Posts by Alex Stewart

You should be glad you finally cut ties. You’re only 21; there's no reason to spend the rest of your life making things miserable by getting married... especially to someone so unstable. 😉

I don't know... said:Keep it down and enlighten me...

16, 4, 12, 8, 8, 12, ___, ___

1. 4, 14; 2. 4, 16; 3. 4, 18; 4. 4, 20

2. 4, 16

There are two sequences:...
16, 12, 8, ___ => 4...
4, 8, 12, ___ => 16...

Even if you don't bother searching through the sequences, it’s obvious that with 4, the 16 sequences are perfectly symmetrical—they look exactly the same regardless of which direction you approach them from. So, there's no way that solution could be wrong...
If you actually want to work on those sequences, I've got some of my own tests up on Quizorama. They're a bit more challenging than those mindless ones you see on FOX...
The current discourse surrounding the big intelligence test results is becoming increasingly tiresome. It seems everyone has an opinion on who belongs in Mensa, yet very few actually bother to look at the data objectively. I’ve been following the threads closely, and the level of noise is staggering. People are jumping to conclusions without understanding the nuances of how these metrics are calculated. It isn't just about a single number; it's about the methodology behind the assessment... Regarding the recent comments from Paul Hughes5, I find the argument fundamentally flawed. To suggest that a specific demographic holds a monopoly on high IQ scores ignores decades of psychological research. It’s a lazy take, frankly. Then there is the matter of what Raymond Palmer8 was asserting earlier. While his skepticism is noted, he’s missing the forest for the trees. The structural integrity of the testing process remains sound, regardless of individual outliers... We need to move past these emotional outbursts and return to a rational analysis of the findings. Otherwise, this entire discussion is just a waste of bandwidth The recent results from the big intelligence test are out, and frankly, they’re nothing short of a joke. It seems like everyone thinks having a high IQ- makes them some kind of genius, but looking at these scores, I’m starting to doubt the entire metric. I was reading some comments from Alex Stewart and Arthur Grant4 regarding the distribution, and even they seemed skeptical about how these numbers were pulled together. Most people are just chasing a number to feel superior, without actually understanding what it means... It’s the same old story. People obsess over these metrics while ignoring actual substance. It’s all just noise...

Morgan Martin38 said:My book is the 2nd edition postojati i nov 3 .
Check the "How to Measure Your IQ" chapter on page 41 under the INTRODUCTION.
The following quote comes from lines 10-14, counting from the top:

Each test is allotted 30 minutes. Therefore, you must stop working exactly 30 minutes after starting the first problem; naturally, your score is simply the number of problems solved correctly within that time limit.

Alright, thanks. I found it. I'll try running through it tonight and we'll see based on the results if this test actually holds water...🙂

Morgan Martin38 said:I checked the textbook to see how long the test takes.
Each test is supposed to take 30 minutes. It’s ridiculous that they didn't put that in the actual instructions chapter, but buried it way back in an earlier section instead!

Can you tell me exactly which page? I still can't find where it mentions the 30-minute limit...

Morgan Martin38 said:I stumbled upon this book by Eysenck called "Check Your Intelligence," and I just opened it up
and the problems seem pretty tough. There are eight different tests included.
Has anyone heard of this author before? Can you actually take the results from these tests seriously?

That book is useless for two reasons: the verbal reasoning questions are often completely illogical and bizarre—likely due to some terrible translation—and there's no time limit on the individual tests, which is absolute nonsense. Of course, if you want to breeze through with a 90-100% score, you can, but isn't time supposed to be the primary limiting factor? I don't see the point of the whole book if everyone can just coast to a 140+ without any pressure...

That wasn't an IQ test at all. It felt like it was designed by someone who isn't particularly gifted in mathematical or logical reasoning—the kind usually targeted by standard assessments. They gave people a mere 60 seconds for those incredibly basic sequences with repetitive patterns. I wouldn't be surprised if the highest scores came from people who just breeze through simple logic, even if their actual cognitive depth is lacking.
Furthermore, what kind of assessment is this that relies on general knowledge? Even in the first section, you needed prior knowledge just to figure out which word was the outlier. As far as I'm concerned, intelligence is the ability to adapt to entirely new situations. By what logic does general trivia fall under that umbrella? Or mastery of the American language?
The test itself wasn't terrible, but calling it a "big IQ test" is a massive stretch...

I was feeling pretty miserable earlier, so I put together this list just to see how much variety I could squeeze out of it. It turned out quite diverse:
Al Pacino (60%)
Albert Einstein (60%)
George Mallory
Harold Shipman (that doctor who murdered about 250 people, lol)
Josemaría Escrivá (founder of Opus Dei🙂)
Ian Thorpe

Jean Gabin and Graham Chapman.
I want someone a bit more recognizable. 🙂

You have to click that little arrow right under the percentage mark when you find an image -> that'll pull up all the other related results for you!

Hmm, any time I pin my hopes on someone else, it just ends up being right there in front of me anyway.😠

Now Robert Downey Jr. just popped up on my screen... 😬

Adam Carolla. 😁

I need to upload a better photo of my own. 🙂

Good grief, everyone here is just lazy.

Someone needs to bring some actual evidence to the table; things are getting tense.

I'll be waiting for the follow-up, maybe even 🙂 will show up here...

Karen Brooks said:Look, my parents are trying to get rid of him too, but for me, it’s not just some rational fear—it’s a full-blown phobia. I physically can't bring myself to kill it.
Get what I'm saying?

Oh, sure, thanks for the comfort. That really helps.
It honestly breaks my heart seeing people slaughter helpless animals, as if they don't have a right to exist, too...

I’m not afraid of the dark per se, except when I’ve just finished a horror movie or a disturbing book.
In those moments, I just bury myself under as many blankets as possible and call it a night.

viky said:Since we're talking about phobias, I have to recount this disaster from this past summer. A moth—this nasty, nocturnal thing 😱—flew right into my room. I’m lying in bed, screaming for my mom. She comes charging in, armed with a broom 😁
The damn moth decides to target me specifically, and I end up lunging off the bed in a total panic. Instead of actually catching the bug, my mom ends up wrestling me to the floor just so I don't crack my head open, all while swinging that broom wildly at the moth with her other hand. Then my dad bursts into the room to join the fray. Once the chaos finally died down, we were all just rolling on the floor laughing.
Words don't really do it justice. The mental image of her pinning me down with one hand while hunting a moth with a broom makes me laugh even when I'm in a terrible mood.😂

😢 Good grief, tell me you didn't actually kill the poor thing? Honestly...

I can't stand certain bugs either, but I could never bring myself to kill them. I usually just force my dad to usher them outside so they can stay ALIVE.

Every living thing deserves a chance, regardless of how much they gross us out.