bah, that test is crap. It's so obvious what the 'right' answer is, but that's so subjective. Blech. At least IQ test questions can be rationalized.

My point exactly. It's the observer's paradox; people will always give the answer that seems to be the 'right' answer. Paradoxically (heh), it also counts when people are not being observed.

Of course, there's also ppl that can honestly judge themselves in those situations, like me, and who then end up emotionally retarded. IQ pwnz0rs EQ.

I have not fine opinion on IQ tests. If you ask me, that's not something that's just used to mark peoples. It is something what you can learn. It's just question of the efforts you give for that. I like them but I don't consider them for nothing more than a game - my opinion.

My first result was 133 and today I can get over the maximum quota which can be measured here, 158 (they cannot say me nothing more). Geesh - my eq is probably 20.

But, I agree - beside that you can *learn* to be better on IQ tests, there is surely *the limit* that you cannot pass.

Hah! I got 40 in the EQ test Rinox mentioned. Well, 2x more than I expected. Seems you got some more monstruous than you 'Ox.

Hehe...we're not monstrous...we just aren't dumb enough to fool ourselves into thinking we might handle social situations "well", according to the test.

Not about controlling light, but very interesting:

http://www.revisedhistory.org

Basically, it deals with how most of our known history could have originated only around 1700, and how history is written by the victor etc. Gary Kasparov endorses this theory, heh.

Anyhoo, blabla, just go check it out yourselves. It's a big read, but a good one. (also, site packs quite a few typos)