pouët.net

(Ahem, of course, I mean kill your social instincts, not your mum and dad.)

You're HELPING me?!? Wow, that's funny news.

And I think a lot of people at pouet have even lower social skills than I have!

Regarding hfr: It seems you (and others) have not understood that I always believed demosceners had a far higher IQ than I have, and that I was positively surprised when I scored so well at my first attempt at taking an IQ test.

But indeed, what's going on at pouet makes me doubt my beliefs concerning demosceners' IQ.

Adok: STFU.

IQ has nothing to do with acquired skillz regarding creative things like demos. sure... programmers need a lil background in extensive math and stuff... but this' all you can learn. It's just a matter of talent dealing with it.

Another thing: How many sceners on Pouet do you know very personally?? to judge them and they social skillz?!

You're really fucked up... dude.

yumeji: So what is talent? It is something that is genetically determined, just like IQ. Math and programming are very much related to logical thinking, which is exactly what IQ measures (and nothing else).

On your second question: How many sceners on pouet know me personally? And yet they make judgements about my social skills.

People who are me: one
People who are not me: four
Margin of error: one thousand million billion people, give or take
My eliteness on a scale of 9 to 10: priceless

ahh foo. talent is basicly: skillz you acquired when your brain developed. so... this' related to learning again. it also depends on what you like and are willing to learn and use. Next is... IQ in general is an overrated term. I don't stick to that. it's just tests of what you learned and know... and what you're capable of to solve well and fast under pressure. not only logicallly but more of all together.

Nothing to say about your social things, but the way you express yourself on the net sometimes can result in a wrong view of yourself.

that might in actually be true. doenst help the fact that you apparently dont have much either or always fail to prove us wrong which is about the same thing.

quick example? ok:



that would read perfectly ok (except for the fact that demoscene has no IQ compo)



and adding that makes you look pretentious the very second later, cause once again it looks like you try to make yourself look superior by referencing your possibly high IQ.

apart from the fact that every second post/thread of yours on pouet is somehow related to (your) IQ and that you seem to be pretty criticism/feedback resistant (from what i saw in various threads)

that in sum might make quite some people on pouet think you dont have much social skills, yes

pretty much sums it up:


i could go on with so many other quotes from you here and there; all pointless + unrelated + wrong

Quit trying to be so fucking smart. If I wasn't right you wouldn't bother trying to be smart about it.

Maybe. I don't.

Nobody cares what you think about them anyway.

Try and put it all together in a formal system and see what that implies.

Oh, and by the way what the fuck are you doing here and why did you start this thread in the beginning? PLEASE answer me.

start this thread to begin with*

And, I apologize beforehand if I seem rude and hateful, but really you make no sense, and you don't seem very helpful about trying to explain the reason for your actions either, which is why I'm very stalwartly standing with my initial impressions which you so far, with the help of a little cognitive bias on my side, have done nothing to disapprove.

For someone claiming to have superior intelligence, you are (consistently) surprisingly idiotic. The fact that people don't know you personally is precisely the reason they are in a perfect position to judge your social skills (or lack thereof).

I guess there's a connection with this topic and the so famous HUGI article.

I do. Now think about my statement again...

I must have missed it at some point but what is Adok's legendary IQ then?

The only iq that matters is the one from RGBA.

IQ's bullshit argument again, well why the hell are you so hyped about it ? what if you got a high mark in it this only mean you are smart ON that test no more no less and it doesn't give you the authority to accuse people and stereotyping them into groups cause of that , just live you in your imaginary life.

Man, it's the first time someone says i'm (more) elite, and you spoil it all! ;p
Adok, please go and thumb up ALL pouet prods to say the world how elite we are...

On a serious note, some months ago a casual acquaintance forcibly thrust an “IQ test” upon me. (It was a DIY exam from some official MENSA publication.)

It only took several questions before I stopped in disgust.

The first issue arose with an image-based “which one doesn't belong” question. It consisted of four abstract images constructed entirely of numerous squares connected together in various snake-like forms. I noticed one of them featured a protrusion consisting of a single square, whereas the others did not, instead forming a continuous meandering pattern. Naturally I picked that as my answer.

However, according to the answer key, that was incorrect! The correct answer was the image that turned back on itself. (The other three patterns had the cubes connected so that the first cube and last cube were “traveling” to the right, whereas the “correct” answer started out to the right, but finished to the left.)

One can certainly see the reasoning behind that particular image as being the “one that doesn't belong”. But surely my answer pertaining to the solitary single-square protrusion was also correct.

A couple of questions later and there was another “which one doesn't belong” question, but this time it listed four words: Turtle, frog, snake, alligator.

My initial thought was “snake” because it has no legs, unlike the other three, which have four. But then I paused... Maybe the correct answer was “frog”? After all, it is an amphibian whereas the others are reptiles.

In my mind both were correct, but I figured “snake” was the more obvious choice, so I picked that. WRONG! The answer key had “frog” as the correct response.

So, that's MENSA, is it? I guess if one really wants a high IQ, it simply a matter of thinking exactly like the person or persons who write these obviously infallible tests. No deviations allowed!

@thom: I completly agree with you. It's well known that when you have a "logical" serie of number, you can always find a formula to justify whatever number you give afterwards. A. Dewdney & Ian Stewart, both writers in the scientific american criticised IQ tests exactly the way you did!

I have somewhere a fun problem with a given number of figures, and the stipulation reads "for each figure find a criterion which would make it the intruder". I think it's possible to make something similar with animals like the example of your reasoning.

I feel sorry for poor IQ.

nice read thom. within the read flow... the frog was obvious to me in the first place. took 2 secs to decide. ;)

but... I don't feel like calling myself more intelligent than others now. which is uninteresting.

and this' all offtopic. cause adok's intention was mosdef was to dive into demoscene's ass again and tell everybody how rare and elite demosceners are. which refers to the first post. just to bad adok took the posts too serious here:

and it gave the initial idea of the thread the wrong direction.

That's what I just 'read' in here.

I feel like adok is a non-ironic version of http://maddox.xmission.com/

now...continue proving/justifying your worth to yourself on the internets, bbl.

thom: yep ... and even worse: you can just train answers for those tests.
learn the patterns that are shown, learn the way the test is meant to be answered (in case more than one plausible solution is possible), meaning from one test to the next you can improve your results.

so if i e.g. do the oh so famous mensa iq test totally unprepared and end up as a normal persion at around iq 100, go home, learn stuff and patterns and next time i do end up at iq 110, does that mean i suddenly became 10% more intelligent?
please ...

that alone makes it void as a means of measure for something that i think really cant be measured.

especially since those tests (due to that very problem) pretty much always stick to logical, numerical and spacial perception tests cause the results can usually be quantified.

funny though that we use mostly those more mathematical measures for intelligence for the human race but on contrast always find animals intelligent when they simply find a CREATIVE way to solve a problem, like using rocks to crack a nut or using sticky sticks to catch some termites ...