PDA

View Full Version : Are you stupid?



ToSeek
2006-Oct-16, 06:05 PM
http://www.nerdtests.com/ft_stupid.php?im



Overall, you scored as follows:



94% scored higher (more stupid),
2% scored the same, and
4% scored lower (less stupid).

What does this mean? You are 4% stupid. This means...

You are our next Einstein. Wow! Keep up the great thinking.

mike alexander
2006-Oct-16, 06:06 PM
I don't have to check.

Moose
2006-Oct-16, 06:15 PM
If you have to ask... ;)

hhEb09'1
2006-Oct-16, 06:18 PM
I disagreed with the rainbow question. I mean, there are double rainbows.

Tog
2006-Oct-16, 06:20 PM
:dance::clap::dance:

Your Score Summary
Overall, you scored as follows:

http://www.nerdtests.com/thetester/images/php/weird_bar.php?high=100&low=0

100% scored higher (more stupid),
0% scored the same, and
0% scored lower (less stupid).

What does this mean? You are 0% stupid. This means...

You are our next Einstein. Wow! Keep up the great thinking.



Yes, it was the first try, and here's a hint. The test was made current AFTER the IAU Announcement became official. Highlight to reveal.

Moose
2006-Oct-16, 06:28 PM
Heh. I had to ask. 17% stupid.

I wonder if they've updated the "number of planets" question recently? ;)

[Edit: Heh. Just read Tog's spoiler. I dunno whether I should feel stupid...er or not.]

NEOWatcher
2006-Oct-16, 06:29 PM
I disagreed with the rainbow question. I mean, there are double rainbows.
Wouldn't the same color be at the bottom no matter how many rainbows there are?

BTW, I got 13% stupid. Probably because I stopped to take the time to take the test in the first place.

weatherc
2006-Oct-16, 06:39 PM
Yes, it was the first try, and here's a hint. ANSWER DELETED Highlight to reveal.
Ah, I wondered about that as I answered that one. So now I'm only four percent stupid, but I could have been even less so had I known how current the test was.

Tog
2006-Oct-16, 06:41 PM
Ah, I wondered about that as I answered that one. So now I'm only four percent stupid, but I could have been even less so had I known how current the test was.

Yeah guessed right on that one.

pghnative
2006-Oct-16, 06:51 PM
97% scored higher (more stupid),
1% scored the same, and
2% scored lower (less stupid).
What does this mean? You are 2% stupid.


Got the rainbow one wrong...

:wall:

ciderman
2006-Oct-16, 06:52 PM
You are 8% stupid.
With no sources/hints:)

Didn't know about the states around the gulf though, that's a bit US centric I think. (I guessed correctly though:lol: )

pghnative
2006-Oct-16, 06:53 PM
Wouldn't the same color be at the bottom no matter how many rainbows there are?No, the 2nd bow is from light that bounces twice within the raindrop, so the colors reverse.

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Oct-16, 07:19 PM
0% stupid. Now I feel reassured. ;)

Jim
2006-Oct-16, 07:23 PM
Hmm, 1% Stupid. (My wife would disagree.)

Actually, the question about the number of planets has several correct answers.

Doodler
2006-Oct-16, 07:42 PM
68% scored higher (more stupid),
4% scored the same, and
28% scored lower (less stupid).

Fairly intelligent.

Without using sources, which would have been much better than this.

PhantomWolf
2006-Oct-16, 07:55 PM
8% I didn't check Tog's hint so was guessing at if the test was new enough to have removed Pluto.

WaxRubiks
2006-Oct-16, 08:04 PM
so what are the actual answers?


doesn't everyone know that 1+2+3....+9+10=55?

Doodler
2006-Oct-16, 08:22 PM
so what are the actual answers?


doesn't everyone know that 1+2+3....+9+10=55?

I didn't know as a matter of rote memorization. I did have a calculator handy when my ongoing sinus headache made working it out in my head beyond ...+7=28 impossible.

WaxRubiks
2006-Oct-16, 08:26 PM
I didn't know as a matter of rote memorization. I did have a calculator handy when my ongoing sinus headache made working it out in my head beyond ...+7=28 impossible.

I remember they did a thing on kids TV when I was well,, a kid. It was about a mathematician who set his class to work out what the sum of all the numbers from 1 to hundred(or something) where and some bright spark had the answer.

the answer (in the case of 1 to10)is to add the top number to the bottom ie (1+9)+(2+8) etc and then all you have is 5 elevens which makes 55.

ToSeek
2006-Oct-16, 08:30 PM
I remember they did a thing on kids TV when I was well,, a kid. It was about a mathematician who set his class to work out what the sum of all the numbers from 1 to hundred(or something) where and some bright spark had the answer.

the answer (in the case of 1 to10)is to add the top number to the bottom ie (1+9)+(2+8) etc and then all you have is 5 elevens which makes 55.

That's Gauss's method, named after the "bright spark" who went on to become a great mathematician.

Doodler
2006-Oct-16, 08:33 PM
That's Gauss's method, named after the "bright spark" who went on to become a great mathematician.

I'd considered that method, but as I said, the head's feeling fuzzy right now, so (modestly) complex math computations were right out. :)

WaxRubiks
2006-Oct-16, 08:33 PM
That's Gauss's method, named after the "bright spark" who went on to become a great mathematician.

Was the method not known about before him?

PhantomWolf
2006-Oct-16, 08:50 PM
heh, that's the technique I used, but I didn't know it had a name.

A number of the questions I wouldn't call not knowing the answers stupid, as Forest likes to say, Stupid is as stupid does. Merely not knowing the answer to a question merely means you're ignorant to that topic.

Swift
2006-Oct-16, 11:18 PM
Actually, I'm just with stupid.
----------------------->>>

;)

Maksutov
2006-Oct-16, 11:25 PM
I don't have to check.Same here.

Grand_Lunar
2006-Oct-17, 12:04 AM
You are 20% stupid.

You are far from stupid. Congrats on a great accomplishment!


The one on the planets probably got me the first time when I scored higher. It's good to know when the thing was made.
No idea what I got wrong (I know I got the sum from 1-10 right, though I just used my head. I had no idea how to use the Gauss method until reading this thread).

So far, it seems I'm the stupidest of the bunch that has answered so far.
Woe is me!

Ronald Brak
2006-Oct-17, 01:59 AM
The Gauss method is easier than using your fingers? Weird. But then not everybody has as many fingers as I do.

PhantomWolf
2006-Oct-17, 02:15 AM
Weird. But then not everybody has as many fingers as I do.

Best I can do with my fingers is only 1023.

Maha Vailo
2006-Oct-17, 02:21 AM
I'm better than you, ToSeek. Only 3% stupid. Still not as smart as Tog, though.

BTW, anyone figure out the question about the three people's ages? I'm no good at those type of problems.

- Maha "lotta smart folks on this board" Vailo

Ronald Brak
2006-Oct-17, 02:24 AM
BTW, anyone figure out the question about the three people's ages? I'm no good at those type of problems.

I think it relies upon you knowing the average age at which people get married, but it's tricky as it varies from country to country. Then there is the question of is it the age of first marriage or the average age of marriages total?

Johnny
2006-Oct-17, 02:38 AM
I think it relies upon you knowing the average age at which people get married, but it's tricky as it varies from country to country. Then there is the question of is it the age of first marriage or the average age of marriages total?

Actually, I would argue that this question involves turning to the answers and finding out which makes more sense. From the question, you basically find out that the answer has to be divided by 4 to find Betty's age (the woman getting married). The highest age listed is 84, which divided by 4 is 21. The next highest is 60, which divided by 4 equals 15. Certainly everyone would agree that 21 makes more sense, and therefore I would say that 84 is almost certainly the correct answer.



Anyways, I got 6% stupid with checking answers for 2 questions :(

Gillianren
2006-Oct-17, 03:24 AM
94% scored higher (more stupid),
2% scored the same, and
4% scored lower (less stupid).

What does this mean? You are 4% stupid. This means...

You are our next Einstein. Wow! Keep up the great thinking.

Checking answers? Hey, that would've been smart!

Johnny
2006-Oct-17, 03:35 AM
Well, after I read the sources I did find out the answers to those 2 questions - and now I know the answers to those questions just as much as I do for every other question I answered right ;) so why is it wrong? :p

Plus, I was too curious to find out what the answer was to wait until the end of the quiz :p

Damien Evans
2006-Oct-17, 11:39 AM
i got six percent stupid

i then took the nerd test (on the same site) and got 27%, not nerdy, but not hip either, as it put it

NEOWatcher
2006-Oct-17, 12:25 PM
Wouldn't the same color be at the bottom no matter how many rainbows there are?
No, the 2nd bow is from light that bounces twice within the raindrop, so the colors reverse.

Per wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow)
Occasionally, a second, dimmer secondary rainbow is seen outside the primary bow.
So the primary, inside color is still at the bottom.

This is, of course, if we take the traditional, non-reflected, non-supernumerary rain based rainbow.

Jeff Root
2006-Oct-17, 12:25 PM
I got zero percent stupid, so apparently nearly all of my
choices were correct. I tried to choose answers that seemed
most likely to result in the lowest score.

When I read the question about Pluto, I scrolled to the bottom
of the page and saw that it had a copyright date of 2006, but
that wasn't enough to convince me that the "correct" answer to
the question relied on knowing recent news as opposed to
conventional wisdom, so I went the conventional nine planets.
(Personally, I feel that specifying the number of planets in
the solar system makes no more sense than specifying the number
of lakes in Minnesota. It is a number with no significance.)

If Joe is 60 years old, then Betty got married at only 15.
But if Joe is 84 years old, then Jan is 21 years older than
her sister Betty, which seemed a bit much to me, so I went
with an age of 60 for Joe, although 15 is definitely too
young to marry, and I predict an early separation.

I was familiar with Gauss's method, and used it, and thought
of Gauss while working out the answer, yet on the next question
I didn't realize that "The 'Gauss' method" referred to what I
had just done, so I said "In my head", which was also true.

I answered both of the last two questions "no".

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

MrClean
2006-Oct-17, 01:04 PM
I guess I'm so stupid it blew the sockets off the test board.

Sigh, I always suspected it....

OK, now the server is back up
10 percent dummer than the smartest smart smarty

pghnative
2006-Oct-17, 01:09 PM
No, the 2nd bow is from light that bounces twice within the raindrop, so the colors reverse.Per wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow)
Occasionally, a second, dimmer secondary rainbow is seen outside the primary bow.
So the primary, inside color is still at the bottom.
Except that if you look at the pictures on the page you linked to, the colors are reversed in the secondary rainbow.

For primary, blue is on the inside ("bottom"). For the secondary, red is on the inside.

NEOWatcher
2006-Oct-17, 01:38 PM
Except that if you look at the pictures on the page you linked to, the colors are reversed in the secondary rainbow.

For primary, blue is on the inside ("bottom"). For the secondary, red is on the inside.
Ok; I finally see where we differ. I'm looking at the double rainbow as a single bow of colors, you are taking each one individually. http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/konfus/g060.gif

pghnative
2006-Oct-17, 03:08 PM
I'm looking at the double rainbow as a single bow of colors...Aaaaaah -- the good thing about your interpretation is that it eliminates hh's objection.

WaxRubiks
2006-Oct-17, 03:41 PM
what about if you look at a rainbow from an airplane? Then you get red as the bottom colour, ie being bottom of the circle.

hhEb09'1
2006-Oct-17, 04:32 PM
I'm looking at the double rainbow as a single bow of colors, you are taking each one individually. But there is a reason that you call it a double rainbow! :)

NEOWatcher
2006-Oct-17, 04:40 PM
what about if you look at a rainbow from an airplane? Then you get red as the bottom colour, ie being bottom of the circle.
Then it would be a halo instead of a bow.

Anyway; I have issues with this test.
1) do I feel stupid: How does what I feel matter to how smart I am?
2) what people call me: Who cares, what they call me is thier problem
3) Smilies? Again; my portrayal and feelings do not indicate stupidity.
4) the pills? when do I start taking them? Now or in an hour?

There are others... but they tend to go into the nitpick catagory.

NEOWatcher
2006-Oct-17, 04:44 PM
But there is a reason that you call it a double rainbow! :)
Or a double rainbow. ;)

hhEb09'1
2006-Oct-17, 04:51 PM
Or a double rainbow. ;)Hmmm, did the test ask about a double rainbow?

Roy Batty
2006-Oct-17, 05:10 PM
Hey I managed:

99% scored higher (more stupid),
1% scored the same, and
0% scored lower (less stupid).

Just using me bonce. I can't have had enough to drink today :)
(or just maybe one of those A's in my sig is for real? :D)

Argos
2006-Oct-17, 05:48 PM
My pride and self-reliance have taken a blow...

farmerjumperdon
2006-Oct-17, 05:50 PM
2% stupid. Fun, some of it was kinda funny, but also a few ambiguities for those of us who are literal to the extreme.

Jeff Root
2006-Oct-17, 05:51 PM
Anyway; I have issues with this test.
1) do I feel stupid: How does what I feel matter to how smart I am?
Nothing. It has a lot to do with how stupid you are, though.
This is a stupid test, not a smart test.



2) what people call me: Who cares, what they call me is thier problem
Nobody cares, but it is a factor in your stupidity quotient.



3) Smilies? Again; my portrayal and feelings do not indicate stupidity.
You just don't get it, do you?



4) the pills? when do I start taking them? Now or in an hour?
It makes no difference. Same answer nomatter when you start.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

farmerjumperdon
2006-Oct-17, 05:55 PM
Then it would be a halo instead of a bow.

Anyway; I have issues.

1) do I feel stupid: How does what I feel matter to how smart I am?
2) what people call me: Who cares, what they call me is thier problem
3) Smilies? Again; my portrayal and feelings do not indicate stupidity.
4) the pills? when do I start taking them? Now or in an hour?

There are others... but they tend to go into the nitpick catagory.

There, fixed it.

Just giving you the biz.

My guess is that some of those did not count in the score - which might be the reason they didn't give an answer key.

NEOWatcher
2006-Oct-17, 06:04 PM
...You just don't get it, do you?...
Apparently, that's where my 13% came from.

...It makes no difference. Same answer nomatter when you start...
But; since it didn't say when the timer starts, you need to assume from this point on, not from a future point determined by the start of another event. (That's the problem...assumptions)
Although, when answering, I took the most likely start as being now.
It seems like you need to not nitpick, and pick the most likely scenerio like the Jan question says.

Roy Batty
2006-Oct-17, 06:10 PM
I'm all for burying them survivors, me ;)

Argos
2006-Oct-17, 06:13 PM
There, fixed it.

Just giving you the biz.

My guess is that some of those did not count in the score - which might be the reason they didn't give an answer key.

It seems that only 5 questions are legit.

Jeff Root
2006-Oct-17, 07:16 PM
since it didn't say when the timer starts, you need to assume
from this point on, not from a future point determined by the
start of another event. (That's the problem...assumptions)
Although, when answering, I took the most likely start as
being now.
If the timer started now, it would be 1087 hours until the
pills are gone, since you won't start taking the pills until
the pain returns, which thankfully doesn't happen until 1085
hours from now. (The pills will relieve the pain for 30 hours,
beginning soon after taking the third pill. You need to take
all three pills to get pain relief, but taking all three less
than an hour apart would make you terribly ill.)

Since 1087 hours was not a choice on the test, it seems likely
that taking the first pill is what starts the timer.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Jeff Root
2006-Oct-17, 07:21 PM
I'm all for burying them survivors, me
I agree. It'll have to be done eventually; might as well
do it now rather than later. Saves time and money.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

galacsi
2006-Oct-17, 07:50 PM
Well the rainbow , the smilies ....

Your Score Summary

Overall, you scored as follows:



92% scored higher (more stupid),
2% scored the same, and
6% scored lower (less stupid).

What does this mean? You are 6% stupid. This means...

You are our next Einstein. Wow! Keep up the great thinking.

trinitree88
2006-Oct-17, 08:05 PM
Yep. It's a form of reverse evolution....hopefully in a few more generations, all of my relatives will be swinging through the banana trees with chimps, gibbons, lemurs, Gorillas, and monkeys...:dance: Pete.

parallaxicality
2006-Oct-17, 08:25 PM
I'm not going to say how low I scored, but I was surprised to see how stupid I am.

WaxRubiks
2006-Oct-17, 08:36 PM
I think the test was 88% stupid

Alan G. Archer
2006-Oct-17, 08:48 PM
Your Score Summary

Overall, you scored as follows:



80% scored higher (more stupid),
3% scored the same, and
17% scored lower (less stupid).

What does this mean? You are 17% stupid. This means...

You are far from stupid. Congrats on a great accomplishment!

Gemini
2006-Oct-18, 02:48 AM
41% percent stupid

Gillianren
2006-Oct-18, 02:56 AM
Anyone else suspect that we have different standards here for what's doing well on this test?

TriangleMan
2006-Oct-18, 04:41 AM
I don't need to take the test, Gene Ray has already informed me that I'm "educated stupid".

sarongsong
2006-Oct-18, 04:52 AM
Local graffiti:
"Everyone has the right to be stupid---some just abuse the privilege"

tlbs101
2006-Oct-18, 10:05 PM
http://www.nerdtests.com/images/ft/stupid.php?val=4301

100% scored higher (more stupid),
0% scored the same, and
0% scored lower (less stupid).

What does this mean? You are 0% stupid. This means...

You are our next Einstein. Wow! Keep up the great thinking.

LayMan
2006-Oct-19, 01:25 PM
"Overall, you scored as follows:

2% scored higher (more stupid),
0% scored the same, and
98% scored lower (less stupid).

What does this mean? You are 98% stupid. This means...

You tried really hard to get this stupidity score. Top 5%? How do you even know how to use a computer?"

:D :p ;)

By the way, don't know if this is a generally known trick, but I found it myself years ago, so I'm rather proud of it as a stupid non-mathematician: if you need to know the sum of sequential numbers, just think of them as a triangle of boxes were each row contains 1 box less. That way, all you need to do is take the last number (here 10), and both divide it by 2 and add 1 (giving 5 and 11). Then just multiply those 2 numbers: 5 X 11 = 55. Works great as long as the last number isn't too big. Altough there's a catch if the last number is odd, in which case you have towork behind the comma, but you can forget about that as long as you add the missing half later on.

For instance: what's the total sum of 1+2+3+...+51?

1) take 51 and divide by 2 --> 25,5
2) take 51 and add 1 --> 52
3) 25 times 52 = 20 times 52 (=1040) + 5 times 52 (=260) ==>1300
4) But we forgot about the .5, so we add half of 52, which is 26: 1326 grand total!

suntrack2
2006-Oct-19, 01:55 PM
Toseek, thank you for bringing this most awaited test :), when I participate in question and answer ceremony there and found my final result the electricity was descrete, and when it came the computer was saying continuously [][][][][][]......loading.

sunil

ToSeek
2006-Oct-19, 08:41 PM
"Overall, you scored as follows:

2% scored higher (more stupid),
0% scored the same, and
98% scored lower (less stupid).

What does this mean? You are 98% stupid. This means...

You tried really hard to get this stupidity score. Top 5%? How do you even know how to use a computer?"

:D :p ;)

By the way, don't know if this is a generally known trick, but I found it myself years ago, so I'm rather proud of it as a stupid non-mathematician: if you need to know the sum of sequential numbers, just think of them as a triangle of boxes were each row contains 1 box less. That way, all you need to do is take the last number (here 10), and both divide it by 2 and add 1 (giving 5 and 11). Then just multiply those 2 numbers: 5 X 11 = 55. Works great as long as the last number isn't too big. Altough there's a catch if the last number is odd, in which case you have towork behind the comma, but you can forget about that as long as you add the missing half later on.

For instance: what's the total sum of 1+2+3+...+51?

1) take 51 and divide by 2 --> 25,5
2) take 51 and add 1 --> 52
3) 25 times 52 = 20 times 52 (=1040) + 5 times 52 (=260) ==>1300
4) But we forgot about the .5, so we add half of 52, which is 26: 1326 grand total!


It's basically the same as Gauss's trick. Either way, the sum of 1+2+3+..+n is (n * (n+1))/2.

LayMan
2006-Oct-20, 07:01 AM
Yup, there's the +1 and the /2... He just was able to compress it even further into only one calculation. But as said, I've never been high on maths. :)

allenwench
2006-Oct-20, 03:23 PM
Hee! Hee!
96% scored higher (more stupid),
1% scored the same, and
3% scored lower (less stupid).

What does this mean? You are 3% stupid. This means...

You are our next Einstein. Wow! Keep up the great thinking.

WaxRubiks
2006-Oct-20, 04:48 PM
Radio interviewer: so Einstein, what are the countries that boarder Mexico?
Einstein: you know I have spent my life studying zis question.......

mugaliens
2006-Oct-20, 05:51 PM
:dance::clap::dance:

The test was made current AFTER the IAU Announcement became official.

97% scored higher (more stupid),
1% scored the same, and
2% scored lower (less stupid).

What does this mean? You are 2% stupid. This means...

You are our next Einstein. Wow! Keep up the great thinking.

That's probably my problem, as I stupidly assumed otherwise! :wall:

Alan G. Archer
2006-Nov-14, 11:20 AM
Just for fun, I took the Tickle (http://web.tickle.com/tests/uiq/index-pop.jsp?sid=&supp=&z=) "Classic IQ Test" this morning and scored an IQ of 138.

I think I'd rather tell people that I have an IQ score of 138 than say I was 17% stupid.

HenrikOlsen
2006-Nov-14, 11:54 AM
98% scored higher (more stupid),
1% scored the same, and
1% scored lower (less stupid).
At a guess it was the gulf of Mexico that did it.

Damien Evans
2006-Nov-14, 12:48 PM
Anyone else suspect that we have different standards here for what's doing well on this test?

oh yes, definately

closetgeek
2006-Nov-14, 03:47 PM
Yippie! did better than I thought


Your Score Summary

Overall, you scored as follows:



68% scored higher (more stupid),
4% scored the same, and
28% scored lower (less stupid).

What does this mean? You are 28% stupid. This means...

You are kinda' smart. Many have done better, but you did much better than half the other test-takers! Good for you.

Wait, so it wasn't 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, and I chose 8. I thought it was the Fibinacci Series. Did Dan Brown lie to me?


so what are the actual answers?


doesn't everyone know that 1+2+3....+9+10=55?

closetgeek
2006-Nov-14, 03:49 PM
I took an online IQ test and scored a 68. In my defense, though, I didn't know it was timed. I was sitting there with a pen and paper.


Just for fun, I took the Tickle (http://web.tickle.com/tests/uiq/index-pop.jsp?sid=&supp=&z=) "Classic IQ Test" this morning and scored an IQ of 138.

I think I'd rather tell people that I have an IQ score of 138 than say I was 17% stupid.

closetgeek
2006-Nov-14, 03:58 PM
And right there is my 28% stupidity shining through. lol, wrong question.

Wait, so it wasn't 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, and I chose 8. I thought it was the Fibinacci Series. Did Dan Brown lie to me?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frog march
so what are the actual answers?


doesn't everyone know that 1+2+3....+9+10=55?

Gillianren
2006-Nov-14, 09:23 PM
I took an online IQ test and scored a 68. In my defense, though, I didn't know it was timed. I was sitting there with a pen and paper.

I think it scores low.

crosscountry
2006-Nov-17, 03:32 PM
tried that "tickle" test, but from where I am it puts it in German.. I'd have scored lower than normal.... or not!

Alan G. Archer
2006-Nov-17, 05:36 PM
tried that "tickle" test, but from where I am it puts it in German.. I'd have scored lower than normal.... or not!

It's probably best to take the test in your native language.

The online GIQTest (http://giqtest.com/) appears to be more sophisticated than Tickle's test. It includes a short-term memory number sequence recall test, something I'm not that great at. (I answered incorrectly the Are you Stupid? question, "Without looking, what is the second question that you answered?")

You must pay to get your GIQTest IQ score and full report, which I didn't bother to do. Tickle will give you your score, but you have to pay to obtain the full report. However, I was not provided a secure page (in Opera) for a credit card transaction -- too dangerous.