Cài đặt Steam
Đăng nhập
|
Ngôn ngữ
简体中文 (Hán giản thể)
繁體中文 (Hán phồn thể)
日本語 (Nhật)
한국어 (Hàn Quốc)
ไทย (Thái)
Български (Bungari)
Čeština (CH Séc)
Dansk (Đan Mạch)
Deutsch (Đức)
English (Anh)
Español - España (Tây Ban Nha - TBN)
Español - Latinoamérica (Tây Ban Nha cho Mỹ Latin)
Ελληνικά (Hy Lạp)
Français (Pháp)
Italiano (Ý)
Bahasa Indonesia (tiếng Indonesia)
Magyar (Hungary)
Nederlands (Hà Lan)
Norsk (Na Uy)
Polski (Ba Lan)
Português (Tiếng Bồ Đào Nha - BĐN)
Português - Brasil (Bồ Đào Nha - Brazil)
Română (Rumani)
Русский (Nga)
Suomi (Phần Lan)
Svenska (Thụy Điển)
Türkçe (Thổ Nhĩ Kỳ)
Українська (Ukraine)
Báo cáo lỗi dịch thuật
First Test - Many questions,got annoyed and gave random answers to a solid half of the test.120IQ
Second Test - 15 questions,all of them were like " Here is a ball and a cube.How to construct a fusion reactor?~110IQ
Those arent logic questions,those are idiotic questions.
Looks like it, just by the sound of it. If we all really had that high IQ we would've probably came up with a lot of helpful ♥♥♥♥ for humanity.
Totally!
Contrary to popular belief, IQ testing does measure a lot more than your skill with words and math. Spatial intelligence, memorization, basic reasoning, speed and sometimes general knowledge are also taken into account. The problem is that you're trying measure multiple abilities on a one-dimensional scale. A person with an attention deficit (or just nervous from taking a test) might score much lower than someone with lesser logical reasoning skills. This absolutely does limit its usefulness. I would say that while someone capable of scoring high is almost certainly very intelligent, a lower score doesn't necessarily mean the opposite.
As flawed as IQ is though, the alternatives are utter garbage. Gardner's multiple intelligence for example include aptitudes totally unrelated to intellectual skills, divides those skills awkwardly and arbitrarily (naturalistic intelligence is either a subset of logic, being related to Earth sciences, or simply an appreciation of nature, which isn't even a skill) and worst of all, lets you decide your own scores based on your personal tastes. Hate to break it to you, but watching sports on TV doesn't make you an athlete.
The problem with IQ tests and their public credibility is that they consistently fail to demonstrate certain claims that modern society has accepted as being true, and needs to be true to maintain the facade. Problem is, for every politically correct claim that IQ tests are unreliable, the same people that support that claim are making somebody take one to find out how intelligent he or she is.
The online IQ tests are probably bogus, depending on where they come from, but no doubt "they" are big fans of their existence because they're generally designed to make everybody think they're smarter than they really are.
All life, everywhere, tries to screw over it's weaker neighbors, from the simplest to the most advanced. Even plants fight each other for resources and the advancement of their own kind over others. It's a natural part of life.
We assume dolphins try to kill other animals for no good reason but it's just a guess because we don't know what the dolphin is thinking when it does it. There's a very good chance they do it to eliminate competition for food.