Posted by Larry Hoover on March 12, 2005, at 11:23:05
In reply to Re: wait a minute... » Larry Hoover, posted by Tabitha on March 12, 2005, at 1:29:46
> Get up off the floor for a minute and help me review these rankings. My 63.8 was the "nerd pure" score, and both GG and alexandra_k reported higher nerd pure numbers. Yours was 54 point something, and I'm not clear if that was nerd pure or nerd corrupt. So who's the #1 nerd? It can't be me. If nerd pure is more nerdy, then GG and alex win. If nerd pure is less nerdy, then you win by a landslide, since we're all in the 60s and you're in the 50s.
Okay, I retook the test because I thought I'd saved a page with the test results, but it was a page requiring a form submission....i.e. I saved blank results.
It seems I misread a few questions (I took it in haste), and I remembered some answers that I didn't last time (my brain works like that, with background mode on).....
Here are my retest results:
"You answered "yes" to 295 of 500 questions, making you 41.0% nerd pure (59.0% nerd corrupt); that is, you are 41.0% pure in the nerd domain (you have 59.0% nerd in you).
According to the scoring guide, your nerd experience level is: On a first name basis with Radio Shack employees
Your Weirdness Factor (AKA Uniqueness Factor) is 40%, based on a comparison of your test results with 29463 other submissions for this test.The average purity for this test is 62.5%."
OK, average purity is one thing, but how large are the standard deviations? Mean is useless without s.d., and can be further illuminated by mode and median values, or tabulated percentile ranks.
I don't know what the WF score is meant to show.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:469296
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050305/msgs/470035.html