Here's a way to pass some time today and to see just how observant you really are! :p
http://www.oldjoeblack.0nyx.com/thinktst.htm
.
Printable View
Here's a way to pass some time today and to see just how observant you really are! :p
http://www.oldjoeblack.0nyx.com/thinktst.htm
.
ummm ... nothing is happening :(
[edit] wait! I just changed my brouser. I'll tell you how I find it now-na-now :)
[edit x2] 13 out of 25 :( :)
I got 18! I missed something really stupid. :p
I don't think it works with FireFox...
is this one of those things where you look really hard to see whats wrong with the picture, and like 30 seconds in this creepy face and loud noice make you shit your pants?
:lol: No....
It asks you questions about simple things in life.
I got 13 which is quite good seeing as I got most of the American based questions wrong :P
Doesn't work with Opera :(
I got 20 but I had seen this before:p(I still missed some dumb things!).
I got 18 as well.
Yeah, but I only got 9.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeAvO
I tried with IE in the end!!
18/25!!!!!!!
I got 16. Some of them I had no hope in getting. That correct noise is addictive though. I could listen to it all day.
The question about the matches is silly. :p
Well I got it right :p
Hence YOU are silly. :p
I was proud of myself for getting the "which way does the water drain" questions. I owe that knowledge to the Simpsons.
18/25. But the question about the fan is flawed (with regards to ceiling fans, at least).
That's one's not true. It's just random (clockwise vs. counter). But you must have answered the way most people think it works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant
Haha I got that from there too, the Australia one :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant
The test is stupid. Unless, everything is backwards in america, then this must be wrong.
You own no knowledge from the simpsons only ignorance. http://www.snopes.com/science/coriolis.aspQuote:
I was proud of myself for getting the "which way does the water drain" questions. I owe that knowledge to the Simpsons.
This further proves the test was crap. You suspect the people would look it up for two minautes. I don't know since getting zero anwser correct, it might be that the test was to see if you could work out the test was crap. Also the question where they say what way does a fan spin was cheep, they didn't say whether you're perspective is the direction or the direction the fan really goes, which the standard fan is counter clockwise. Seriously if you scored high in this test, you're stupid or american, which I'm beginning to think they mean the same thing.
Sorry, for the cheep shot at americans, however it is the country with the highest supporters of ID and one of the lowest mathematical scoring country.
12 "that's sorta ok"
Works for me
If you didn't get 0, your not intelligent. Well, 2 as the traffic light and the statue of liberty one was actually, not stupid.
:cry: Jesus wendy. What a way to... ah, nevermind.
Way to not be able to have a laugh at the Simpsons.
well, I watched my toilet flush the other day out of boredom, and it was definitly counter clockwise. bullshit question.
Also, I agree with the fallacy of the ceiling fan question. First of all, the blades are often situated differently between fans. Secondly, it depends if you want to suck air in (from a window) or blow air. It can go either (mine can, at least)
wendylove sounds a little bitter about this whole thing...:p
Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
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.
Aww wendylove.. I can always count on you.. you are so predictable. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
.
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! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ataraxis
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by fajam00m00
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.
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.Quote:
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.
You wrote "cheep" for "cheap".. I thought dyslexics reversed or transposed letters. I stand corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
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. :banana: 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. :D
Nope, very much objective.Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
Being Autistic, I have no concept of crying. Plus the logical thing was to defend myself.Quote:
But honestly.. do you really think you can insult people and then cry foul when they give it back to you?
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.Quote:
Nope, very much objective.
So you're autistic and dyslexic..Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
Ok.. the point is that there would be no need to defend yourself if you didn't attack first.
.
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
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.
If you don't care about peoples emotions then you would have nothing stopping you from attacking ignorance.Quote:
Ok.. the point is that there would be no need to defend yourself if you didn't attack first.
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.Quote:
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 the killers. Calling the stuff I took for you something does not make it mine so I wouldn't own it.Quote:
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 territory stolen if you change the name then it is yours, even thou territory=state because territory was changed to state.
Not that it has anything to do with the dictionary definition of a "state"...Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
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.
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?)Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
:eek: ... You're saying that you care about people's emotions? :laughtillhurts:Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
Ok.. such flawless logic.. I give! :laughtillhurts:
.
Oh, Wendy. You never cease to bring laughter into my life.
Don't be fooled by the name; it's mere marketing.Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
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.Quote:
So instead of observing the history of something and actually understanding it, we just say a shallow anwser.
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 :clap:Quote:
Since, the power off observation is just looking at the surface of something and not actually going into it's detail.
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.Quote:
What the point off a observation test, when you have shallow answers it should really be called a general knowledge test.
Whatever makes you feel comfortable with your score.Quote:
From your logic, this should be called the shallow test of stupid observation.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
No I'm saying I don't care about people's emotions, thats why I can attack people.Quote:
:eek: ... You're saying that you care about people's emotions? :laughtillhurts:
Ok.. such flawless logic.. I give! :laughtillhurts:
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.Quote:
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?)
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.Quote:
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.
Example obviously pulled at random. :chuckle:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaught
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? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
That's what I thought you meant. I just figured that was a given. You know, considering...Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
Nice try but, observation is a passive activity. Probing and questioning is an active procedure.Quote:
The first act of observation is too question something.
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.Quote:
Way to be consistent within the same post
Maybe I am using tough love.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
Nice try but, observation is a passive activity. Probing and questioning is an active procedure.
Wendy: :lol:
This is way too much fun. Reciprocation turns me on so I should probably get back to work. Good times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
THANKYOU.
I win, I anwsered all you're questions and what's your reply. Run away back to work.Quote:
This is way too much fun. Reciprocation turns me on so I should probably get back to work. Good times.
The simpsons can be wrong some times.
Really? I sure didn't get that from anything you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
Not to my satisfaction. I just figured it's no use continuing to fight after I've already won. :horse:Quote:
I anwsered all you're questions and what's your reply.
Run? No, more like a sultry saunter.Quote:
Run away back to work
Oneironaught options;
1. Anwser my questions.
2. Say he has one even though he has not provided any counter points to my question.
3. Run away.
Oneironaught has selected 2.
:yawn: -- I'm sorry... did somebody say something?
Oneironaught greets wendy with maniacal laughter THEN runs away.
I've actually countered your every fallacy with skill, grace, and masterful precision.
Now, back to the topic (unless you really want to dig yourself even deeper).
:cowbell:
Well, Socrates looked silly when he was arguing with people, but aleast if you anwsered his question you would see their is hole in your argument.Quote:
Oneironaught greets wendy with maniacal laughter THEN runs away.
I've actually countered your every fallacy with skill, grace, and masterful precision.
Now, back to the topic (unless you really want to dig yourself even deeper).
Now since you didn't actually anwsered the last set off my question, how could I possibly show you your wrong? if you not going to anwser my questions then how can this continue.
Can you know give the counter points to my argument above or admit you're wrong. The only argument you have left is that observation is passive, which is true, however you can improve observation by being more observent and skeptical. Is that all you got. We reduce one problem down to ethics, which is subjective i.e. state question and we have one other question about the nature observation, which is passive yet can be improved. Which in a football match I would be winning.Quote:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
I believe the original argument was over the number of states, which you stumbled over, then eventually mumbled something incoherant and pushed the subject into a closed drawer somewhere.
If that's not a touchdown on Oneironaught's part, it's at least a safety, and I'm awarding him two points.
So your argument is that because I am so observant and took apart the state argument into a argument of ownership and then ethics of ownership I lose. But what is the point of having good observational skills and then only looking at the surface.Quote:
I believe the original argument was over the number of states, which you stumbled over, then eventually mumbled something incoherant and pushed the subject into a closed drawer somewhere.
If that's not a touchdown on Oneironaught's part, it's at least a safety, and I'm awarding him two points.
It like doing the counting test and not noticing that a monkey walked passed a screen and then saying to the person who noticed the monkey that they have poor observation skills because they noticed the monkey. When they asked the state question then what was so wrong with thinking that their something beyound the surface, then it being a stupid general knowledge test, I would rather see the monkey walk pass then end up with the right number of passes made.
This was exactly the point of the test.Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
So the traffic light question, that had depth. Wait what about the toilet question the correct anwser on the test was wrong, see the person who made the test did not do his homework, three minautes on the internet would gave him the correct anwser, but no looking at a problem in more detail is harder. I guess his observational skills were not working when he wrote that question.Quote:
This was exactly the point of the test.
ENOUGH ALREADY!! Can we PUH-LEAZE end this back and forth now?!
It was a simple test.. can't we have people take a SIMPLE FREAKIN' TEST without going into some DEEP OVER ANALYZING blather?!?!
If this continues wendylove.. and I called you out as you started this whole debate (surprise surprise), I will add this topic to Extended Discussion where you can debate ad nauseam with anyone who cares to go there.
.
If only I was less observantQuote:
DEEP OVER ANALYZING blather?!?!
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
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.
Don't know how true it is but:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
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?
Maybe I would have taken dear wendylove's responses more seriously had her spelling been correct. She has misspelled more words in this thread than I have in four years combined. :shock: Arguments can't just be thrown out there covered with a thin layer of dog shit; they have to be presentable. Correct spelling is a must, among other things. Based on her treatment of people on the internet, I can only assume that in person she is the most introverted little girl around, and she is simply using the anonymity of the internet to vent all of life's frustrations. And I have no desire to be rude. This is merely an observation. wendylove, if you are serious about participating in debates, you are seriously going about it the wrong way.
I have never lit a match in my life, so that wasnt fair ;_;. I dont eat canned soup, buy canned soup, rarely shop for foods and I dont really watch tv enough to see commercials - oddly I got that one right anyways just deciding the other colors wouldnt be attractive for the eyes.
and I swear ive picked up an 87 before! D=
my score was 15
Hmmm. I thought I posted in here but I guess I didn't. No wait, I remember Ame posted right after me... Anyways, I got a 17.
Edit: Ohh.. haha I'm such an idiot. There's another thread just like this. I was a little high so I wasn't thinking straight at the time.
Oh I love the TV one heh. Maybe it should be a memory test. Trying to remeber back when I was 5 and actually had a TV with a dial on it instead of a remote. And even then it was like a 10 year old TV.
Sorry for sounding horribly rude but you're just completely wrong. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by ataraxis
I was saying what I said in a half joking way, but I'm afraid applying statistics here is completely valid, even if I wasn't entirely serious about it.
I think I'm right in saying that there were no trick questions there; if you guess, there is a 1/3 chance of getting the answer correct. There is no bias towards incorrect answers.
Therefore, the chances of anybody with no knowledge of the questions who just picked random answers (ie guesses) is (2/3)^25, which is 0.0000396.
And therefore, only one in 25000 of the very least informed people (ie those who don't have a clue about a single one of those questions) will get 0, so it's safe to say that anybody who's claiming to have gotten 0 is very likely not really telling the truth.
Probability isn't suddenly invalid just because somebody 'thinks they are correct'... mathematics really couldn't give a toss.
err, you obviously dont get what I'm saying here. Say that Wendylove gave a 1 question test, the question was
"How many states are there in the US"
A) 49
B) 50
C) 124
Of course, SHE would say that its 49, because Texas isn't a state, of course.
So by the logic you are presenting, if 99 people took the test, 33 would get a 100, the rest would fail. Now, this is obviosuly untrue. Most people would say B, 50, so they would get it wrong.
So people can easily get a 0. If they are guessing, as you said, there is a very small chance of them getting a 0. But most people would choose, but choose wrong.
Basically, Xie, probability like that only applies when each answer has an equal chance of being picked. In your "random guessing" example, yes, each answer has an equal chance. However, when there is a universal inclination to pick one answer, (for example, everyone 'knows' that there are 50 states, but in this example test that is the wrong answer), then the balance is greatly shifted and your estimated probability of getting a 0 is 'completely wrong'
I got 21 / 25 on my first try. All of them right on my second (obviously I just remembered all of the right answers. :p). I missed the hot dog bun one. In Canada there are twelve per bag, not eight. :? Some of them I definitely would not have known though, like the TV one, so it's not my fault. :D
That was my whole point: you're just as likely to go for A, B, or C in the test which we're talking about (not the one you just made up, which contains a trick question and is therefore not representative at all), if you don't know the answer, for the vast majority of the questions, because all of the answers were completely reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by ataraxis
Also, I notice you kind of ignored the fact that if some questions are biased then some would be biased towards the right answer and others towards the wrong answer. Therefore you couldn't say there would be a great shift in any direction in particular, so therefore all one can do is ignore this and take the average, which is the figure I gave in the first place.
No, you still do not understand. My example is just an exaggeration. I am saying that with most of the questions, the majority of the people are biased towards one answer. And furthermore, I dont even know why I am talking about multiple people. If one, stupid person (wendylove in this example) is biased towards all the wrong answers, then the probability does not apply at all.
The fact of the matter is, taking the percentage of chance for the answers is not an appropriate way to figure out the chances of getting a 0 when all of the answers are not at an equal rate of being picked. There are other factors involved in the selection of choices... such as for example, logic.
Yes it does, depends how the question is stated and what the test is about. If they said a general american test I would pick 50 for the number of states and in the toilet flushing one I would pick clockwise, however if they said a observational test or genius test I would change my anwser to the generally incorrect anwser. The biased is caused by the test and how the person thinks about it.Quote:
And furthermore, I dont even know why I am talking about multiple people. If one, stupid person (wendylove in this example) is biased towards all the wrong answers, then the probability does not apply at all.
Leading questions makes the test biased and probabillty speaking Xei is right.
This test springs to my mind http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/ the one about is it right to rape a child question, is obviously a example of a biased forced test.Quote:
Also, I notice you kind of ignored the fact that if some questions are biased then some would be biased towards the right answer and others towards the wrong answer.
The question is, what is the "genious" answer to the toilet question? Yes, it was a bad question, but let's look beyond that for a moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
1. The poor soul who knows and believes the myth of the flush direction would get the question right.
2. The person who never heard this myth would have a 50/50 chance of getting it right.
3. The true genious...? Well as soon as he lookd at the answers, he would get that the person who formulated the test had fallen for the myth, and deduce the answer that was being sought. Therefore, although the question is technically a bad one, the OBSERVANT person would get it correct. This, by the way, is the method by which I arrived at the "correct" answer.
Okay, I'd agree that if someone believes the questions to be trick questions (and hence picks anything other than what they believe is the obvious answer), or if someone is just trying to get 0, then the chances are higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by ataraxis
But I thought Wendylove was actually trying? And there's only really a few which one could think were trying to trip you up on purpose...
Two things it does say that the test is based on American results at the very beginning of the test... so much for being observant, so officially failed the test already. I'm not too sure about how biased a question like where does the green light appear on the traffic light, and no matter how you look at it there are 50 states. The country of America recognizes all 50 states there is no argument about it. Observation only requires seeing there is no thinking in observation (well no deep thought). Have you wrote a science lab before? Have you ever stated your thoughts in the observation part?Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
I thought the traffic lights were on the top in america, however I haven't seen any traffic lights in america as I haven't been their. See asking someone how many states their our is too easy, I thought their would be some kind off trick, however their was none. See if they said general test I would off picked 50, however they said observational test. See you must be blind to not know how many states our in your country, so I thought their would be a trick to it. Statistically speaking if I was guessing I would have atleast got about 7 correct, however I got 0. This suggest either I am dumb and unlucky, I am strange or that I am smart.
General knowledge: 50 states
Observational knowledge 50 sates
It's not that the test is worded wrong you just thought about it way too hard, observation doesn't require critical thinking, either you see it or you don't. Is it that hard to understand. Where do you live? I mean I'm pretty sure that in most places the traffic lights are the same, so I assumed that and got it right. I wouldn't say that it's because you are so smart that you got 0 (because most of them you barely have to think), if you were extremely intelligent you would have realized it's just some stupid test online that obviously isn't going to have huge elaborate answers that requires you to know all historical data of the US, in fact the only trick on is the fan one, but if you were smart enough you would have realized "Hey when I use a fan I generally want it to blast air towards me, now which direction does the fan go when I do that? That's right clockwise!". If you picked the neither option then you fail even more, most fans that are plugged in work, so you would know they go in some direction, therefore you would have had a 50% chance of getting it right. (My thoughts are in no particular order so sorry if it's hard to read, now I'm off to work until 9)
Well, can you take the test on my thread called the real observational test, I thought it was something like that.
http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...902#post456902
Also don't post the anwser in this thread as it will spoil it for other people.
After taking the test Homer2020, you now know what I thought the test would be like. Also ataraxis take the test too.
Well, I didn't actually complete this test. After the myth one I just quit. So I did actually work out it was a stupid test, which then made me angry and argumentive, which is why their is now lots of pages for this stupid test.Quote:
if you were extremely intelligent you would have realized it's just some stupid test online that obviously isn't going to have huge elaborate answers that requires you to know all historical data of the US, in fact the only trick on is the fan one, but if you were smart enough you would have realized "
One thing I noticed when taking this brilliantly cobbled test is that the question about the no smoking sign actually had two correct answers. However, only one is acceptable. That skews the possible outcome right there.
Hmm, let me toss a coin. I call heads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovely Wendy
Quote:
Originally Posted by South Park's Mr. Garrison
How is the number of states in America something we observe every day? In fact, how can you really observe it at all, without spending a considerable amoung of time counting the number of sections on a map?
Anyway, I think we might want to contemplate dropping this discussion now... just maybe? It's not that important, this is just some test made by somebody who can't make tests so well. ._.
It's just common knowledge: 50 states - 50 stars on the modern U.S. flag. You either know it or don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
19, baby! But dammit, the times I have had match books, they had more than 20 matches. And my women wear T-shirts!
Americans learn that in school, and we have a lot of commercials that talk about policies that are good in "all 50 states".Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaught
It's not a myth. If you pull a plug in a bathtub in the northern hemisphere, the water goes down clockwise. If you do the same thing in the southern hemisphere, the water goes down counterclockwise. Science textbooks talk about it. There is even a scientific name for the phenomenon-- the Coriolis effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&r...oriolis+effect
17 of 25
Sorry, but your wrong. Their is something called the colriolils effect, however it does not happen in your bath. http://www.snopes.com/science/coriolis.aspQuote:
It's not a myth. If you pull a plug in a bathtub in the northern hemisphere, the water goes down clockwise. If you do the same thing in the southern hemisphere, the water goes down counterclockwise. Science textbooks talk about it. There is even a scientific name for the phenomenon-- the Coriolils effect.
You need to stop watching the simpsons.
The Simpsons suck.Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
It's the Coriolis effect, not the "colriolils" effect (Yeah, I misspelled it too.). With all other factors being equal, water in a toilet or bathtub in the northern hemisphere will drain clockwise and water in the southern hemisphere will drain counterclockwise. Because the water in those containers is of such low volume and mass, other factors, such as the shape of the tub or toilet and the way water is poured into them can go against the Coriolis tendency. The Coriolis effect still exists at those levels, but it is subject to being countered by other factors. It's not like the Coriolis force suddenly jumps into existence with certain sizes. I personally don't recall ever seeing a toilet, sink, or bathtub drain counterclockwise. That does have a lot to do with the fact that I have never been to the southern hemisphere.
Interesting quiz. I got 17/25.