Any chance of a translaton for those of us who dont speak 'yoof' (PS I'm only 26 and this had me lost.:doh: )

...If you give them your e-mail, congrats, you're now on their spam list.

:know:
nope.

LMAO....cushty http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/7...ebigtb9fg3.gif

Can anyone tell me why 64 is the right answer to question 17? It's the only one I got wrong apart from that counting four sided figures...

Im tellin ya, that site is a very well crafted phish. The test is the hook. You spend enough time on it, you want to see what your results are, so your more apt to say, "Gimme the results!" and it doesnt land the email requirement on you tell you complete the test - thereby setting the hook.

I dont remember submiting my email adress, actualy i dont remember being asked that.

I had taken an official test back in 2001, and my score came back at 168. Regardless, I agree with Sky in that IQ tests, even the legitimate ones, are inherently flawed and not a reliable indicator of intelligence. Your real intelligence flucuates daily based on a variety of chemical and environmental factors.

"Yes, quite so. Respect is gained from liking the correct celebrities. Furthermore, nothing is quite as satisfying to my self-image than a piece of budget jewelry, my friend."

1 - 8 - 27 - ? - 125 - 216.

1 cubed = 1
2 cubed = 8
3 cubed = 27
4 cubed = ?
5 cubed = 125
etc

hehe 'cushty' now there's a word I've not used in regular parlance for ages... at the risk of sounding too rosy, at one time everything was 'cushty' :lol:

"How's it going?"
"Yer mate, it's cushty."

"How's the new job?"
"Cushty"

"Did you get your motor fixed?"
"Yup, it's sorted, it's packed.... it's cushty."

Aaah, happy days :cool:


As for the translation, one could read along the lines of: "Nothing is much good unless it's shiny, then everyone looks up to your success with adulation." or some such.

EDIT:
Curse you KP! now it's too late for my ninja-edit :rotfl: curse my cats too for distracting me from important internetz :doh: hehe.

One-Six-Eight in a regular and scientifically conducted academically developed and verified test? Are you member of Ultranet or Mega Society or any other High IQ Soceity? An IQ of 168 is extreme, roughly only 1 in 500.000 scores like that, or higher. IQ tests also do not allow such a score directly, but make such numerical statements by extrapolations only, and scores in that range and higher also are not statistically verified nor normated.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to minimize you, but such extreme scores in principle would raise my suspicion that either the test or the way it was conducted were not kosher. With a score of 168, statistically there would be only around let's say 700 people in the US that are in your range or higher, statistically.

Not necessarily a 'phish' but a way of obtaining e-mail addresses.
I didn't check their privacy statement, but when it asked for the
e-mail address, I dropped it like a bag of snakes (the site, not
the e-mail address).

EDIT: Yeah, this was the big turn-off right here on their privacy page:

Expect the spam to start shortly. Only it's not spam - you requested it.

As soon as they wanted my name and other info...I closed the window.

No offence but if you do beilive that intelligence is something that can be measured at a scale at all, you are not "smart".

Binet himself ment that IQ-test where not for measuring and comparing normal people, and not in this way, as they don't say anything to anyone with an IQ over 100 or so, but still we have them here today and misuse them in a scale not imaginable.

The eastern cultures which define intelligence in a completely different way from the "western intelligence" laugh at us while we do this of course. And they should.

Anyone else studied pedagogy at university here by the way?

I'm very aware of the statistics, and again state that I put very little stock in the Intelligence Quotient. Never once would I claim to be abnormally intelligent, which is what I was attempting to illustrate. Also, no, I don't belong to a society. Such a high number, as you stated, is little more than extrapolation, and is further proof of the folly of tying intelligence to an arbitrary number.