I thought I was a liar but kewlJ has me crushed in that department.
kewlJ probably is better at cheating and stealing compared to me too.
I'm slipping.
Getting old.
At this rate you might as well go over to WoV and GF to complete the Trifecta.
It's an adult version of "Whack a Mole."Originally Posted by kewlJ
Find a forum, find a target, then "Whack!"
Good sport.
What, Me Worry?
Now kew refers to anyone who scores a direct hit on him as a fatso!
Smartmoney says this self-made fool/lost soul has been eating himself into oblivion lately just to ease the pain.
Imagine the awkwardness in the kew ratty condo when he tries explaining this forums-wide beat down to baby bro while he's eating his ass.
More of "the black guy" Rob Singer seeking my attention.
Happy MLK day to you Rob.
...
.....
.......
Please paste a sample text containing at least 50 words, then click the button below to let the algorithm analyze it.
https://www.writingtoiq.com/
--->
ESTIMATED IQ: 93 (average)
How accurate is the algorithm?
As accurate as one would expect such an algorithm to be. As "proof" I have run the algorithm on a few examples, and you can see that the results aren't surprising (nor should they be).
- Stephen Hawking, using his last paper as the sample, achieves an IQ of 151.
- Alexander Hamilton, using Federalist paper number 6 as the written sample, achieves an IQ of 166.
- Testing different CNN reporters using their articles, I got IQs ranging from 102 to 127.
- Testing different 5G-coronavirus conspiracy theorists using posts from one of their Facebook groups, I got IQs ranging from 75 to 89.
--->
NOT ENOUGH DATA OR NOT ENOUGH VARIANCE TO ESTIMATE IQ
--->
ESTIMATED IQ: 123 (HIGH INTELLIGENCE)
DISCLAIMER: The algorithm assumes that when writing the text, the author put thought behind every sentence he wrote. Furthermore, it assumes that the author didn't purposefully attempt to dumb himself down and is sufficiently fluent in English as to not be restricted in his choice of words. Ideally, you should paste in a paper, article or another document that you have written and are proud of. Note that the algorithm is meant to be equivalent to an IQ test for adults, so if you are under 18 the result will likely be significantly lower than your true IQ score.
Last edited by Garnabby; 01-17-2022 at 06:48 PM.
Every one /everyone knows it all; yet, no thing /nothing is truly known by any one /anyone. Similarly, the suckers think that they win, but, the house always wins, unless to hand out an even worse beating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsa6ojQcYXQ
Garnabby + OppsIdidItAgain + ThomasClines (or TomasHClines) + The Grim Reaper + LMR + OneHitWonder (or 1HitWonder, 1Hit1der) + Bill Yung ---> GOTTLOB1, or GOTTLOB = Praise to God!
Blog at https://garnabby.blogspot.com/
Last edited by Garnabby; 01-17-2022 at 08:09 PM.
Every one /everyone knows it all; yet, no thing /nothing is truly known by any one /anyone. Similarly, the suckers think that they win, but, the house always wins, unless to hand out an even worse beating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsa6ojQcYXQ
Garnabby + OppsIdidItAgain + ThomasClines (or TomasHClines) + The Grim Reaper + LMR + OneHitWonder (or 1HitWonder, 1Hit1der) + Bill Yung ---> GOTTLOB1, or GOTTLOB = Praise to God!
Blog at https://garnabby.blogspot.com/
Barney, I thought you said the LID's bankroll was on the ropes. How did he get the scratch in order to attend the Bucs/Eags game (Boz I'm glad to hear you and your wife had a fun time at the game) ?
Garnabby,
I would think that algorithm is likely junk. A trained writer in the U.S. is shooting for an audience whose reading level is sixth grade at best. So the algorithm may be helpful if you're taking entries from somebody's diary, but not if you're analyzing writing intended for audiences. Because the writing intended for a general audience is not an unedited work. It's always dumbed down.
Have you ever read the studies regarding estimated education/expertise and writing style? I have. Basically, researchers sent different versions of the same article to journals for feedback and also presented different versions to study participants. The content was identical, but the difficulty to read was manipulated. The results were, of course, that the more manipulated and difficult to read, the more educated/expert the "authors" were presumed to be by both the journals and the study participants.
There was something in the 50's and 60's that technical writers used called a "fog index." It measured length of sentences, length of words, number of clauses in sentences, and all that. The goal for writers was to lower their fog index to make the technical writing as readable as possible. I have had some assignments where I had to measure and reduce my own fog index. The U.S. military was especially bad for having some reports with terribly high fog indexes. The authors would likely have gotten serious IQ ratings from this algorithm, but what they were actually doing was mucking up the reports so responsibilities for what took place were hidden in passive voice and clauses strung together and as many multi-syllabic words as possible.
So I would take this algorithm with the Dead Sea, so to speak.
This is Barney
When I first saw this picture it scared the shits out of me. It must have been how Alan felt when he first met AndrrwG
That algorithm is obviously junk, but why use a sample of me being silly to have it score me?
I picked a few different samples and got anywhere from 95-116; that's much too low. I guess it has been awhile since I've been formally IQ tested, but if it has slipped that much, I might as well just put a bullet in my head right now because I'll be full MR by the age of 41, at this rate.
Also, what Redietz said. Even in my articles, I try to keep my writing to an 8th-12th grade range and I should think that the people reading me are more intelligent than average.
Let's try this from the thread in which Mickey and I were discussing the Civil War:
Estimated IQ: 106 (Above Average)
Damn, took another one from that thread and I got 110. (I cheated; the 116 sample didn't come from here.)
I'm still quite confident that I'm smarter than the algorithm is giving me credit for (also pursuant to the one formal IQ test I took), but on the other hand, I've never been as smart as I think I am---so who knows?
Honestly, it wouldn't shock me if word length was half of the basis of the algorithm. It probably also wants a low ratio of articles and pronouns compared to other words, which would also influence word length.
Last edited by Mission146; 01-18-2022 at 06:14 AM.
Mission,
I took a boatload of proctored IQ tests when I was a kid because I was a flagship kind of student. Scores ranged from mid-130's to low 170's. I took enough tests that there was going to be variance. The usual score was in the 140's. I'm sure I've dropped a few IQ points in the interim, although hard to tell for most people if degradation is due to loss of neurons or motivation to do well on tests.
The problem with this algorithm is that the variance for a person would be off the charts depending on the sample chosen, rendering the algorithm fairly useless. Plus you could manipulate your own writing to score higher or lower. I saw a great Mentalist where a killer pulled a long con by faking a very low IQ.
Let's look at something I just hammered out to prove my, excuse me, our point:
Estimated IQ: 144 (Genius)
The estimated IQ score is getting warmer. Reading level, "College graduate."
However, what did I express? Nothing, really. In an overly flowery way, I stated that the color of grass is not an absolute truth because the color of grass exists only from the perspective of the person observing it, though it is something most observers can agree upon. However, those who are either color-blind or whose vision has deteriorated to the extent that they don't see at all do not experience grass as green, therefore, the greenness of grass is not an absolute truth.
It's true, but it's so true as to be obvious. If you are colorblind, then you do not see green, so from the colorblind person's perspective, the grass is not green. In fact, nothing is green.
Dress that simple idea up enough and get a high score. Intelligence is about being able to understand, dissect and evaluate complex ideas, not literary skill in embellishing simple ones.
I was considered a well above-average student, but I don't think I was ever considered a, 'Flagship,' student. I had a psychologist administer an IQ test that I paid for roughly twenty years ago because I was curious. My IQ score was 163, as I recall, but it drops over time, I've heard. I'd guess that I'm somewhere in the high-140's, at this point. In addition to age, I've also introduced copious amounts of alcohol and a couple additional concussions since then. LOL
Last edited by Mission146; 01-18-2022 at 07:55 AM.
--->
How the States Got Their Shapes.
https://anagram-solver.net/%20So%20I...0?partial=true
Every thing happens for a reason, so, ultimately, there's no reason to go down the rabbit holes of the "minds" of even the greatest theoretical physicists. In fact, the best clues are the ones seldom looked for, but often overlooked. The atoms shape us while we shape them. As Einstein failed miserably to comprehend a universe in which his "thinking" was itself only a very insignificant and removed part, yet, almost universally, we write with 6's that invert to 9's, and, mark time with particular calendars, and notations. No, I couldn't care less about superstitions and the like, but, it's more than interesting how we come to write of and view such numerals.
Every one /everyone knows it all; yet, no thing /nothing is truly known by any one /anyone. Similarly, the suckers think that they win, but, the house always wins, unless to hand out an even worse beating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsa6ojQcYXQ
Garnabby + OppsIdidItAgain + ThomasClines (or TomasHClines) + The Grim Reaper + LMR + OneHitWonder (or 1HitWonder, 1Hit1der) + Bill Yung ---> GOTTLOB1, or GOTTLOB = Praise to God!
Blog at https://garnabby.blogspot.com/
.
..
...
But notice how soon the return to a subconscious, less studious, level of writing.
--->
ESTIMATED IQ: 117 (HIGH INTELLIGENCE)
Garnabby
Garnabby is online now
Gold
Garnabby's Avatar
Join Date
Aug 2020
Posts
616 <------------------ Oops. This one should have gone with my last post. Can't have everything, I guess. Ha.
Every one /everyone knows it all; yet, no thing /nothing is truly known by any one /anyone. Similarly, the suckers think that they win, but, the house always wins, unless to hand out an even worse beating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsa6ojQcYXQ
Garnabby + OppsIdidItAgain + ThomasClines (or TomasHClines) + The Grim Reaper + LMR + OneHitWonder (or 1HitWonder, 1Hit1der) + Bill Yung ---> GOTTLOB1, or GOTTLOB = Praise to God!
Blog at https://garnabby.blogspot.com/
There are currently 16 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 16 guests)