Thread: How observant are you really - Debate away

I got 14, but I don't live in America, don't stare at women's blouses, don't own a car, fan can go wither way (still got it right though), my left arm swng with my left leg (generally my arms don't swing), I've never bought matches before, I don;t know what a Venetian blind is, I don't see the names of the 7 Dwarves everyday (got it right though), and BTW if you live above the equator water will alway go clockwise, this is for Ataraxis.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Seriously if you scored high in this test, you're stupid or american, which I'm beginning to think they mean the same thing.

Aww wendylove.. I can always count on you.. you are so predictable. :p
.

agreed, haha.

Wendy's Thoughts: "Okay, so I got a low score on this test. In fact, I got a 0. Wait, doesn't that mean I'm stupid? This can't be happening. No! The TEST is stupid, not me! People who got low scores are the SMARTEST, and high scores make you stupid! Yes, that's right, you are all stupid, and I am smart! Haha!"

Originally Posted by ataraxis

agreed, haha.

Wendy's Thoughts: "Okay, so I got a low score on this test. In fact, I got a 0. Wait, doesn't that mean I'm stupid? This can't be happening. No! The TEST is stupid, not me! People who got low scores are the SMARTEST, and high scores make you stupid! Yes, that's right, you are all stupid, and I am smart! Haha!"

Ata, you are awesome!

I got 17. This is complete BS though. For the question about which way the fans turn, the answer is not clockwise. Maybe in HIS house the answer is clockwise, but in my house it's counterclockwise. Therefore, I should have gotten 18.

lol if you don't believe me, I can take a video of it.

Originally Posted by fajam00m00

lol if you don't believe me, I can take a video of it.

That's what I was saying. My ceiling fans all run counter-clockwise. They are set to blow air down. Of course, if I flip the switch on them - to draw air upward - then they'll be rotating clockwise.

So, there's no argument that it is a flawed premise for a question. And, in fact, I "got it wrong" too. But really got it right.

So I must not be intelligent because I knew how many states were in the U.S.? Or a standard telephone dial? Wendy, you are an idiot. This test was completley legit. These questions are facts. And next time you make a "cheep" shot at the american stupidity, spell the word "cheap" right. Not being mean, just trying to save yourself from looking like a total moron.

Talking about cheap shots, you must feel like a genius saying a dyslexic person can't spell. Oh yeah facts, like the water clockwise above the equator was a fact http://www.snopes.com/science/coriolis.asp . Well, how many states in the U.S. question was subjective, as have you read the treaty and what qualifies as a state as such. As for the standard telephone dial, what is a standard telephone dial, theirs about 7 variations of dials.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Talking about cheap shots, you must feel like a genius saying a dyslexic person can't spell.

You wrote "cheep" for "cheap".. I thought dyslexics reversed or transposed letters. I stand corrected.

But honestly.. do you really think you can insult people and then cry foul when they give it back to you?
.

I got a 21. I'm mad about missing the unfair matches question, since I don't smoke and never look at matchbooks.

I also knew that toilet flush direction was a myth, but I was smart enough to know in which direction the myth claimed it went.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Well, how many states in the U.S. question was subjective, as have you read the treaty and what qualifies as a state as such.

Nope, very much objective.

But honestly.. do you really think you can insult people and then cry foul when they give it back to you?

Being Autistic, I have no concept of crying. Plus the logical thing was to defend myself.

Nope, very much objective.

Texas for example is that really a state, or just robbery. The native indians owned america and then the americans took it, so alot of states are not americans, but native indians. Sorry, I forgot the stupid fact that american actually stole america.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Being Autistic, I have no concept of crying. Plus the logical thing was to defend myself.

So you're autistic and dyslexic..

Ok.. the point is that there would be no need to defend yourself if you didn't attack first.
.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Texas for example is that really a state, or just robbery. The native indians owned america and then the americans took it, so alot of states are not americans, but native indians. Sorry, I forgot the stupid fact that american actually stole america.

Oh, puleeezze. That's terrible logic. We're not talking about "who was here first" and "who was a big fat meanie to whom". We're clearly talking about currently-recognised states.

Oh, puleeezze. That's terrible logic. We're not talking about "who was here first" and "who was a big fat meanie to whom". We're clearly talking about currently-recognised states.

Now this test is about testing your power of observation. So instead of observing the history of something and actually understanding it, we just say a shallow anwser. Since, the power off observation is just looking at the surface of something and not actually going into it's detail. What the point off a observation test, when you have shallow anwsers it should really be called a general knowledge test. From your logic, this should be called the shallow test of stupid observation.

Ok.. the point is that there would be no need to defend yourself if you didn't attack first.

If you don't care about peoples emotions then you would have nothing stopping you from attacking ignorance.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Now this test is about testing your power of observation. So instead of observing the history of something and actually understanding it, we just say a shallow anwser. Since, the power off observation is just looking at the surface of something and not actually going into it's detail. What the point off a observation test, when you have shallow anwsers it should really be called a general knowledge test. From your logic, this should be called the shallow test of stupid observation.

This is ridiculous. The definition of "state" has nothing whatever to do with how the territory became a state. It doesn't matter if Texas was stolen from native Americans, bestowed by Martians, or grown in a Petri dish; it's still a state.

This is ridiculous. The definition of "state" has nothing whatever to do with how the territory became a state. It doesn't matter if Texas was stolen from native Americans, bestowed by Martians, or grown in a Petri dish; it's still a state.

So by your logic, if I killed you moved into your house and then my family lived in your house for over a hundred years, it would be my families house. Well, in this example you would be the native american. Maybe, I don't understand because I don't believe that killing someone and then taking their stuff makes it the killers. Calling the stuff I took for you something does not make it mine so I wouldn't own it.
So territory stolen if you change the name then it is yours, even thou territory=state because territory was changed to state.

Originally Posted by wendylove

So by your logic, if I killed you moved into your house and then my family lived in your house for over a hundred years, it would be my families house. Well, in this example you would be the native american. Maybe, I don't understand because I don't believe that killing someone and then taking their stuff makes it theirs.

Not that it has anything to do with the dictionary definition of a "state"...

But yes, killing someone and taking their stuff does make it yours. It's not lawful, moral, or fair, but it would be yours. "Ownership" does not mean the same thing as "Rightful Ownership." The first is objective, the second subjective.

To summarize: The US "killed Native Americans and stole Texas." Then Texas became a state. One does not negate the other.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Now this test is about testing your power of observation. So instead of observing the history of something and actually understanding it, we just say a shallow anwser. Since, the power off observation is just looking at the surface of something and not actually going into it's detail. What the point off a observation test, when you have shallow anwsers it should really be called a general knowledge test. From your logic, this should be called the shallow test of stupid observation.

Wow.. only you could take a simple test and make such a big deal out of it.. but then that's your method of operation isn't it? People pretty much expect these kind of replies from you no matter what the topic. (how sad is that?)

Originally Posted by wendylove

If you don't care about peoples emotions then you would have nothing stopping you from attacking ignorance.

... You're saying that you care about people's emotions?

Ok.. such flawless logic.. I give!
.

Oh, Wendy. You never cease to bring laughter into my life.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Now this test is about testing your power of observation.

Don't be fooled by the name; it's mere marketing.

So instead of observing the history of something and actually understanding it, we just say a shallow anwser.

Now you get it. It's a shallow question. It's not asking for a dissertation on the intimate details of U.S. history. It's simple multiple choice. Yes, it really is that simple.

Since, the power off observation is just looking at the surface of something and not actually going into it's detail.

What part of "choose one of the following three answers" clued you in? Hey wait, didn't you just say that observation involved knowing the minute details and historical mumbo-jumbo? Now you're saying observation is only skin deep? Way to be consistent within the same post

What the point off a observation test, when you have shallow answers it should really be called a general knowledge test.

Holy crap! You and I actually agree on something?!?! That makes twice now - in all of your posting - that you've actually made some sense. I'm gonna play the lottery; I'm feeling lucky today.

From your logic, this should be called the shallow test of stupid observation.

Whatever makes you feel comfortable with your score.

Originally Posted by wendylove

So territory stolen if you change the name then it is yours, even thou territory=state because territory was changed to state.

Again, recognized states. We recognise you as being "wendylove" because that's your user name: not because we have deeply-held beliefs that you are indeed full of love.

... You're saying that you care about people's emotions?

Ok.. such flawless logic.. I give!

No I'm saying I don't care about people's emotions, thats why I can attack people.

Wow.. only you could take a simple test and make such a big deal out of it.. but then that's your method of operation isn't it? People pretty much expect these kind of replies from you no matter what the topic. (how sad is that?)

The first act of observation is too question something. So for a observational test I was questioning the test, which I found to be just a general knowledge test.

But yes, killing someone and taking their stuff does make it yours. It's not lawful, moral, or fair, but it would be yours. "Ownership" does not mean the same thing as "Rightful Ownership." The first is objective, the second subjective.

I disagree, if you basically take something then it is not yours. Read Kants Critical of pure reason, I believe in a ethic system similar to his. So in my view rightful ownership is not objective as Kant(saying that kant did believe in scientific thinking of the age about race so was racist, if he lived to day he would not have been racist) would reason. So it all comes down to ethics, which is subjective. Also, I am a communist so I could also argue no body owns anything so both rightful ownership and ownership our both wrong.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Again, recognized states. We recognise you as being "wendylove" because that's your user name: not because we have deeply-held beliefs that you are indeed full of love.

Example obviously pulled at random.

Originally Posted by wendylove

I disagree, if you basically take something then it is not yours. Read Kants Critical of pure reason, I believe in a ethic system similar to his. So in my view rightful ownership is not objective as Kant would reason. So it all comes down to ethics, which is subjective. Also, I communist so I could also argue no body owns anything so both rightful ownership and ownership our both wrong.

When you followed that logic to reach the natural conclusion that there are in fact ZERO states, was it confusing that that was not one of the three answers from which to choose?

Originally Posted by wendylove

No I'm saying I don't care about people's emotions, thats why I can attack people.

That's what I thought you meant. I just figured that was a given. You know, considering...

The first act of observation is too question something.

Nice try but, observation is a passive activity. Probing and questioning is an active procedure.

Way to be consistent within the same post

I was being scarcastic, I won't try and be scarcastic again as it just confuses you, however if you would have went beyound the surface you might have worked it out. Well, unless you assume I am inconsistant.

Again, recognized states. We recognise you as being "wendylove" because that's your user name: not because we have deeply-held beliefs that you are indeed full of love.

Maybe I am using tough love.

When you followed that logic to reach the natural conclusion that there are in fact ZERO states, was it confusing that that was not one of the three answers from which to choose?

Their was a famous observation test where you counted the times a person passed a ball. Now that wasen't the test the test was that a monkey walked passed the screen and no one saw it. So I thought it was being all clever, or that the people who did the test where idiots.

Nice try but, observation is a passive activity. Probing and questioning is an active procedure.

I disagree, if you don't probe then you have crappy observational skills and proberly memory. See for memory a good tip to build it is to build observational skills, like sherlock holmes(fictional character, but will do). Now memory is heavily passive, it does not mean it is fully passive as observation itself it not fully passive. Meditation is a good example also.