The Questions not worth their own thread thread VII

[aimeeandbeatles]

More strangeness: When I was maybe 7 or 8, I took an IQ test, which gave my IQ a little over average.

However, just a year or two ago, I took another one, which gave my IQ as 95.

What's with the weird decrease?

 

[kulade]

the internet.

 

[Lord Baal]

More strangeness: When I was maybe 7 or 8, I took an IQ test, which gave my IQ a little over average.

However, just a year or two ago, I took another one, which gave my IQ as 95.

What's with the weird decrease?

Too much Petty?

IQ tests, aren't very scientific. I once took two online IQ tests back-to-bak, and got 143 in the first and 119 in the second. I took one on my girlfriend's Facebook out of boredom once and got 100, which is horrendously wrong. In all modesty, I can say I'm smarter than that. It's likely a case of one test or the other being bad, or it could simply be that you were tired. I remember taking a timed test once at 4 am, again on my girlfriend's computer, and konking out in the middle of it. I got all the questions correct - a sign of the crappiness of the test, since they should have a few questions most people won't get - but scored 50, which would make me technically ********, because it took me over an hour to finish. Many things can affect IQ scores.

Either that, or you're just dumber than you once were.

IQs are being superceded by new developments, the only one of which I know of being collective intelligence - weird name, btw, sounds like a group mind or something - which is basically like an IQ score in different areas; music, art, mathematics, etc.. I'd score horribly in music, decently in mathematics, and scorchingly well in the Civilization 2: World War Two scenario category.

 

[Phlegmak]

How come sometimes when watching Petty videos I get uncontrollable urges to flap my arms around like a fool?

Sounds like mental illness.

 

[Lord Baal]

Sounds like mental illness.

Would explain the IQ as well.

 

[Mesousa]

I once took two online IQ tests back-to-bak, and got 143 in the first and 119 in the second. I took one on my girlfriend's Facebook out of boredom once and got 100, which is horrendously wrong. In all modesty, I can say I'm smarter than that.

Sorry, but it's not very smart to confuse these silly online tests with real IQ tests.

 

[Lord Baal]

Sorry, but it's not very smart to confuse these silly online tests with real IQ tests.

I'm not, just using them as an example. I've also taken a couple at school, and one with a psychologist. I just don't remember the totals of those, since they were a long time ago.

 

[snakeseare]

Also, IQ is not a fixed number that stays the same all your life. An IQ test measures what you know, to some extent, and compares that knowledge to other people your age. Maybe you have not learned as much as your peers and that is what the test is showing.

Study harder!

 

[Elrohir]

More strangeness: When I was maybe 7 or 8, I took an IQ test, which gave my IQ a little over average.

However, just a year or two ago, I took another one, which gave my IQ as 95.

What's with the weird decrease?

Children's IQ test scores are adjusted by age, because they usually have less education, and less opportunity to practice critical thinking and other skills, than adults. Even if you don't hit your head or do drugs or anything, it's possible that your IQ could decrease over time, even with your intelligence staying the same. If you're smarter than average when you're 8, but you only increase a little between between 8 and 17, then it's possible that you're now below average for your age group. But 95 is basically average anyway; five points really isn't meaningful.

Were these real IQ tests at a doctor's office, or online IQ tests?

 

[Dachs]

On foot an individual who is well equipped and prepared can easily walk 30 miles. 50 miles is possible: I've done about 40 miles a day for a few days as part of a longer hike.
On horseback I'd assume that much further would be possible. But horses don't necessarily walk that much faster than a hiker: you'd have to push it a bit, but there'd be plenty more scope for going faster.
If you need to cook, or light a fire (and collect wood for it and so on) then you need a couple of hours for that, one of which should be in the light to collect the wood. That'd take a fair few miles off the total distance.

It's one helluva lot easier to move one man than it is to move an army. Clausewitzian friction and all that.

 

[Lord Baal]

It's one helluva lot easier to move one man than it is to move an army. Clausewitzian friction and all that.

Managing many is the same as managing few; it is a question of division. Fighting with many is the same as fighting with few; it is a matter of marshaling men with gongs, identifying them with flags.

 

[Brighteye]

I was hoping that I would help the original questioner, not trying to argue with how far an army moves.

 

[Flying Pig]

It's one helluva lot easier to move one man than it is to move an army. Clausewitzian friction and all that.

Correct (sod Sun Tzu) - to use an example from experience, I was once tasked during my army days to lead a long-range infiltration mission in the middle of nowhere (IIRC; it was somewhere in the middle east) with eight men. Now at the time with the burden I had I could have happily moved 35 miles in a day, however one of the men came down with an injury and so it took us two days to move thirty miles, because this man was literally limping along. A military unit on a practical scale (ie; less than company level) moves at the speed of the slowest man, which Sun Tzu had no idea about because he wasn't an NCO. Also there is always a delay in moving off position and so on which at grand scale adds up to a lot.

So there ;p

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

A large army is always disorderly - Euripides

 

[Lord Baal]

Correct (sod Sun Tzu) - to use an example from experience, I was once tasked during my army days to lead a long-range infiltration mission in the middle of nowhere (IIRC; it was somewhere in the middle east) with eight men. Now at the time with the burden I had I could have happily moved 35 miles in a day, however one of the men came down with an injury and so it took us two days to move thirty miles, because this man was literally limping along. A military unit on a practical scale (ie; less than company level) moves at the speed of the slowest man, which Sun Tzu had no idea about because he wasn't an NCO. Also there is always a delay in moving off position and so on which at grand scale adds up to a lot.

So there ;p

You obviously were not the "Skilful Warrior" that Sunzi was.

And Sunzi > Euripides.

 

[Flying Pig]

Delegation of command works fine (to run a company of ~100; you talk to 3 lieutenants who each talk to 3 corporals who each talk to 2 lance-corporals who each talk to 3 men, so every man only deals with three) but you can't expect no friction. Sun Tzu was very much a staff officer who probably had never lead a small unit and actually fought up close in a battle

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You obviously were not the "Skilful Warrior" that Sunzi was.

And Sunzi > Euripides.

And Fonzi > Sunzi. Was ist ihre grundbegriffe?

 

[Dachs]

Oh. Riiiiight. Sorry, Brighteye.

That doesn't address the nature of friction at all; also, it's demonstrably false.

(sod Sun Tzu)

You obviously were not the "Skilful Warrior" that Sunzi was.

If he even existed. Like Homer!

And Sunzi > Euripides.

Nah.

 

[Ulyaoth]

You're assuming the Roman army is marching someplace without roads at a speed like that?

From what I remember, yes, it was supposed to have been without roads, or at least not much, saying invasion forces, I think they were talking about Caesar's conquest of Gaul he had them marching 30 miles a day.

 

[Lord Baal]

And Fonzi > Sunzi. Was ist ihre grundbegriffe?