Hmmmm....SI would be human shaped, but be 2 Dimensional, composed of tiny aqua coloured 1s, 2s, 3s and 4s*, with a crackly aqua outline. All projected from a pinhole type camera.

SI would be snoozing next to a computer, on the computer screen would be a picture of the SI snoozing next to a computer...ad infintium.

 

Like so:

Can be a big screen or a small screen, not overly fussed.

 

*http://www.heartnsoul.com/keyboard_art.htm

:thumbsup:

Is that one of those online ones, or the actual Mensa IQ test?

 

Because online ones tend to not be incredibly accurate, in either direction. Then again, intelligence can't really be graded by an arbitrary score when you get right down to it.

It is from IQ Test Labs, not Mensa.

http://www.intelligencetest.com/

 

Though it is not completely accurate, I did the test over and corrected my two wrong answers and the score ended up as 141, apparently they won't let 16 years olds get the status of genious which is 144. Well, I'll just have to live with being gifted. When I did it over I used maybe 30 seconds, so it's got nothing to do with time.

Although intelligence is an arbitrary measure of numerous factors anyway, so regardless of test it is fairly inaccurate.

Someone with an IQ to 200 is likely to know more than someone with an IQ of 80...Yet person with an IQ of 200 would likely be pretty useless at pig farming(for instance), whereas, if that IQ 80 person was an expert pig farmer, then the more 'intelligent', in the task of rearing pigs, is the pig farmer.

 

You can replace pig farming with just about anything...

 

 

Kinda like taking a sample of air, then basing your entire understanding on the planet on the most abundant molecule...

Somewhat accurate when talking about plants, Nitrogen is an important part of their survival...for humans it is fairly unimportant and any conclusions drawn are gonna be inaccurate.

Still, 138 is a great score for someone who uses their head as a weapon against inanimate objects.

Or is proof of the lousiness of the test....

Although intelligence is an arbitrary measure of numerous factors anyway, so regardless of test it is fairly inaccurate.

Someone with an IQ to 200 is likely to know more than someone with an IQ of 80...Yet person with an IQ of 200 would likely be pretty useless at pig farming(for instance), whereas, if that IQ 80 person was an expert pig farmer, then the more 'intelligent', in the task of rearing pigs, is the pig farmer.

 

You can replace pig farming with just about anything...

 

 

Kinda like taking a sample of air, then basing your entire understanding on the planet on the most abundant molecule...

Somewhat accurate when talking about plants, Nitrogen is an important part of their survival...for humans it is fairly unimportant and any conclusions drawn are gonna be inaccurate.

 

Depends what you think intelligence is....

 

I mean I don't think intelligence is what you know, I think it's a measure of how fast you learn, how you learn, and how you can keep the knowledge with you, oh and how you use it.

 

A man with 80 IQ who is an expert pig farmer may know more than a man with 200 IQ and hasn't farmed pigs ever, but give him a while to learn it and he would surely be an expert in that field.

Archi, if it was the test being poor then why have I never scored bellow 119 on any test? (No I did not do as many tests as I could and just pick out the one where I scored best, it's more than two years since my last test.)

 

Yeah, as Icu is saying, IQ isn't your knowlegde, it's your capabillity to absorb and process information, you could know all the information on wikipedia by heart and still not see if folding along some lines would produce a die or a tetraherdron.

Regardless of his IQ you can still determine that Mather is extremely intelligent simply by talking over an internet forum, I would agree with that IQ score.

 

Navi posted something about drawing, I'm not very good at drawing people and don't know what the people of the tavern actually look like so I'll be taking SFW drawing requests from now on. Just post what you want me to draw and I'll draw it.

Yeah, as Icu is saying, IQ isn't your knowlegde, it's your capabillity to absorb and process information, you could know all the information on wikipedia by heart and still not see if folding along some lines would produce a die or a tetraherdron.

Thats flawed: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Net_(polyhedron)

Depends what you think intelligence is....

 

I mean I don't think intelligence is what you know, I think it's a measure of how fast you learn, how you learn, and how you can keep the knowledge with you, oh and how you use it.

 

A man with 80 IQ who is an expert pig farmer may know more than a man with 200 IQ and hasn't farmed pigs ever, but give him a while to learn it and he would surely be an expert in that field.

Right...so we are testing speed by what has already been learnt?

 

Isn't that like working out the top speed of a car based on where it has gone in its life time...Partically accurate, fast cars more likely not to have gone cross country, but ultimately flawed...

 

Archi, if it was the test being poor then why have I never scored bellow 119 on any test? (No I did not do as many tests as I could and just pick out the one where I scored best, it's more than two years since my last test.)

 

Russian Proverb:

Even a blind squirrel finds nuts sometimes.

 

The opposite is also true, as Retech recently proved with his 700>708.

 

Just because something has happened before doesn't make it certain that it will always happen...All we can do is make an accessment of probablity that it will happen again...

Archi, it'd be more accurate if the proverb was "A blind squirrel always finds nuts." I have done something repedetly and it has been without exception, the probabillity of me never finding a good test would be next to nonexistant. Also, the Mensa test is among the many I got 129 on some years ago.

 

Rocco, I just wanted to take one, and I was positively suprised by my improvement.

My scores vary like crazy.

 

It's generally between 120-150 though.

Archi, it'd be more accurate if the proverb was "A blind squirrel always finds nuts." I have done something repedetly and it has been without exception, the probabillity of me never finding a good test would be next to nonexistant. Also, the Mensa test is among the many I got 129 on some years ago.

A blind squirrel rarely finds nuts...hence why they die and you don't see many of them.

However, that does not preclude the possiblity of a blind squirrel finding a nut or two, and thus surviving.

 

Retech, has, repetedly, compared two numbers and worked out which was larger, yet, recently, failed.

Retech may have never failed to compare two numbers before, yet it happened...Therefore it is possible for something which hasn't happened, to happen...

 

THEREFORE, either, you have been insanely lucky(which is unlikely, since you know many things), or you have not been unlucky in the past...Afterall, many squirrels die despite their perfect eyesight.

 

 

My point is that holding up a test as proof of intelligence is a flawed concept...it is a proof that you know what the test asked you and you got correct...nothing more.

Well, it wasn't directly 700 > 708. It was 700 > 7_8, which doesn't look nearly as obvious when you're rushing through a test. :P

 

My opinion is that IQ is not relavent. It doesn't matter if you can learn, if you don't. Similarly, it doesn't matter if you can read, if you won't.

Psht, amature, on my IQ test it said 999, though it was only a 3 digit display so it may be rounded down. :rolleyes:

 

On a more serious note, 89 to 180, generally sticking around 119 with the proper tests.

And now let's see how many here who dare to post which tests they got their ridiculus scores on.

Hmmmm....SI would be human shaped, but be 2 Dimensional, composed of tiny aqua coloured 1s, 2s, 3s and 4s*, with a crackly aqua outline. All projected from a pinhole type camera.

SI would be snoozing next to a computer, on the computer screen would be a picture of the SI snoozing next to a computer...ad infintium.

 

Like so:

Can be a big screen or a small screen, not overly fussed.

 

*http://www.heartnsoul.com/keyboard_art.htm

Leave it to Archi to find the 1 character that would be hardest to draw without Photoshop.

Guys... Do you want some morning rescue?

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD-_oLjmCGY

 

So yeh, I'm taking requests.

Would I be permitted to make a 'suggestions' thread, I have noticed some dead ones and think it would be nice to create a new and more productive one with a set of rules meant to keep it floating. I also hope to make it easier to sift through.

Not really. Suggestion threads die fairly quickly because the suggestion is exausted or becomes a game.

 

Creating a set of rules designed to keep it active isn't really going to work, as it would either be copy of the back room, with the Admin have closed down in the past(1 off topic thread is more than most boards get, 2 is taking the mickey)...Or it would be a rule that said 'Person X must keep the thread on the front page' which is spam posting.

 

If you want to make your argument easier to sift through then you could post your idea here, and if there were responces you could ask a mod to split them off into a new thread.

 

Or just create a new thread to start with...I tend to use the backroom when I am not actually intending to make a game, I just have an idea for a game...If I am actually resolved to making the game I would create the thread.

It isn't that, its just that I've seen quite a few idea's around here and they've been discussed but the Idea's would take ages to sift through again. I plan on simply creating a thread where you can put idea's, you can talk about them in the back room but I would really find it useful to have a library of idea's somewhere.