
> Hmpf. Rather a let down. There are many plants that have been used
> medicinally and saved many lives.
While it is reasonable to call quinine "medicinal" it is far more than
that in context. It is arguably one of the enabling technologies
necessary for the 19th century British, German, Dutch, and misc other
minor world empires.
> This one did allow increased human
> habitation in parts of the world where malaria is common.
Maybe. But the key point is that it allowed DIFFERENT people to do the
inhabiting. It allowed the imperialist warmonger white skins to spread
into areas where they (or I should say 'we', as a person of Irish
descent) would otherwise not have been. India, the jewel in the crown,
would not have been without quinine. All of Africa absolutely changed.
Much of everywhere else.
> However, it had
> no impact on human history outside of South America except for the
> last 500
> years. Many very significant and highly relevant to where we are
> today
> history events occurred well before that.
Such as what?
I could certainly name candidates, but I think Smits point is that,
regardless of the foundation one stands on, a substantial part of what
you have now depends on the immediate past - say the last very recent
500 years or so :-).
The weaknesses in Smit's argument are easy to see. But the importance
of the plant is hard to gainsay.
> So everyone can have their favorite and make their case.
Indeed.
As i said when I said what Smit's choice was.
A shortlist of say the top 10 candidates would probably have potatoes
and monocots, and would be unlikely to exclude quinine.
Russell McMahon wrote:
>> However, it had
>> no impact on human history outside of South America except for the
>> last 500
>> years. Many very significant and highly relevant to where we are
>> today
>> history events occurred well before that.
>
> Such as what?
Like the cultural and technological advancements that allowed Europeans to
cross the Atlantic and discover a remedy for malaria in the first place.
And none of that would have happened without the development of agriculture,
which was almost solely enabled by grasses. Looking at the last 500 years
is very myopic in the scheme of things.
Looking at the bigger picture, things would be vastly different on this
planet if those first eukaryotes hadn't stumbled on a way to make food from
sunlight, and in the process dumped their highly toxic waste product into
the atmosphere. This was an evironmental catastrophy that the earth and
most of the existing life at the time never recovered from. Then a few
niche organisms made use of the fact that the this new photosynthesis
process was rather inefficient and the pollution it produced could be
harnessed for energy. We are all here because our ancestors not only found
a way to survive with, but make use of plant farts.
******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014. #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year. http://www.embedinc.com/products
> Of Olin Lathrop
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 7:11 PM
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [OT] IQ test wanted.. .
>
> Russell McMahon wrote:
> > The reason (or a reason) is that not everyone, unlike some of us,
> > reads the list material as soon as it is posted, and some people are
> > still answering the original questions some days after they were
> > posted.
>
> But they would read it in order,
Not necessarily. I don't always start at the oldest of my new email and
work my way to newest.
------------------------------------- Notice of Confidentiality ----------------------------------------------------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify postmasterspamBeGone.....vgt.net. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified
that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information
is strictly prohibited.
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:58:43 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:
> Try something hard :-)
>...
> elan
> ration
> or
> ling
You're not kidding! We are talking about a 4-letter prefix again, aren't we? (You didn't quite state this
just quoted the previous one, and I am having more luck with 3- and 5-letter prefixes for -ration!).
I spent ten minutes on this, and decided that the 4th missing letter is unlikely to be a vowel, since none of
them combine with all of E, R, O, and L very neatly. Then I homed-in on -ration and tried saying each
consonent before it, to see if that suggested something (my mind works best on the sounds of words), but
things like integration and titration don't fit the 4-letter rule!
So far it's beaten me, but I'm going to let it lie in my subconscious and see if it pops up the answer, which
I've found is a very powerful - but unreliable - technique for problem-solving. I had to design a
stock-control / order-processing system many years ago, and the combination of requirements was proving tricky
to satisfy. One morning as I was waking up the entire solution appeared in my mind, with all the details
handled. And apparently effortlessly! Difficult to justify to the boss, though: "I'm not working on that
urgent project because I'm waiting for the solution to magically appear when I'm not expecting it" is a
career-limiting move! :-)
>> Try something hard :-)
>>...
>> elan
>> ration
>> or
>> ling
>
> You're not kidding! We are talking about a 4-letter prefix again,
> aren't we? (You didn't quite state this
> just quoted the previous one, and I am having more luck with 3- and
> 5-letter prefixes for -ration!).
Yes - 4 letter prefix.
But the first one is pretty questionable. It's the "foreignish" one I
mentioned.
I think it's valid but it's marginal. Lindy found it with his Perl
scipt. Some can't find it in any dictionary. Consider it a bonus :-)
The other 3 are very valid. Totally obvious once you have them. Even
the 'jargon' one.
> So far it's beaten me, but I'm going to let it lie in my
> subconscious and see if it pops up the answer, which
> I've found is a very powerful - but unreliable - technique for
> problem-solving. ...
As you say - often works well but timing is not dependable :-)
>> However, it had no impact on human history outside of South America
>> except for the last 500 years. Many very significant and highly
>> relevant to where we are today history events occurred well before
>> that.
>
> Such as what?
I also find the notion that the most recent events have the highest impact
a bit strange -- and short-sighted :)
> I could certainly name candidates, but I think Smits point is that,
> regardless of the foundation one stands on, a substantial part of what
> you have now depends on the immediate past - say the last very recent
> 500 years or so :-).
Yes, but the farther away (time-wise), the bigger the effect, because of
the many later events that depended on that earlier event. Imagine if the
Romans had managed to end Christianity before it really started... maybe by
simply not crucifying that one person. Almost none of the history related
to Europe (and the places Europeans invaded subsequently) would have
happened as we know it. And maybe there wouldn't have been a need for
Quinine :)
On 3/27/06, Russell McMahon <KILLspamapptech.....paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> > Which word of four letters can be added to the front
> > of the following words to create other English words?
> elan
> ration
> or
> ling
Yay! - got it!
I pondered this the other day and got nowhere. I just looked at it
again and got it really quickly. The brain works in mysterious ways.
Dan wrote regarding 'Re: [OT] IQ test wanted.. .' on Fri, Mar 31 at 07:58:
> On 3/27/06, Russell McMahon <spam_OUTapptechKILLspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
> > > Which word of four letters can be added to the front
> > > of the following words to create other English words?
> > elan
> > ration
> > or
> > ling
>
> Yay! - got it!
Which reminds me - it's been long enough. Is it "cast", or something
else? What the heck's "castelan", if so? It's not in any dictionary
I've checked, but then, I've got no other obvious choice for more than
two of them.
On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 08:22 -0600, Danny Sauer wrote:
> Dan wrote regarding 'Re: [OT] IQ test wanted.. .' on Fri, Mar 31 at 07:58:
> > On 3/27/06, Russell McMahon <RemoveMEapptechRemoveMEEraseMEparadise.net.nz> wrote:
> > > > Which word of four letters can be added to the front
> > > > of the following words to create other English words?
> > > elan
> > > ration
> > > or
> > > ling
> >
> > Yay! - got it!
>
> Which reminds me - it's been long enough. Is it "cast", or something
> else? What the heck's "castelan", if so? It's not in any dictionary
> I've checked, but then, I've got no other obvious choice for more than
> two of them.
Cast was the only one I could come up with. It works perfectly for the
last three words, but as you say, castelan doesn't seem to be a "normal"
english word.
It is a proper name (according to google), I don't know if that counts.
>> > > Which word of four letters can be added to the front
>> > > of the following words to create other English words?
>> > elan
>> > ration
>> > or
>> > ling
>> Yay! - got it!
> Which reminds me - it's been long enough. Is it "cast", or
> something
> else? What the heck's "castelan", if so? It's not in any
> dictionary
> I've checked, but then, I've got no other obvious choice for more
> than
> two of them.
"Cast..." it is.
Well done all.
I could have also added words like off, away, iron (some arguably with
hyphens) ... but they all seemed rather easier to crack.
Castelan is, as I noted, rather marginal and "foreign" - I somewhat
regret including it although it does seem legitimate.
A Castelan is a keeper of a castle - often a honorary title referring
to having authority over an area. Used in several places. One such is
Bouillon in Belgium where an honorary role was appointed long ago
(1415).
/Bouillon was in the possession of the bishops of Liége from 1095 to
1678, with some interruptions. But, since Bouillon is some distance
from Liége, and was not a contiguous part of the bishop's temporal
domain, it retained its separate identity, governed by its own law and
customs, and overseen by a castelan or governor appointed by the
bishop.
\
/
>From 1415, the castelans were the La Marck or van der Marck (a younger
branch of the family who became dukes of Cleves and Jülich): arms, Or
a fess chequy argent and gules.
\
a.. 14th century - Bouillon Castle, as an exclave of the bishopric of
Liege, is governed by specially appointed castelans.
a.. 1415 - The office of castelan becomes a hereditary possession of
the van der Marck, a cadet branch of the future Dukes of Cleves and
Julich.
________
SO, while it is indeed a thoroughly furrin werd, it is also used
directly in English without translation and some may (perhaps) use it
with a degree of levity in other contexts.
___________
And the English in fact used it (it seems) prior to the Belgians.
here's "The PEDIGREE of Walter FitzOTHO (FitzOTHER) Keeper of the
Forrest; Castelan (Constable) of WINDSOR Castle"
Anyone who watched Doctor Who (particularly the Peter Davison years '82
to '84?) and was paying attention would have got it. Castellans also
appear frequently enough in many of G.A. Henty's works (look on the
project gutenberg site for many of those). Note that two Ls is the more
common spelling.
>>>>>Which word of four letters can be added to the front
>>>>>of the following words to create other English words?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> elan
>>>> ration
>>>> or
>>>> ling
>>>>
>>>>"Cast..." it is.
>>>>
>>>>Am I excused ? :-)
>>>>
>>>> RM
>>>>
Anyone who watched Doctor Who (particularly the Peter Davison years '82
to '84?) and was paying attention would have got it. Castellans also
appear frequently enough in many of G.A. Henty's works (look on the
project gutenberg site for many of those). Note that two Ls is the more
common spelling.
David wrote regarding 'Re: [OT] IQ test wanted.. .' on Fri, Mar 31 at 11:29:
> Anyone who watched Doctor Who (particularly the Peter Davison years '82
> to '84?) and was paying attention would have got it. Castellans also
So, watching Dr. Who could make my IQ go up? Who'dda thunk it? :)
--Danny, too young and not-from-an-island-north-of-Europe's-mainland
to have seen any episode of Dr. Who, ever...
> watching Dr. Who could make my IQ go up? Who'dda thunk it? :)
Given that many IQ tests measure your vocabulary, watching anything
that hasn't been carefully "tuned" to a low vocabulary might indeed
be helpful.
>
> --Danny, too young and not-from-an-island-north-of-Europe's-mainland
> to have seen any episode of Dr. Who, ever...
>
There's a new series being played in the US now. Not bad...
I always had the impression that Dr Who popularity in the US
was equal or greater than in the UK, BTW...
Russell wrote regarding 'Re: [OT] IQ test wanted.. .' on Fri, Mar 31 at 16:46:
> > ... not-from-an-island-north-of-Europe's-mainland
>
> Nor West neither probably :-)
I didn't know it was popular in Cuba. ;)
--Danny, noting that "northwest" would've made the string too long to
fit on a 75-char terminal nicely.
You are participating in a race. You overtake the second person.
What position are you in?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you overtake the last person, then you are...?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Take 1000 and add 40 to it. Now add another 1000 . Now add 30.
Add another 1000. Now add 20. Now add another 1000. Now add 10.
What is the total?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mary's father has five daughters: 1. Nana, 2. Nene, 3. Nini,
4. Nono. What is the name of the fifth daughter?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A mute person goes into a shop and wants to buy a toothbrush.
By imitating the action of brushing his teeth he successfully
expresses himself to the shopkeeper and the purchase is
done. Next, a blind man comes into the shop who wants to buy a
pair of sunglasses; how does HE indicate what he wants?
> You are participating in a race. You overtake the second person.
> What position are you in?
>
You know, I used to think I was smart because I knew all the
answers to "puzzles" like these. But after a while, I realized
that I had just read a bunch of the puzzle books, and memorized
the answers (or if the the exact answers, the tricks needed to
get the answers...) So what does THAT make me?
> If you overtake the last person, then you are...?
But this one is indeterminate, isn't it? You can't overtake
yourself. There's an answer on the web that says you're first and
you've lapped the field, but if there are laps involved, then anyone
and everyone could overtake the last person...
> A mute person goes into a shop
>
I liked this one. I don't think I've seen it before...
>But this one is indeterminate, isn't it? You can't
>overtake yourself. There's an answer on the web that
>says you're first and you've lapped the field, but if
>there are laps involved, then anyone
>and everyone could overtake the last person...
William Chops Westfield wrote:
> But this one is indeterminate, isn't it? You can't overtake
> yourself. There's an answer on the web that says you're first and
> you've lapped the field, but if there are laps involved, then anyone
> and everyone could overtake the last person...
My first thought was:
>> If you overtake the last person, then you are...?
A scumbag because you weren't part of the race and tried to sneak in
partway. And stupid too because if you're going to sneak in, you might as
well start in a better position than behind the end.
******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014. #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year. http://www.embedinc.com/products
Research has shown that young children cannot identify the intimate
couple because they do not have prior memory associated with such
scenario. What they will see are the nine dolphins.
Additional note: This is a test to determine if you already have a
corrupted mind. If it's hard for you to find the dolphins within 6
seconds, your mind is indeed corrupted"
I didn't care about finding any dolphins for a minute or two....
engineer.cotse.net .
