On Stephen Jay Gould and Strawmen:

I've been reading Stephen Jay Gould's "Wonderful Life" (1989) lately, and one thing has struck me about his writing style. A lot of times, he's extremely pretentious and condescending as a way of setting up a straw man to bowl over with his theory of punctuated equilibrium. Don't get me wrong, I love the book and its premise, and his take on evolution is quite compelling. But I see in his writing some of the same problems many authors have.

For instance, he tends to generalize to the public at large by using the term "we" when referring to certain widely held (and in his opinion, ignorant) beliefs regarding evolution. But there are those of us reading who don't share those beliefs, and it's quite insulting to hear him presume that the entire nation has the wool pulled over its eyes about such things as the ones he terms "the iconography of evolution" and "the cone of increasing diversity." It's as though he needs to make everyone else sound ignorant so that he can shine the light of punctuated equilibrium on us.

To be fair, I'm only two chapters in (out of five), and I have heard that things get better as they go. But the problem remains real. I don't believe he does it out of malice or because he truly believes himself a messiah bringing great news to the uneducated masses. Rather, I think he simply doesn't know it sounds that way. Then again, the book is 12 years old, so I don't know how it was received back then. I hope I avoid the same errors in my writing.  ¶ 12:04 AM

  On Statistics in Medicine:

Statistics have been a source of misinformation for as long as they have been used. Of particular interest to the medical community is the misuse of the phrase "chance of." To illustrate the problem, consider the following example.

The overall mortality rate for pancreatic cancer surgery (pancreatomy) is 40%; thus, the media often reports that patients have a 60% chance of surviving the surgery. Even hospitals are not immune to repeating this statement. But what does that number mean to a non-statistician (such as myself)? In the vernacular, "chance" implies luck. Therefore, a patient is prone to view the number 60% as something vaguely similar to the chance of landing a heads on a coin-toss being 50%: Lady Luck will simply have her peculiar way with the outcome. If you land in the 60%, you live; if you land in the 40%, you die.

But consider further that at John Hopkins Hospital, the mortality rate for the same surgery is a mere 2%. It is obvious then that many factors – including luck – determine the actual outcome. The statistics alone have no bearing whatsoever on the success of a particular surgery. At best, it can only provide a general gauge of the procedure’s usefulness.

Consider further this: if you flip a coin thousands of times, it will produce a 50/50 pattern, but only if the flipping process is repeated the same way every time under proper conditions. But surgeries aren’t repeated the same way each time: the doctors vary, the equipment varies, and certainly the patient varies. Thousands of pancreatomies will likely not recapitulate the 60% figure, especially as techniques become more refined. Again, this does not make the statistic useless; rather, we must regard it as a measure rather than as a prophet.

It is also irresponsible of the media to report, for example, that a mutation in a certain gene will confer a ten fold increased chance of developing breast cancer; such wording is found even in respected medical literature. Certainly, the mutation increases susceptibility and tenfold is a useful figure for conveying relative seriousness. But it does not mean that a particular person carrying the mutation is ten times more likely to get breast cancer than a particular person without it.

However, the error in the statistic lies somewhere differently than in the previous example, since a thousand cases will likely recapitulate the tenfold figure. Instead, the fallacy is that the focus of the statistic is far too narrow to be personally applicable. In other words, it excludes many other factors for a given person, such as other mutations, lifestyle, hereditary background, and age. Once again, the statistic is only useful as a guide, and is not necessarily a harbinger of cancer.

The generation of such statistics itself is not the problem: the dissemination of those statistics under misleading guises is. Only proper statistical education can allow the continued use of the phrase "chance of" in popular communication. But so long as the majority of the general populace is unaware of its particular meaning, the use of the phrase in health care remains a matter of life and death.
  ¶ 9:45 PM

  On the Crusade for Yoga:

Time magazine has a highly sympathetic article regarding yoga and its continual rejection from the scientific community. While the first half of the article details celebrities' fascination with meditation, the final half describes yoga advocates' opinions and mounting frustrations with established western medicine. The tone of the writing is clearly biased towards the yoga advocates, making them appear as unsung heroes fighting a stodgy and ineffective modern medical practice.

Quotes are clearly selected to deliver emotional impact rather than factual content: "When you do yoga — the deep breathing, the stretching, the movements that release muscle tension, the relaxed focus on being present in your body ... has a dramatic effect on the body ... The body seizes this chance to turn on the healing mechanisms." I counted a total of at least 10 pro-yoga quotes versus 2 skeptical ones. The strongest skeptical remark was relegated to parentheses and immediately contested in the following sentence.

Only one study is mentioned, and a highly questionable one at that. Even the author admits that it has a serious flaw of not restricting proper variables: improvements in coronary atherosclosis patients may be attributable to a better diet, not yoga. The pro-yoga quotes rest on little or no factual basis, yet the author includes them as if merely saying them makes them true.

Even the author herself opines that:

"at the heart of the western medical establishment's skepticism of yoga is a profound hubris: the belief that what we have been able to prove so far is all that is true. At the beginning of the 20th century, doctors and researchers surely looked back at the beginning of the 19th and smiled at how primitive 'medical science' had been. A century from now, we may look back at today's body of lore with the same condescension."

I guarantee you that at least 99% of legitimate scientists do not believe even remotely that everything science has proven is all that is true. Yes, perhaps we will look back in condescension on today's medicine, but that does not invalidate what we now know. Plenty of ancient thought has survived through today: van Leeuwenhoek's cells, Darwin's evolution, and Harvey's circulatory system to name a few. Certainly, hubris exists, but it is only rarely the progenitor of skepticism; rather, skepticism stems mostly from caution while hubris palpably manifests itself as ignorance.

In fact, one of the greatest motivators in science is that we know so little: we are constantly looking to revise our database of knowledge and theories. One yoga practitioner distorts this view in the article: "In modern medicine, we're actually doing a lot more guesswork than we let on. We want to say we understand everything. We don't understand half of it. It's scary how clueless we are." I have not heard a better rephrasing of "the glass is half empty." A much better way to view science is through Darwin's eyes: "all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike—and yet it is the most precious thing we have."

And certainly, there is more guesswork than the public is generally aware of, but guesswork is also an integral part of research and logic. It is mostly done with the assumption that future evidence will bear out what previously had to be guessed, largely due to insufficient technology, existing data, or resources. As science progresses, it corrects its earlier mistakes through rigorous review and replication of experimentation. That we do not know much or that we guess a lot does not diminish the practical applications of scientific research. The evidence is in the successes of modern medicine.

Furthermore, radically different approaches such as yoga must provide evidence -- not merely anecdotes -- that it has a more of a scientific basis than what may stem from positive thinking and relaxation. As the most outspoken yoga advocates clamber for more recognition in the scientific community, it is they who become so much more sure of their own beliefs. Their percieved oppression and condescension towards yoga becomes their chant, their dogma, their rallying war-cry. It is little wonder that the article's yoga experts cannot gain recognition when they clearly demand much more: the declaration of yoga as a superior medical practice.

In closing, I would like to make it clear that yoga is itself not problematic: it is doubtful that basic yoga practices have any negative effects. Furthermore, its positive mindset and emphasis on relaxation are ancient healing techniques, and are similar to therapies prescribed by modern doctors and physical therapists. But it is when yoga claims to be more than the sum of its parts that problems arise. When it makes extraordinary claims of healing and wishes them to be scientifically (and politically) recognized, it must provide evidence commensurate with the claims. Otherwise, it is no more than positivity masquerading as medicine.  ¶ 4:20 PM

  On the Myth of Santa Claus:

When I was a child, my parents never tried to convince me that Santa Claus was real. That anyone could believe the reality-bending antics of Old Saint Nick was as ridiculous a notion to our family as any. My older sister and I were raised to know that it would be obvious through observation and logic that the concept is an impossible one.

There are those who would believe that I have thus been robbed of a fanciful and imaginative aspect of my childhood. These are the people who tell or will tell of Santa to their own children for the sake of tradition, discipline, or a misguided sense of love. For they believe that making Santa real stimulates the mind and imagination of the child; take away the comforting lie, and the child’s mind lies fallow.

Yet how can a child grasp the concept of fantasy if it is blurred with reality? Making the myth of Santa an integral part of the child’s perception of reality is to disallow the child to differentiate between the two. Only by being shown the partition between fact and fiction can the child find the door that opens between them. It is better for the child to have access both ways through that door than to later find it was hidden by untruth.

In fact, knowing that Santa Claus doesn’t really come down the chimneys of the world in a single night expanded my imagination more than if I had swallowed the tale. It was far more tantalizing to ask the question "What if Santa Claus is real?" than to say "I wonder what Santa's doing right now?" The latter would lead an adventurous child to dead ends, or worse, more lies. The former allows the child to wander through endless possibilities all the while safely tethered to reality.

I imagined the ways Santa might squeeze down the chimney, how his reindeer might fly, and how he managed to eat all those cookies and drink all that milk. Yet in those childish notions lie the seeds of science: our creativity expands the horizons of technology, though still guiding us on the path of practicality. A child must first be taught to appreciate the beauty and expansiveness – and also the dangers – of fantasy before they take that first step into Wonderland.  ¶ 10:09 PM

  On the Shortcomings of the English Language (a sort of meta-essay):

I feel I must make a disclaimer here. I often use the masculine forms "his," "he," or "him," when referring to a hypothetical person. This is out of deference to the shortcomings of the Engligh language, not in any way intended to be sexist. I have attempted to use other words, with little success: strictly speaking, "their" is a grammatically incorrect reference to an individual. I have also tried to use "one" wherever it does not sound awkward, but such places are rare. Until English adopts a new word to refer to hypothetical individuals, I have little choice but to use the masculine form. Call me sexist, but I would much rather be eloquent and persuasive than politically correct.

Spoken Chinese has a much better grasp of the situation, with "ta" meaning both "he" and "she." (In writing, however, the distinction must still be made, although the analogue of "one" is far less awkward than in English.) The German analogue "mann" is somewhat odd. It doesn't quite mean "man," but it certainly derives from it. Thus, the word itself is sexist, not necessarily the people who use it! I must make it a point to find how other languages handle this term.  ¶ 1:48 AM

  On Stupid Questions:

(Note: this essay is unfinished. I do not intend to complete it at any time soon, since I have lost my train of thought on the matter.)

In order to counteract the fear of asking questions, many people have adopted the notion that "there is no such thing as a stupid question." This concept is meant to stimulate curiosity and imagination, and is, in fact, quite successful at doing so. Yet, after this belief has allowed someone to overcome their fear, it then becomes necessary to realize that stupid questions do indeed exist. Only then can a person's interrogative abilities be improved.

First, one must determine whether or not there is such a thing as a "smart question." I believe that there is. When the asker has attempted to reason out the problem before inquiring for help, it is reflected in the phrasing of the question. It shows that the intent is to facilitate discourse rather than to deflect the responsibility of logic to someone else.

If the intelligence of questions are visualized on a spectrum, it then becomes obvious that, if smart questions exist, then so too must stupid ones. One objection to this is that the spectrum actually covers "smart" to "less smart" questions. But "less smart" is simply a nice way of saying "more stupid." We may not like to think of it that way, but the semantics bear themselves out.

Another objection is that such a spectrum is subjective; I agree. However, subjectivity must be balanced against practicality. The applications of the terms "smart" and "stupid" provide convenience and definition. While they do not confer concrete divisions to the spectrum, they are useful in sorting out the undeniable differences in quality between questions.

Now the reader may challenge me to provide examples of different quality questions.  ¶ 9:40 PM

  On the Role of Skepticism in Science:

Imagine, if you will, that radical theories are akin to a crumpled dollar bill being repeatedly shoved in the slot of a rather disagreeable vending machine. The slot itself is quite fickle, and has been known to accept, then reject equally smooth dollar bills on different days. This is much like the changing standards of acceptance of scientific theory by skeptics. Change is based partly on the evolving landscape of scientific knowledge itself, partly on the ever-changing human composition of the skeptical community.

But the analogy does not end there. Anyone who has wrestled with such a vending machine knows that the bill, if put through enough times, might be smoothed out by the straight edges of the slot itself. The consumer – the proponents of untested theory – may also attempt to straighten the bill in his own manner. He may even try a new bill. If enough care is taken both on the part of the consumer and of the slot, the bill might attain just enough perfection for acceptance. Whether the drink will come out the other end or not is anyone’s guess.

Unfortunately, few radical thinkers have the patience. They want their theories accepted, they want funding, and they want credit. Theirs is a favorite argument to compare their plight to the persecution of Galileo: theories originally suppressed, but later vindicated. Yet, had Galileo’s skeptics not existed, he would likely not have subjected his own theories to as rigorous or as stringent standards and repetitions as he did. Skepticism plays a necessary role in the creation of scientific theories, often as a ward against deception and ignorance, but at other times as an unwitting but useful devil’s advocate. It may not always be pretty, but it works well.

Of course, one might claim that skepticism can (and has) gone too far and completely smothered useful theories. One might then continue on to claim that such events are a black eye for skepticism and evidence that it should, at least, be softened. In fact, I have heard historians remark that the refusal to believe in the roundness of Earth set exploration and scientific progress back by hundreds of years. My reply to that is that if the theory is true, it will eventually be acknowledged as such when technology and society has progressed enough to verify it beyond a reasonable doubt. Chances are, if the world at the time wasn’t ready to accept the roundness of Earth, it wasn’t ready to capitalize on its implications. Skeptics continue to apply high standards to radical theory (for example, alien abductions) because we require standards commensurate with such enormous ramifications as those of interstellar contact.  ¶ 11:09 PM

  On Over-quoting:

Much online content suffers from a dearth of originality: profundity rarely surfaces in this medium that has the greatest potential for intellectual discourse. It is for this reason that -- though I could not explain it at first -- it grated upon my nerves to see several blogs containing a quote in nearly every entry. I here consider three reasons why over-quoting is an unfortunate reflection on the internet.

First, it is indicative of a type of intellectual laziness. Rather than deducing their own theories from their observations, many over-quoters prefer to borrow the words of those who have thought along similar lines. Certainly, the practice of quoting is not itself a problem; there are truly many quotes imbued with such mental clarity as bears repeating. But this is subject to abuse. When quotes are used as substitutes for critical thinking, rather than as supplements, the quoter has chosen to subjugate his own reasoning skills to those of another. The quotes of great thinkers should be built upon, not bowed down to: the proper use of quotes are when they are accompanied by analysis or used as supporting evidence.

Second, some people who over-quote appear to do so as a misguided way of proving their own wisdom. It is as if by association, the quoter is attempting to claim part of the quotes' insights. However, this is rarely the true intention of the quoter; unfortunately, even nobly-minded lists are indistinguishable from the arrogant ones. This perception can be further exacerbated if the accompanying text is itself arrogant or even just poorly written. This is due to the contrast between the good quotes and the bad writing: the quotes seem to be there only to try and lend credence to half-formed thoughts.

Third, when hunting for quotes takes precedence over learning from them, the task becomes superficial. It becomes an excercise for its own sake: a self-feeding desire unbounded by academic merit. The quotations are stripped of their uniqueness, awash amidst a sea of irrelevant familiars. Discovering depth in one's own thought, on the other hand, is a far more satisfying experience than finding it in another's. Again, there is nothing wrong with taking pleasure in finding quotes, but one must guard against doing so out of habit rather than out of interest.

While some may dismiss over-quoting as harmless, I find it to be a poor surrogate for critical thought. Ostensibly, people reading the quotes are meant to find unique significance in them. However, if I desired to learn from quotes unaccompanied by relevant text, there are entire books filled with them. Quoting should be used as a parallel means of advancing thought, not as irrelevant, random, and over-used substitutes for genuine insight.  ¶ 4:23 PM

  On Swearing:

What more pompous aspect of human social evolution exists than the presumption inherent in language? The belief that such artifice as a single impersonal word can carry so injurious a connotation that it must be condemned is preposterous [1]. The constraints on the English language reach their ridiculous pinnacle at the self-defeating taboo on cursing.

Society has created evil from nothing. There is no intrinsic malice to their phoenetic constructions; swears are meant only to embody the extremes of human emotion. Is it truly the words that conservatives object to, or is that they recoil from the possibility that we ever visit those extremes? It amounts to nothing more than the denial of our own mortality.

We have allowed ourselves the tyranny of language: it has become the ends and we the means. We are subject to our own creations, these things that have properties but no substance. For many people, hearing swears touches off a reflexive and negative response. Are we to believe that such reflexes are instinctual? They are not; they are no more than fears implanted into peoples' minds, fears that have no demonstrable justification.

When people appeal, "What about the children?!" they mean "What about their sanctity and innocence?" Yet I ask, "Why have we created specific words that we must protect our children from?" I can understand banning words like "nigger" and "sodomy," because they carry personal and/or historical connotations intimately linked to true harshnesses of reality. But "f--k" and "s--t" have no such corollaries in real life. Intercourse and defecation: disgusting, perhaps, but not evil.

Swears are no more than empty words that have been invested with disproportionate power. This power comes from the restrictions upon them: it is often true that what is denied is that which is ever more desired. By relaxing social mores concerning them, curses can slowly be absorbed into the mundanity of daily discourse. Their power of rebelliousness will fade: if they mean nothing to conservatives, they can mean nothing to insurgents.

Note: I blanked out the letters in the swears, not out of hypocrisy, but out of the need to appeal to people who might not otherwise be willing to read this.

[1] Yes, I realize this is a terribly written sentence. But I don't feel like changing it.  ¶ 11:04 PM

  On Neatness and Organization:

Being neat and being organized are two distinct qualities. Superficially, they would appear to be mutually inclusive. In reality, it is quite possible to be one without being the other. Let me illustrate the four possible combinations using the commonplace example of taking notes:

1. Neither neat nor organized.

Basically, an unreadable, incoherent mess. Things are writen quickly without any attention to accuracy, legibility, or even grammar. Comments are strewn and scribbled about the page, wherever room is available. If the person is able to read his own writing, it is still only marginally helpful. In fact, the confusing layout of the notes is often more likely to baffle than to enlight. Of course, there are varying degrees of messiness, but this general description fits many notes I've had the misfortune of borrowing.

2. Neat but unorganized.

I would estimate that more than half the notes I've seen fall into this category. Handwriting is scrupulously tidy (moreso women than men), and just one sheet of paper possesses such regularity in style that it may as well have come from a printer. Things aren't cluttered, and the writings and figures are generally large. However, the sequence of notes is no more than a chronological listing of lecture and blackboard material. One subject flows into the next, and one day spills over into the following. Searching for a specific topic is aided by the neatness, but confounded by the lack of clear demarcations. The notes are useful to the note-taker, but frustrating.

3. Organized but not neat.

This is the category I fall under. The handwriting is messy, quick, and small, and frequently fails to follow the lines of the paper. As in category one, there are sometimes notes in bizarre places. However, there is some way to tell when one subject ends and another starts. I use horizontal lines that span the width of the paper, and I also place a subject heading in red ink on the margin. Other people use highlighters, symbols, or their own code (eg. abbreviations). The key to organizing notes in class is to comprehend the lecture as it's being delivered. Only then can notes be ordered by association rather than chronologically; when this is accomplished, proper subject headings can be given. Consequently, it is easy to find a particular subject when reviewing notes, although it may only be decipherable to the person who wrote it.

4. Neat and organized.

All of the good things from categories 2 and 3 without any of the bad things. This takes exceptional skill because one must follow the lecture logically, yet write slowly and thoroughly enough to be legible. The strain is both mental and physical, but the results can be top quality.

4b. Extremely neat and organized

A variation on category 4, this is when people re-write their in-class notes later in a more organized form. This, of course, takes great patience and dedication, and is usually the best of all categories.

One can clearly see that neatness and organization are not only two different things, but exist on a continuum where their respective qualities contribute separately to the final result. It only remains to be determined what particular balance is required for any one task.

For example, in a competitive class, keeping type 3 notes is preferable to type 4 notes; they will only be beneficial to the note-taker. The opposite is true in classes where you must cooperate. Alternatively, type 4b may be the best for both situations (in a competitive class, you may keep the best notes for yourself and give out the poorer ones to others). However, the worth of investing time and effort must also be factored in, in relation to the importance of the class.

This dual concept of neatness and organization is applicable to all areas of life. Only by trial and error and by observation can they be put to full use.  ¶ 10:18 PM

  On Alternative Medicine for Cancer:

Dr. Hulda Clark claims to be able to cure disease with a simple blend of herbs. Her bizarre claim is that every single cancer and AIDS are caused by three things: an intestinal fluke, isopropyl alcohol, and something called "ortho-phospho-tyrosine" (I'll call it OPT). Her herbal treatments supposedly cleanse the body of these elements, thereby ridding the causes of cancer and AIDS.

I first came across this con artist's writings in Borders. Borders is a pretty well-respected bookstore, and though I wish it didn't have an alternative medicine section, I understand the importance of free speech. But her book "The Cure for All Cancers" was in the normal medical section sandwiched between legitimate cancer books! Anyone with a little gullibility might assume that the book's neighbors lend it credibility.

Now, I work in the lab five days a week to help find the causes of prostate cancer. Cancer as a whole is a complex, elusive, and serious disease. Yet, not only does Dr. Clark think current cancer research is fundamentally wrong, she claims it's a deliberate government lie to swindle patients and keep them in expensive hospitals. Such tripe is already an insult to the entire research and health care industry, but to find the book on the same shelf as Gray's Anatomy... the Borders employees might as well have walked up and slapped me in the face.

But let's look at her claims: intestinal flukes and scientific-sounding compounds. First of all, there is no such thing as ortho-phospho-tyrosine. A quick internet search shows that the only reference to it is in reference to Dr. Clark. Even the nomenclature, to an amateur biochemist, is frighteningly awkward; even if something were to be found with that exact chemical structure, its name wouldn't start with "ortho-."

Second, all her claims about flukes are purely anecdotal. She shows pictures of flukes, but never describes a believable physiological pathway for them to cause any type of cancer, let alone all of them. Most of her arguments are tautalogical: Why do flukes cause cancer? Because they secrete OPT. Why does OPT cause cancer? Because it's secreted by flukes. She doesn't even offer one simple scientific test as proof, something called a Northern blot. All she needs to do is show that OPT is higher in all affected tissues in cancer patients versus healthy patients. Of course, nothing scientific is found at all.

In fact, a good 250 pages of her thick book are taken up by anecdotal testimonies. It details patients following her regimen and then notes the gradual disappearance of the offending isopropyl alcohol and OPT. But note that the diagnosis of the patients' states is based only on the presence of these elements. Only rarely in the testimonies does it actually state that clinically diagnosed cancer was cured! I wonder how many of those patients are dead by now...

Finally, if you look at the style of her writing (I laughed out loud in the store), it's composed like an infomercial. It screams at you, it runs bold text at you, it uses simplified, dumbed-down language, and it even taunts and abuses you. As Carl Sagan observed, scientists have a hard time competing with such showmanship for the attention of the public. I personally lament the poor state of writing abilities of many of my scientific colleagues, but occaisionally I see a glimmer of hope.

I also hope that bookstores will be more responsible in the future (I discreetly moved the book over to the New Age section). With luck, no one will be duped into buying and believing it.  ¶ 12:47 AM

  On Modesty:

"Modesty is a virtue" is the sophist's argument for a deferential society. Nothing quite challenges the status quo like arrogance and boasting; nothing more pacifies the masses and maintains hierararchy than numbing humbleness.

Being modest has gotten me into trouble more times than arrogance: silence can be as perilous as words. Thus, I ascribe to a sort of metaphysical reasoning regarding modesty by being moderate in its use. There are, undoubtedly, times of its necessity: when the enmity garnered by arrogance would prove too powerful or when the pride that "goeth before a fall" can clearly be seen as a miscalculation.

Yet there are false motivators of modesty as well, the primary of which is fear. Fear of making enemies, fear of being fired, fear of being denounced, and so on. By fear, I mean not the empirical observation of possibilities; rather I speak of fear as an emotion, as an a prioti and irrational reflex due to the accumulation of pain -- both imagined and real -- from past experiences.

Thus, a new perspective on modesty must be forged. If one is clever enough to learn modesty as an art, perhaps humble words can be interlaced with subtleties that undoubtedly speak of higher self-praise. It is the magicians' trick to appear both meek and aggressive, both naive and devious. It is better to be an enigma -- a likeable one, to be sure -- than to be one-dimensional on either account.

I strive daily to achieve this ability to dissemble, to balance image with reality. There have been few successes, but the proper perspective has taught me what to look for in the failures. It is a talent to be reckoned with, if ever perfected.  ¶ 4:19 PM

  On Online IQ Tests:

Enormous discrepancies plague the crop of IQ tests available online. I'll review a few here today, and discuss more another time. I scored in a ridiculously large range of 20 points (110 to 130, fairly low might I add), further illustrating the discrepancies.

---

The only professional site I came across, iqtest.com (they'll send you an "official" certificate with your score for only $9.95!) offers a true-false pattern, displaying simple statements that require logic more than computational analysis. The catch is that the faster you finish, the higher the "bonus" you'll get to your score.

What I liked: It only took 9 minutes! There's also a good range of questions in terms of difficulty and topics.

What I disliked: While it covered a wide array of subjects, it touched too lightly on each. I found myself spending very little time per problem. It wasn't that the questions were too easy; rather, most of them lacked depth. Either you knew it or you didn't. Multiple choice would have been much more accurate in curbing random guessing.

Number of tests: 1 Number of questions: 38 Time limit: 13 mins Answers provided? No.

---

The Virtualave IQ test focuses on spatial topology; pattern recognition in letters, numbers, and shapes; and word-play. It's apparently written by a non-english speaker.

What I liked: The visual displays were excellent for shape-pattern recognition and three-dimensional manipulation questions. Also, there were *hard* questions, particularly letter-pattern recognition. It took quite a bit of logical somersaulting to get around some of these.

What I disliked: About 1/5 of the answers provided by the site were wrong, didn't make any sense, or had other problems listed below. A few were ambiguous; for example, giving only 3 numbers and asking you to figure out an analogous (but totally arbitrary) pattern in a another set of 3 (test #2, question #25). The site also includes "which of these doesn't belong"-type questions, with the usual problem of there being too many interpretations. For example: dog, bird, worm, cat, fish. It could be bird, the only one that flies; or fish, the only one that swims. It turns out the answer is worm, the only un-domesticated animal!

Number of tests: 2 Number of questions: 40 Time limit: 40 mins Answers provided? Yes.

---

Majon's test was written by the homepage owner, and is a rehashing of the GRE: antonyms, analogies, logic puzzles, and algebraic word problems.

What I liked: Standard questions, so nothing off-the-wall or egregiously wrong.

What I disliked: It's just like the GRE, so it's rather dull and not a good test of the IQ. The reason I included this site is more for the laugh factor. I got 18/20 right and received a 126 IQ rating for it, not very high. So I went back, corrected the errors, and still only got a 131 for for getting them all right! Looks like the test puts a cap on your IQ.

Number of tests: 3 Number of questions: 20 Time limit: None Answers provided? No.

---

Conclusion: Online IQ tests are a better determinant of the intelligence of the person who wrote it than of the person who takes it. The best bet is to go to your nearest Mensa testing center and get yourself professionally graded. I'm sure other certified companies also exist that have much higher standards of questioning than online sites. Still, IQ tests are an imprecise measurement at best, though the more you take, the more likely is the score an accurate one.  ¶ 5:58 PM