Slashdot Mirror
2011 Geek IQ Test
snydeq writes "Active Directory object catalogs, quad-core processors, Debian default configurations, Star Trek TNG guest appearances — find out how much you know where it really counts by taking InfoWorld's 2011 Geek IQ Test."
What geek willingly goes to InfoWorld?
Ookaaay... exactly what does knowing obscure trivia about shows from 50 years ago have to do with IQ? I could see it as a geek score for bragging rights, or a hint if you might want to have a professional look into whether you've got Asperger's, but IQ? Seriously?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
If you get to the results page, you failed the test. No one sits through a painfully slow survey that requires a complete page reload (including new ads) every time you answer a question. I got to 2 questions before I bailed, so I figure I am middle of the pack. If you didn't click the link in the first place, you are a genius. 3-5 questions and you are slow but employable. 6-10 and you should probably stick with help desk duties. 11-19 and you should seek professional help. Go all the way, you should post out for the management opening.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Question 8: In the TV series "Heroes," Hiro flashes forward
doesn't seem to fit in the realm of truly geekworthy
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
Especially when some geeks avoid memorizing 50-year-old TV shows on principle because they aren't 95 years old.
Question 1: Will a /. post overload my server?
Answer: Yes.
Yes, but you failed the /. quiz by trying to read the article.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Maybe the real quiz is whether you're geeky enough to figure out how to load the quiz.
-- 77IM
Student: Is it true that the foundation of the universe is paradox?
Master: Well, yes and no.
How do we rate your Geek IQ if you didn't find the Print Page?
http://www.infoworld.com/print/178807
1 Page and not an ad in sight!
Print pages are a beautiful thing.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Geek test fails the Geek test.
First question: Are you a good enough programmer to use radio buttons or checkboxes to build a multiple choice quiz?
I like music
I found the print view
I scored 6 out of 20. I don't care, it's a test of random facts, not a test of skill.
According to someone who gave me and my housemate a ride home (and some confused looks) after clubbing on Saturday night, we're geeks since we were trying to work out something physicsy from first principles (I don't remember the details) while dressed, essentially, as humanoid robots from the future.
I don't even make it onto their scoring chart, and yet somehow I doubt you'd find anyone who knows me that doesn't think I'm a geek.
The problem with being "geeky" is that geekiness involves specialization, and let's face it, I don't know anyone who specializes in the Infoworld direction.
Program Intellivision!
Not really. Or not outside of the bizarro world of Internet marketing.
Actual IQ tests still at least try to measure certain kinds of mental aptitude. While some degree of knowledge are unfortunately inherent in being able to even ask the questions, much less answer them (e.g., someone has to be familiar with rectangular blocks before you can ask them to count blocks in a picture), that was never the focus of actual IQ tests. How much you know about some obscure subject -- be it Star Trek or Victorian novels -- is just not part of the definition of IQ.
However the notion is increasingly MISUSED to basically mean "whatever way we can play on your insecurities and need to reassure yourself, to get a click out of you". This can mean knowledge of trivial things, or even things completely unrelated to intelligence, like optical illusions, deliberately ambiguous pictures, paraeidolia, or whatever.
When you see stuff like "93% of people can't tell whether the ballerina rotates to the left or right" on some "IQ Test" ad (you know the kind I'm talking about), it doesn't really mean that the definition of IQ or of IQ Tests has changed. It just means that some dishonest marketers are aiming exactly for the kind of idiot who'd (A) not realize it's a stupid scam, and (B) is insecure enough to actually want some website to pat him on the head and tell him that he's so smart after all.
It's not really all that different from preying on some people's sexual insecurities to sell them penis enlargement pills.
Don't get me wrong, I'll be the first to say that IQ is pretty meaningless for anything except taking an IQ test. But still, it at least means that. Memorizing trivia that's fully useless to anyone and for anything else than a trivia contest, is just not the same thing as high IQ.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Umm, it's a test of a: obscure geeky stuff and b: up to date technology issues and questions, with a twist of geeky humor as expected. It's a test of random facts if you're googling this stuff or just simply don't work with technology or fit in as a typical "IT guy". (even though by default a slashdotter is inundated with technology).
I got a 16/20, and feel like I should have known about VINES (though I know about other network stuff).
15. Related to quantum mechanics, what is the term for the observation that some physical quantities can be changed only by discrete amounts, or quanta?
The answers are just stupid. None of them (even the "correct" one) is a technical term. The actual correct answer would have been "quantisation" (or "realizing that quantisation is necessary").
18. When Kelsey Grammer appeared on "Star Trek NG"...
It's Star Trek TNG, not NG. Wikipedia and Memory Alpha agree with me (eg. there's a redirect on Memory Alpha to the correct page from "TNG" but not "NG"), though NG appears to be used sometimes by a few people.
GED/J d-- s:++>: a-- C++(++++) ULU++ P+ L++ E---- W+(-) N+++ o+ K+++ w--- O- M+ V-- PS++>$ PE++>$ Y++ PGP++ t- 5+++ X++ R+++>$ tv+ b+ DI+++ D+++ G++++ e++ h r-- y++**
Yes, and I can interpret it without the guide: 5 points
Yeah- I remember that/ Oh, God, I thought we were done with that nonsense: 3 points
What?: 0 points
Is that HTML?: Go away
It's still just little random facts and trivia. That's not an IQ test. Change the subject from obscure scientists to footballers, from the mechanics of Windows and Linux to bits of cars, and from Heroes to some soap, and you've got exactly the kind of quiz that I would avoid at the local pub.
I keep getting "There was a problem loading the quiz. Please try again later". Does that mean I pass?
No, because you actually went to the page in the first place...
A link to "Geek IQ test" is no different from one of those "Find out who's been reading your Facebook profile" links. If you clicked it, you fail.
No sig today...
On related note, I would be really worried if a technician working on my server suddenly started mumbling something about patch Tuesday. That would either mean that someone installed Windows on my server without my knowledge, or that the technician cannot recognize Linux. Hard to say what would be worse.
AccountKiller
.. the only winning move is to choose not to play.
Thanks for mentioning Infoworld in the summary. Otherwise, I might have actually visited the link.
Anything is possible given time and money.
You win one Schrodinger's Cat. Maybe.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
IQ is just a term being referred to incredibly loosely here. Why are you getting so hung up on this? Do you hate quizzes? Are you fearful of knowledge questions? Doing horribly on this "geek IQ test" (also known as quiz) doesn't mean "you're stupid", but it could mean "you're not keeping up with current technology". Pop quizzes of sports reflect on your knowledge of sports. This isn't difficult. Lastly you have the fact that some people just aren't good at tests.
Meanwhile, guess what? Your reply nothing to do with the article, and now you don't even make sense anymore.
I'd go with "quantisation", but I agree, the answers are idiotic. They made me indignant enough to make a post ranting about it (but not indignant enough to post in the InfoWorld comments).