Thread: How observant are you really - Debate away

DEEP OVER ANALYZING blather?!?!

If only I was less observant

I think the test of observation getting a simple anwser incorrect i.e. the flush one, proves that this is not a good test of observation. It more of a test of ignorance and easy anwsered, if it wasen't then I wouldn't be able to do this http://www.snopes.com/science/coriolis.asp . Sorry Skysaw the person who wrote this test got a question wrong, now this pretty much proves this is a crappy test and is shallow and not observent. Seriously, three minautes in google would have gave the person who wrote this the correct anwsered, but no. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...s+toilet&meta=
I guess it is too hard to write coriolis and toilet into google.

You guys DO realize that if wendylove got a 100% (or near that) on this test this conversation wouldn't be going on at all. She would more likely be hailing the ingenuity of the test.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Sorry Skysaw the person who wrote this test got a question wrong, now this pretty much proves this is a crappy test and is shallow and not observent. Seriously, three minautes in google would have gave the person who wrote this the correct anwsered, but no.

I already mentioned the problem with the toilet question, just before the argument broke out; actually, most people here have acknowledged it. I also never said it was a good or accurate test.

Ok.. as promised.. you may continue your debate here!

Any further debate in the old topic will be removed and directed here.
.

18 outta 25 , that was fun:p

18, but the test was a bit rubbish. Takes the usual American stance of 'the world population resides in America'; like, with the question,

'How many states are there?
(Some people don't know this!!)'

Yeah, could you tell me how many counties there are in Britain then, you stupid arse? -_-

I answered pretty much all of the things correct for objects that I've actually seen before though. ._o

To Wendylove :

Oh no wonder you didn't know how many matches there were in a standards matchbox, the position of the green light, or what numbers don't have letters on a telephone, the slash of the no smoking sign, the side buttons are on women's blouses, the # of sides on a stop sign, where the even numbered side pages are on, # of lugnuts on a car, # of sides on a pencil, the missing 7 Dwarf, # of hotdogs in a standard package, do I really have to go on? Seriously if you couldn't get a single one of those right you going to have to re-evaluate you definition of stupid, and if you live in America it's even worse, and you're going to have to check your observational skills, sure you have your own ethics, but that has nothing to do with observation...

And you do realizes at the beginning of th test it says "This is based on US info" so everything won't be the same for all countries or people. So if the majority of people's toilets go clockwise then, the answer will be clockwise. You don't have to dig deep into the questions, if you did you're trying too hard, even then will you find the answers are correct (with some differences for some people), but if you took the majority in the US then you find them to be correct.

Game set and match.

Nobody got 0.

The probability of getting 0 even if you know nothing and just hit random buttons is 0.0000396.

Xei, you're being too technical and scientific here. As I think Mark Twain put it (something like this) "It's not what you don't know that gets you, but what you think you know but just aint so" or something like that. You can't apply probability to something like this, because she wasn't choosing randomly. She *thought* she knew the answers, but picked the wrong ones.

Get it?