0715: "Numbers"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

reduviid
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:26 pm UTC

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby reduviid » Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:32 pm UTC

So I'm thinking that the ones who feel normal don't share their vitals. C is the most common breast size, and the least commonly mentioned. Why bother saying anything about having a totally average quality? This goes for dicks and brains too.


User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: Numbers

Postby uncivlengr » Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:41 pm UTC

shoelessschuler wrote:Do I seriously have to drink 9 glasses of water a day? :(
One of those myths that people just hear somewhere and never question it.

Drink water if you're thirsty. If you're not thirsty, don't force yourself to drink water - it's just bad for your kidneys.
Last edited by uncivlengr on Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:44 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I don't know what to do for you

Kaijyuu
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:58 am UTC

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby Kaijyuu » Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:44 pm UTC

Always keep a source of water within reach to sip on and you'll drink ~5 glasses without even noticing.
The cake is a lie, but truth is in Pi.

User avatar
Ephemeron
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:39 pm UTC

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby Ephemeron » Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:51 pm UTC

Well for my meagre contribution to this trhead I tried to quantify what people on the internet said of their heights.

My first data set gave some interesting results. There was a predictable peak at 6ft 2in. Results continued well into the 7ft+ range, where there simply can't be many people that height. To that end I also included 'invalid results' with my set - e.g. 5ft 24in - to show how much of the sample is just noise. But there with a surprisingly large number of results at the low end of the scale. But the graph is erratic, and difficult to discern a general trend.
Image

For the second data set I included spaces. This gave almost a thousand times as many results. The lines are flat for the most part, and do not slack off above the range of valid measurements. I conclude that most of this set is just noise, making it completely invalid.
Image

And for my final data set I used quotation marks to eliminate noise. At last it shows a general downwards trend, with definite slacking off in the invalid ranges. There is almost no one reporting 'insane' heights above 7 ft.
Image

My results here are not nearly as interesting as what Randall found. People on the internet seem to be a lot more modest about their heights, compared to penis size.
Last edited by Ephemeron on Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:40 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

yankeefan984
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:57 pm UTC

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby yankeefan984 » Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:10 pm UTC

But I really am 18 and have never had a girlfriend.
I thought I was pretty smart to until I saw that my IQ is apparently way below average.

xmrsmoothx
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:37 pm UTC

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby xmrsmoothx » Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:49 pm UTC

I'm loving these comics. There should be a program that makes these graphs.
I LOVE having a signature. It makes my post that much bigger.

scotty2haughty
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:53 am UTC
Location: 3 feet from gold

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby scotty2haughty » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:23 pm UTC

how does one go about finding out their REAL IQ?
/s/

User avatar
cjmcjmcjmcjm
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:15 am UTC
Location: Anywhere the internet is strong

Re: Numbers

Postby cjmcjmcjmcjm » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:33 pm UTC

RockoTDF wrote:I've got 99 problems, and the odd ones are all in calculus.

So true
frezik wrote:Anti-photons move at the speed of dark

DemonDeluxe wrote:Paying to have laws written that allow you to do what you want, is a lot cheaper than paying off the judge every time you want to get away with something shady.

User avatar
cjmcjmcjmcjm
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:15 am UTC
Location: Anywhere the internet is strong

Re: Numbers

Postby cjmcjmcjmcjm » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:33 pm UTC

SheeEttin wrote:The "99 Problems" graph seems to be incomplete. It does show statistics on the amount of problems, but it does not show any data on whether or not a bitch is one.

True.
frezik wrote:Anti-photons move at the speed of dark

DemonDeluxe wrote:Paying to have laws written that allow you to do what you want, is a lot cheaper than paying off the judge every time you want to get away with something shady.

slashme
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:08 am UTC

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby slashme » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:54 pm UTC

"use $i percent of (his OR her OR your) brain" only gave results for the following values of i:

Code: Select all

2  :   523
5  :   657
8  :   2870
10 :   5250
12 :   951
18 :   103
20 :   770
100:   1490


A rather strange set. Why are those specific numbers so hugely popular, and the rest are just zeroes?

SocialSceneRepairman
Posts: 199
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 4:17 am UTC

Re: Numbers

Postby SocialSceneRepairman » Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:53 pm UTC

yet another steven wrote:I think having an IQ >= 125 is convenient, just so you can make enough sense of the world to be able to avoid some of the common pitfalls, get a reasonably interesting job and friends, and create a decent life for yourself. But anything >= 140 may lead to thinking too much, being "different" in school, and it is only really helpful if you want a career in science.


...IIIII think you've fallen somewhat victim to the Lake Wobegon effect here. 125 would put you nearly two sigma out, just under 1 in 20 - by that point, you're far enough ahead of the pack that while you can avoid some of the common pitfalls, you're well beyond "convenient." 140 might be about right, though; at that point, you're one in two hundred, which is kind of around the "freak threshold."

It's basically impossible, even in theory, to get accurate measurements beyond beyond around 160/four sigma, though, since if the test is perfect, a score that high means you're in the top quarter-million on Earth, and your exact score is practically a rank among them; your placement is going to be more than a bit volatile, and more importantly, to get even integral precision, you need more information about the intelligence... and even the identity... of those quarter-million people than it's possible to get.

Also, Internet IQ tests are complete bullshit. I habitually score over 140, and I tested at the eighty-seventh frakking percentile.

slashme
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:08 am UTC

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby slashme » Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:01 pm UTC

Interesting cloud of points here. Fantasy seems to be a large part of the discourse on penis size, with 11 inches being specifically unfavourable (absolutely no-one says "you have a 11 inch cock"), but the full foot is particularly preferred. Surprisingly close correlation between me and you at the low end of the scale.

Image

charonme
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 11:18 am UTC

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby charonme » Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:20 pm UTC

The typical internet user (who wants to share) has an IQ of 147 and a 9-inch penis. Well, better than the reverse, I guess.
you mean better than "sinep hcni-9 a dna 741 fo QI na sah (erahs ot stnaw ohw) resu tenretni lacipyt ehT" ???
Last edited by charonme on Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:34 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Magnanimous
Madmanananimous
Posts: 3491
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:11 pm UTC
Location: Land of Hipsters and Rain (LOHAR)

Re: Numbers

Postby Magnanimous » Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:41 pm UTC

pv2b wrote:This reminds me of something I thought up around december 5, 2007 (if file timestamps can be beleived).

I wanted to know the "correct" number of a's in the interjection Khaaaaaaaan! Turns out, by crowdsourcing the information, that it was 8 with 8450 google hits to that effect.

Full data set here.

Note that this information is a bit old, and I'm not quite sure if I still have the python script I used to get the data left anywhere. The correct number of a's has changed since 2007.

A quick investigation to Google shows the correct number of A's now to be 5 - as in Khaaaaan, with 66000 hits. Strangely, though, google does *suggest* khaaaaaaan (7 a's with 33200 hits) as the correct spelling.

One thing that's sure - the number of pages about Khaaaaaaan! seems to have grown by a factor of.... somewhere around 4 to 8 or so by some lazy mental arithmetic, since 2007.

I did a similar thing a few months ago with the "Rage Guy" meme. The spreadsheet has been lost, unfortunately, but I still have a screencap of the results:

There are some fairly interesting trends, and a few weird outliers... I'm curious as to why "FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU" has almost 400,000 hits.

Also, the syntax of the original picture("FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU") isn't included in the graph, though it returns around 30,000 results.
Image

Skid
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:34 am UTC

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby Skid » Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:57 pm UTC

scotty2haughty wrote:how does one go about finding out their REAL IQ?

Real defined by who? It's just a test that tests how suited your brain is to take that test at the moment. It's not a set in concrete thing. Your IQ will change throughout your lifetime and even during a single 24 hour sleep cycle.

If someone spent an hour every day doing IQ test-style logic problems and memorizing "intelligent" trivia they could probably boost their IQ from average into the 140 range simply by becoming really good at the particular subset of activities that IQ tests are based on.

User avatar
ConMan
Shepherd's Pie?
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:56 am UTC
Location: Beacon Alpha

Re: Numbers

Postby ConMan » Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:06 pm UTC

Magnanimous wrote:
pv2b wrote:This reminds me of something I thought up around december 5, 2007 (if file timestamps can be beleived).

I wanted to know the "correct" number of a's in the interjection Khaaaaaaaan! Turns out, by crowdsourcing the information, that it was 8 with 8450 google hits to that effect.

Full data set here.

Note that this information is a bit old, and I'm not quite sure if I still have the python script I used to get the data left anywhere. The correct number of a's has changed since 2007.

A quick investigation to Google shows the correct number of A's now to be 5 - as in Khaaaaan, with 66000 hits. Strangely, though, google does *suggest* khaaaaaaan (7 a's with 33200 hits) as the correct spelling.

One thing that's sure - the number of pages about Khaaaaaaan! seems to have grown by a factor of.... somewhere around 4 to 8 or so by some lazy mental arithmetic, since 2007.

I did a similar thing a few months ago with the "Rage Guy" meme. The spreadsheet has been lost, unfortunately, but I still have a screencap of the results:

There are some fairly interesting trends, and a few weird outliers... I'm curious as to why "FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU" has almost 400,000 hits.

Also, the syntax of the original picture("FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU") isn't included in the graph, though it returns around 30,000 results.
Image

That's pretty nifty. Also quite nifty is the observation that in these kinds of things 6 repetitions appears to be a low outlier a lot of the time, according to some ad hoc research.
pollywog wrote:
Wikihow wrote:* Smile a lot! Give a gay girl a knowing "Hey, I'm a lesbian too!" smile.
I want to learn this smile, perfect it, and then go around smiling at lesbians and freaking them out.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7572
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby phlip » Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:46 am UTC

fiz wrote:I have one thing to say to this:

"There are <x> flowers in a vase..."

Code: Select all

0: 0
1: 0
2: 2
3: 728
4: 2
5: 2
6: 0
7: 0
8: 0
9: 1
10: 2
zero: 0
no: 0
one: 1
a: 10
two: 5
three: 4,610
four: 0
five: 0
six: 0
seven: 0
eight: 0
nine: 0
ten: 0

Not too surprising, there. (Obviously, changing "are" to "is" and "flowers" to "flower" for "1", "one" and "a".)

Also: for the length-of-words side discussion: this.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

xtifr
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:38 pm UTC

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby xtifr » Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:55 am UTC

Unless I'm misreading the charts, I'd say the "average" Internet user (using Randall's apparent criteria) has an A cup, not a 9" penis.

Also: what's an "inch"? Isn't that one of those weird medieval measurements like a furlong or a hogshead? I have a 23cm penis, thank you very much! :D
"[T]he author has followed the usual practice of contemporary books on graph theory, namely to use words that are similar but not identical to the terms used in other books on graph theory."
-- Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I, 3rd ed.

Okapi
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:37 pm UTC

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby Okapi » Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:27 am UTC

I have an IQ of 659.

I have a 437-inch dick.

I have 6 problems [and they are all bitches].

I am a J cup.

User avatar
RockoTDF
Posts: 582
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:08 am UTC
Location: Tucson, AZ, US
Contact:

Re: Numbers

Postby RockoTDF » Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:30 am UTC

SocialSceneRepairman wrote:
yet another steven wrote:I think having an IQ >= 125 is convenient, just so you can make enough sense of the world to be able to avoid some of the common pitfalls, get a reasonably interesting job and friends, and create a decent life for yourself. But anything >= 140 may lead to thinking too much, being "different" in school, and it is only really helpful if you want a career in science.


...IIIII think you've fallen somewhat victim to the Lake Wobegon effect here. 125 would put you nearly two sigma out, just under 1 in 20 - by that point, you're far enough ahead of the pack that while you can avoid some of the common pitfalls, you're well beyond "convenient." 140 might be about right, though; at that point, you're one in two hundred, which is kind of around the "freak threshold."

It's basically impossible, even in theory, to get accurate measurements beyond beyond around 160/four sigma, though, since if the test is perfect, a score that high means you're in the top quarter-million on Earth, and your exact score is practically a rank among them; your placement is going to be more than a bit volatile, and more importantly, to get even integral precision, you need more information about the intelligence... and even the identity... of those quarter-million people than it's possible to get.

Also, Internet IQ tests are complete bullshit. I habitually score over 140, and I tested at the eighty-seventh frakking percentile.


The thing about 125 is that it gets you the aforementioned things, but going above 140 really doesn't help you much more. It doesn't make you crazy.

Internet IQ tests are crap. I've tested from barely above retarded to genius on a variety of them.
Just because it is not physics doesn't mean it is not science.
http://www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com <---- A collection of humorous one liners and science jokes.

Carnildo
Posts: 2023
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:43 am UTC

Re: Numbers

Postby Carnildo » Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:28 am UTC

japro wrote:
PhilHibbs wrote:Or just that if you're going to write "My IQ is..." on the internet, then there is probably a reason - if I thought I had an IQ of 102 then I would not be inclined to brag about it. 100 is special because it's exactly average by definition, which is why there is a spike there. So the graph may well be an accurate indication of IQ range for the subset of society that is inclined to write "My IQ is..." on the internet.[/url].

What bothers me is, that there are significantly more people with an IQ over 140 on the Internet (over one million...) than there should be on the planet (like 200'000). We should call SETI...

Make sure you're using the correct distribution when you're estimating the number of high-IQ people on the planet. It's not a normal distribution, though it's close enough for most purposes. The actual distribution is more like three normal distributions superimposed on each other: the central peak at an IQ score of 100, with secondary peaks around scores of 70 and 130.

scotty2haughty wrote:how does one go about finding out their REAL IQ?

First, be under the age of 25, and preferably under the age of 12. IQ tests get less reliable the older you get. Second, contact a licensed psychologist, preferably one specializing in intelligence or learning issues. Finally, a real IQ test will measure a number of different things and give independent scores for all of them: for example, I was tested as being "above the 99.9th percentile" in visual-spatial reasoning, but average on the verbal reasoning scale.
Last edited by Carnildo on Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:43 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ferahgo
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 1:40 am UTC
Location: NJ
Contact:

Re: Numbers

Postby Ferahgo » Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:34 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:the highest being Black African


Do you have a source for this? I'm pretty sure it's incorrect.

Dan_ad_nauseam
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:41 am UTC

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby Dan_ad_nauseam » Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:44 am UTC

When I was in college, we had the "Aleph-Null Bottles of Beer" variant. Unfortunately, that would be difficult to graph.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Numbers

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:42 am UTC

Ferahgo wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:the highest being Black African


Do you have a source for this? I'm pretty sure it's incorrect.



According to the 2000 census (find your own link), 8.2% of African Immigrants have an advanced degree (MS, JD, PHD, etc), compared to 6.8% of Asian Americans.

Yes I took this from Wikipedia. I don't feel like sifting through the census data myself.



Anyway, an advanced degree is an advanced degree. Those are usually earned; most universities don't just hand out PhD degrees based on skin color, unless you happen to be a genocidal dictator *cough*Robert*cough*Mugabe*cough*. Although a PhD in Philosophy (and other Humanities) counts as an advanced degree, so it may be biased.

Seriously, Music degrees are all but worthless; name one famous musician with a PhD in Music, or one famous author with a PhD in English (not including "honorary degrees"). At least with an Art degree you can do graphic design.

Anyway, the people that get into Harvard based on affirmative action are (on average) still better than the people who without AA get into, say, NYU.

vole-in-hand
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:27 am UTC

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby vole-in-hand » Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:10 am UTC

It amuses me that there's a little spike at 12 inches. AKA footlong.

User avatar
Squid Tamer
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:59 am UTC
Location: Over there
Contact:

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby Squid Tamer » Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:39 am UTC

I decided to make a few of my own.
(I changed the query whenever it was grammatically preferable to do so. "1 year old" instead of "1 years old", etc.

"My computer is x years old":
Spoiler:
Image
The spike at 10 is kinda weird.

"I own x cars":
Spoiler:
Image

"I have killed x people":
Spoiler:
Image
This one is really specific. Apparently people only kill 2, 3, or 4 people. It drops off to nearly nothing if you go beyond that.

"I found x dollars":
Spoiler:
Image
I like how unlikely combinations of bills are seen as dips in the graph. i.e. to find 9 dollars you would need one five dollar bill and four ones. It would be hard for someone to accidentally drop that exact combination of bills.

"It's over x000":
Spoiler:
Image
Pretty much just what you would expect.


If you care to see the exact numbers and stuff you can go here

jedi
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:40 am UTC

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby jedi » Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:47 am UTC

In googling around I've noticed an error [gasp!] "65 bottles of beer on the wall" returns "about 29,200" results (64 returns 485, 66 returns 871). So there's a peak missing at 65 (odd, both that Randall missed it, and that there's a peak at 65).

edbdqt
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:46 am UTC

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby edbdqt » Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:27 am UTC

It's sad that we're on page 4 and no one's noticed that Randall felt he need to use the qualifier "I guess" in reference to the preferability of a 9 penis and 147 IQ over a 147 inch penis and 9 IQ. He's not entirely sure? (Although, to be fair, I did work with a girl who liked 'em big and stupid...)

User avatar
Tanuki
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:37 am UTC
Location: Seattle or something
Contact:

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby Tanuki » Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:09 am UTC

You know, that explains a bit. I was tested once, and also got a score of 147.

No penis to speak of, though...

dan131m
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:30 am UTC

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby dan131m » Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:49 am UTC

I like that there's a severe dropoff between 9th grade / freshman and 11th grade / junior, presumably due to a widespread inability to spell the word "sophomore." (Also, note that all those grades get doubled up, because you're a freshman in high school and then again in college...)

yet another steven
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:22 am UTC

Re: Numbers

Postby yet another steven » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:07 am UTC

I'm a bit late responding, but

SocialSceneRepairman wrote:...IIIII think you've fallen somewhat victim to the Lake Wobegon effect here. 125 would put you nearly two sigma out, just under 1 in 20 - by that point, you're far enough ahead of the pack that while you can avoid some of the common pitfalls, you're well beyond "convenient." 140 might be about right, though; at that point, you're one in two hundred, which is kind of around the "freak threshold."


I can't rigorously argue any of this; it's just my personal judgement. Of course an IQ of 125 is quite high compared to the average, but I really think being well ahead of the pack intellectually is useful. It depends on the circumstances in which you live of course: if you're a blacksmith in a medieval village, there is no need to be especially smart. But today's world is pretty fucking complicated, and many people can't really fall back anymore on traditional patterns to model their life after; we have to work out for ourselves now how we wanna live, which is not easy. Combine this with pretty abstract decisions about taxes, insurance, where to live, in what school to put your kids, deciding which products will genuinely benefit you and which are just advertising hype, and you have a world where a high IQ can really help.

I don't know about the USA, but in Holland the schools for ages 12-18 are split in several levels: there's VMBO, HAVO and VWO; the latter, which is the most theoretical, is required if you want to go to college afterwards (well, you can also get to college if you do HAVO first, but let's ignore that). Point is, your IQ needs to be at least 115 if you want to be able to go through VWO smoothly. Sure, those kids are only about 15% of the population, but I think they're the lucky ones, in the sense that on average, they'll get more opportunities and be able to create the most fulfilling lives for themselves.

dtilque
Posts: 150
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:53 am UTC
Location: Nogero

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby dtilque » Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:02 pm UTC

The cup size graph is missing DD, DDD, EE, ... sizes. Doing my own googling, I get about 18K for DD, less than 10 for DDD, only 1 for EE (and that was in the alt.sex.stories.moderated archive) and none for EEE. I didn't check any higher sizes, but don't expect any for FF, FFF, etc.
“This world is a strange madhouse. Currently, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political party affiliation.”
-- Albert Einstein, 12 September 1920

Madtentacle
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:13 pm UTC

Re: Numbers

Postby Madtentacle » Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:10 pm UTC

Arancaytar wrote:"I am completely honest" : 813,000
"I am honest": 3,850,000
"I am a liar": 7,060,000

I'm wondering what the real average is. It seems obvious that there is an IQ selection bias among the technophile population of the internet - but how much of it is due to the equally obvious liar selection bias? :P


And I wonder how many "I am honest"'s are lying.
Reminds me of one of my favourites: http://xkcd.com/246/

User avatar
CiDhed
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:07 pm UTC
Location: Missouri

Re: Numbers

Postby CiDhed » Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:13 pm UTC

scarecrovv wrote:I found most of it merely interesting, however I laughed at "there are <x> lights" http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Chain_of_Command,_Part_II_(episode)



I lol'ed when I read that one too. Actually surprised me that there were that many hits for it.

niceville56
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:15 pm UTC

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby niceville56 » Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:38 pm UTC

As you would imagine, their is a correlation between success in life (station, income, education, what have you) and IQ until you hit around 120 or so. At that point, the correlation falls off and success depends on social abilities. Essentially, having an IQ of 140 doesn't help you any more than an IQ of 125, you'll likely be just as successful either way. Realize this isn't to say everyone with an IQ of 140+ has poor social skills nor vice versa, just that above a base intelligence level more intelligence gives you marginal returns.

On another topic, although the XKCD forums may be a special case, I still find it surprising so many people seem to have IQs above 145, aka the top 0.13% of the earth's population. Illusory superiority?

yet another steven
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:22 am UTC

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby yet another steven » Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:59 pm UTC

niceville56 wrote:As you would imagine, their is a correlation between success in life (station, income, education, what have you) and IQ until you hit around 120 or so. At that point, the correlation falls off and success depends on social abilities.

Wow, that aligns with my guesswork pretty well!

On another topic, although the XKCD forums may be a special case, I still find it surprising so many people seem to have IQs above 145, aka the top 0.13% of the earth's population. Illusory superiority?

That's the more cynical explanation. I like to think that people with >145 tend to "casually mention" their score, whereas people with lower IQs don't. I actually had quite a hard time saying "probably about 135" earlier: even though it's objectively a very high score which I should feel well satisfied with, I always have these nagging doubts that perhaps it should be higher, especially to be able to compete in my current line of work.

Oh, and I vaguely recall measuring my penis in puberty, I think it was about 16cm, or 6.3 inches. That's about dead-on average (in the real world, at least). I haven't had complaints. Some people like to say that erect penises don't vary too much in size (http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/penissize.htm, see "Average size of erections"), but I've seen some porn that makes me think that is probably a myth.

graatz
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:24 pm UTC

Re: Numbers

Postby graatz » Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:05 pm UTC

pv2b wrote:I wanted to know the "correct" number of a's in the interjection Khaaaaaaaan! Turns out, by crowdsourcing the information, that it was 8 with 8450 google hits to that effect.


At least you know you are likely getting your information from either well-endowed hyper-intelligent men, or flat-chested hyper-intelligent women. Sadly, they are also likely in 7th grade, 18, and haven't had a boyfriend yet.

graatz
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:24 pm UTC

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby graatz » Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:12 pm UTC

yet another steven wrote:I actually had quite a hard time saying "probably about 135" earlier


Yeah, IQ is just so unreliable. But it's still the de facto measure of intelligence for some reason. I'd be afraid of identifying myself with a small IQ (or large but not large enough to deserve to post to the xkcd forums), but equally afraid of misrepresenting it as a large number, knowing that it's such a flawed measure. The range of IQ's I've been labeled according to various sources (the internet, school psychologists, etc.) is 130-165. If mean is 100 and stdev is 15, I'm either a normal outlier or a statistical anomaly, I guess :p

Inune
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 8:28 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Numbers" Discussion

Postby Inune » Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:45 pm UTC

Squid Tamer wrote:"I have killed x people":
Spoiler:
Image
This one is really specific. Apparently people only kill 2, 3, or 4 people. It drops off to nearly nothing if you go beyond that.



I would be interested in seeing data on the gender and location of these supposed killings. I find it hard to believe that there are no single murders taking place in Reno.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 92 guests