random pic!

right

wrong pic!

132 and smart enough to know that IQ tests mean very little.

Unless you're a total retard the only thing that matters is being happy. If you can do that, you're smarter than most on this earth.

I often see people who i know I'm a shitload smarter than (you know when you walk into a room and just know you're the best looking or the smartest etc, or you meet some girl or boy and feel happy for them that they get to sleep with you cos they're not the best lookers etc), but i think those with limited intelligence are easier to please and so end up being happier in life with a mortage and kids.

To me that's a loser existence, but to others, that's paradise.

Intelligence is related to the question in hand, but iq tests assume the things they test for are what matter. IMO they are not.

Good excuse to use if you're one of those butt hurt types with a sub avg iq aswell!

is that in regular or lethe iq points?

yeah same here, i have 250 but i don't go around bragging, since it means NOTHING.

again, 250

:D

:D

Please. Stop. Posting.

I kinda like it, just 'cause his posts are semi-well written ppl fall for them every time.

edit: What makes me a better troll than Jamerio is that my IQ is 8-10 points higher than his.

9/10 times hes isn't even trolling. That's the worst part. I am starting to feel sorry for this fella!

Add up those hours and aspirations you put into gaming and think about what you actually achieved with them.

Tee-Hee-Hee!

He's a fat, annoying moron that posts comments all day on a gaming website?

Chill out man, everytime you get angry the local volcano blows.

Don't worry we can always sacrifice a virgin. You free on Saturday?

Painting your cock red and tricking your nephew into thinking its a ketchup bottle that need a good shaking doesn't mean you've lost your virginity. Save me the trip and jump in yourself.

Well at least you are creative in using food in your sex life.

In the last post I was a virgin, now you're complementing me on my sex life. Sorry old boy, when you can maintain some kind of consistency/logic to your trolls then I'll humour you further.

In the meantime, enjoy the economy and ash clouds :)

I was thinking more along the lines that you put peanut butter on your dick and arse. Then your husky licks it off clean. I would think that still makes you a virgin.

Sorry, I already made this retort 6 years ago with a similar running theme.
Oh and look, what a massive co-incidence it just happened to impact you.

I'm so far in your head when you think you're taking the piss your ego is actually trying to undo the damage I did to it 6 years ago.

Don't you own a husky? Probably a fat bastard like since it all it eats is peanut butter.

Bye.

Do you also rub peanut butter on your nipples for foreplay?

right on

what test did you take?

IQ does measure something, it's a very limited scope, but still something.

probably one on the internet :)

the only people that really get testing in real life are those who need psychological help, because those are the people who normally do these types of tests, with their patients.

so you're either a wackjob, or you did your test on the internet.

not really.

They are also frequently used for advice on school career, e.g.

Your insight into the use of I.Q. tests is highly amusing.

dude, we're on the same page here.

we both know they mean nothing,

i mean, the difference between 132 and 250 is still devastating, but we're on the same page.

why lose 2 world wars with that IQ?

been posting on gaming forums too much

fuck :(

We're not on the same page at all, you're now trying to imply they were invalid across the board when in the last post (before you made yourself look stupid) you were trying to tie them into something else in order to get one over me.

1)Implying they are taken by people with mental health issues.
2) or that the online versions were invalid.

I.E. you placed worth in them when it suited you.

Its only when you publically demostrated your limited knowledge into how they are used, you back pedelled :)

can't have it both ways, you took a shot and fucked up, dont worry, its not like you're the only one.

the online free versions are surely invalid

"so you're either a wackjob, or you did your test on the internet."

That's not what was put forward, secondly, there are more than two variables.

Yes. So could you specify what test did you take? I'm just curious, not going to go apeshit over it.

Psychological obv.

Jamerio: "you see doctor, there is a whole demographic that hates me and my sucksess. Every single coment I make on esrealty is meet with all this hostility by a bunch of fat unemployed nerds and Kraut's and eastern European peasant's and nazis and then I wrote that Muslim's blew up Oslo and ranted then when it turned out that those infallib... infalabla.. infaloab... hard word, ignore it doctor bad acts were done by someone with similar views as me then everybody started projecting. And ignignokt bad man and stalks me please kill him doctor or make him stop.

Doctor: ignignokt the 2dimensional character from an Adult Swim cartoon?

Jamerio: no docter he is from Iceland and fat please reset his basis of comparison or report him to the GVT

Psychotherapist: OK. I'm about to ask you a bunch of questions and I want them answered immediately.

Jamerio: ok.

Dr. Mindbender, Psychoanalyst: who is your daddy and what does he do?

Jamerio: my dad is Welsh like

Dr. Milo Mindbender, PD MD of M & M MEDICAL PRACTICE: CONGRATULATION JAMERIO, YOU HAVE AN IQ OF 132, YOU ARE A BIG BOY NOW!!!!

Jamerio: ok grate I go brag about this on esreality by acting like I'm not even bragging about it now so all the jealous projecting fat nerds start getting more jealou's and then I will end the post in a smiley face :) oh and then edit it several time's $$

wow, you're kinda creepy.

QUICK GUYS PLUS IT AND MAKE IT A REALITY IN YOUR LITTLE ONLINE WORLDS!!!!

He just summed up your life.

Aww that hurts, I mean you're always so impartial and neutral when it comes to me.

Silly Jamerio, esreality != reality

done

No, because you're still hung up on the fact that if an iq test is taken online its invalid.

If you had not fallen for that fallacy your question would not be what it was, so by answering the wrong question I'm fascillating your inaccurate views, but by educating, I'm changing your views so you have the intelligence to not ask the silly questions.

In a demographic which is known for escapism I can undestand this will rub some of you the wrong way and you may vent in whatever self convincing ways keep you company, but that only tells me its working.

IF you were as perfect as you deem yourself to be, you'd not try to escape such easy questions. If I'm stupid, a smart observer will see it - so there's nothing to fear for you. And yet, you evade. Who's the escapist?

I'm not escaping anything, because you still publically demonstrate that you somehow place negative value in online testing.

If I say I did it online, you'll say the scores are irrelevant if I say I did it irl, you'll say its because im a wackcjob, its not really difficult to see where this is going. At least for someone of my intelligence and your predictability.

Online is nothing more than a delivery method for serving content, you're trying to tarnish the content without knowing the source. Look at how some of you waste your lives playing 1000's of hours of videogames a year, while some people are obtaining online degrees or skills that they put into motion in real life?

P.S.
As for being perfect, I think you must be confusing that with the bafta winning perfect dark. I'm sure if I said that you would be able to quote it below, unless that's too close to reality.

This is both ridiculous and highly amusing. I could go on to call you an idiot or do anything else after you post what test it was - it should not affect how a smart observer would view you, only me. So who cares what views I have, as long as you do not?

I could go on to tell you that I understand the things you wrote about the internet in more detail, but I have better things to do. It's common sense, and if you need something to fill your posts with, find something more relevant.

The same goes for all the "most of you are nerds with no life" jabber.

If I cared what views you had I would give in to what you ask.

I'm educating you by saying the things you are asking are pointless and flawed and have no worth.

if we calculate in the number of sheep in wales, 132 sounds about right.

Bye.

leaving so soon?

The answer on what exact test you took is valuable.

Everything else is straw man attacks by you, even if it might've seemed like my position at first it's pretty obvious by now that I don't believe everything online to be worthless or anything similar.

he took some easy online test that you're supposed to do in like 20 mins then he grinded it for 3 days by trial and error and came up with that number.

he might as well have scored 132 on a serious test, but that's not nearly as funny I guess

he might as well have won a bafta, earned millions and ran 3 businesses. who knows?

Well the bafta was a "team effort" :D

I'd guess it's likely as not he's saying the truth, how sad would it be to lie about it for all those years... I couldn't imagine myself doing that.

well bafta winning millionaires are known for writing huge rants on gaming forums and responding to every post about them. they're persistent people.

if the bafta win is hardly associated, he earned 5, not 6 figures and spent all of it, and now runs unsuccessful business(es)... :D

Still a bit left! Count em' and weep.

*weeps*

y not?

what u r implying? That we r a shithole where only shit ppl visit and write?

there is a bit of a gap between "shit people" (whatever that means but I presume you mean jamerio) and bafta winning millionaires.

Chill bro, your benefits will paid in anytime soon, I can feel it.

Its awesome how much I got inside your head :)

As soon as I learnt that IQ test scores are normalised every so many years, I realised just how little these scores mean....

The 'average' intelligence is, in some sense, going up. It needs to be normalised to account for it. Where's the problem?

I think I've had this exact discussion with you before : D

I think so :D

I don't think it is going up, but down

Yep, the Flynn-effect has reversed "recently" and the average is going down afaik. But this doesn't matter, it has to be normalised every ~8 years anyway.
Possibly the reason for this is, that the IQ tests were designed to test the typical curriculum of the school education. As the curriculums change, the IQs "go down", because the tests no longer test what the kids learn at school.

I suppose that not everyone knows that not all IQ tests have the same standard deviation, so e.g. an IQ of 130 doesn't necessarily mean you're 2 SDs above the average of your reference population.


I don't even think that the world map with the average IQs has any meaning, unless it's been created by handing out an IQ test which is normalised for the entire population of the world. And I highly doubt there is one. :D

This is full of win imo. Hughly Rekomand :D

the best tests are compared and their numbers are converted.

I think the American tests are harder to score >140 or so when compared to their European counterparts.

But how exactly?

I can only image they do this pretty abitrarily, because most IQ tests aren't even designed with the IRT.

And I don't think the Classical Test Theory has any methods to compare a dozen different IQ tests in a fair and appriopriate way. Hell, there aren't even proper methods to design a single test that has an appropriate scaling.

Honestly I hardly have any clue, I'm just posting what I've heard


http://www.intelligencetest.com/stan-deviation.htm

http://www.intelligencetest.com/report/index.htm

http://www.iqout.com/statistics.php

http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/psychology/iq-conversion.html

The harder, more well-respected tests are often analyzed and compared, but the conversion cannot be perfect obviously.

those links are only about basic statistic, they don't explain how various different IQ tests are compared, which imo can't be done, if they use lots of different tests.

edit: The "iqout.com" seems to be designed with the Item-Response Theory and applies Adaptive Testing, so this _might_ actually work. That's pretty interesting, I'll look into it. :D

Help stupid people find their place and function in life by exploiting them for your own gains having at the same time segregated yourself from the mob!

you can take it right away for your presentation about penissizes with some legend tweaks. the world is so fascinating

Dont see why Poles having fairly high IQ are funny...

And this whole IQ is just crap... ability to spot and connect is way less important than having wisdom...

You do know that IQ tests don't test wisdom?

ok now i know why ppl find polands IQ funny...

that was my point sherlock... as i wrote: IQ<Wisdom... doh

:FFF

^
|
|

this guy is dumb editer

My bad, I read it wrong. Still disagree, though.

On a side note, if you still use IE then you're retarded


http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=249492



trokolololololOlolLol

I know that IQ tests arent perfect, but being from the country with the highest score from south america feels cool tbh :D

what are you trying to say? fucking american idiot?

'sup, Africa?

'sup, Denmark?

lmao

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread....ost2357132

"It is funny though, that Poland is considered fairly high in IQ."

lol

"Do you try to segregate yourself from them?"

Don't need to put any effort into trying, a person with IQ 160 is mentally as close to a normal person as a normal person is to someone that is clinically retarded and requires support to function daily.

hmm I don't see you as clinically retarded who requires support to function daily

That's because I'm a few dozen IQ points ahead of you.

it doesn't go that high and it means nothing anyway

you clearly understood nothing about the concept of the IQ tests.

The test statistic of IQ tests is (assumed to be) normally distributed, an IQ of 160 (with mean=100 and sd=15) means that 0.003167124 % of the reference population have a higher IQ than you. And that's possible, of course.

Accordingly, an IQ of 40 means that 0.003167124 % of the reference population have a lower IQ than you. And yes, this also happens. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation#IQ_below_70

you clearly understood nothing about the concept of the IQ tests

to what u r referring? To “it doesn’t go that high” or to “it means nothing”?

both, but I only found the first part worth explaining why.

I know about IQ tests and have done plenty. I don’t like them, but I enjoy solving the questions of the really hard ones (that go beyond 140 and up to 200).

IQ tests measure IQ, whatever that is, but they certainly don’t measure intelligence (maybe a small part of it).

If you read more carefully the posts above, you will understand that I wasn’t implying that IQ doesn’t go as high as 160, but as high as 160 + few dozen IQ points (it all depends on what few translates to though).

thnks for the explanation anw

the issue of broader meaning of scores above a certain limit is the interesting part; i've always wondered how far the concept can be extended in a meaningful way

it's still interesting above 160 though; I remember reading a study noting a qualitative shift in style of thinking around 180. the cases of extreme IQ children with prodigious gifts is another fact.

however, it is easily imagined/understood - and i think this has been shown too - that idiosyncrasies can lead people to scores above or below the level the score is generally correlated with.

this last point may undermine the validity of extreme outliers: since if 1 of 1000 score say, 2 deviations above their norm, and say 150 is 2 deviations above 120 (and 150 is also 1 in 1000), then it is as likely that someone scoring 150 is 120 as 150.

but i have a suspicion that this 2 deviations above idea is rather nonsense on (real) full person to person tests. and i think most people above 160 etc. are usually diagnosed in primary school due to obvious genuine problems anyway x)

y i no write less :( kiss <3

"idiosyncrasies can lead people to scores above or below the level the score is generally correlated with."

such as?

Well, let me just expand a bit on that.

These tests are usually made to get at the g-factor (general intelligence). In each case, they use some indirect measure, i.e. some kind of IQ-test, to get at the score. The standard for each IQ-test is how well it correlates with this g-factor.

For instance. The Raven Progressive Matrices (RPM) uses figure-reasoning to get at general intelligence. Since this test is cheap, quick, and relatively culture free and yet has a high correlation to general intelligence, it is very popular.

Another kind of test is to use vocabulary to get a general intelligence. Both these kinds of tests have a very high correlation to general intelligence, but the vocabulary test is obviously not "culture free" and depending on the upbringing etc. can raise or lower scores artificially.

While it is easy to see how a vocabulary test can be "artificially" high for some people, it might not be so obvious in other cases. Still, in the RPM case, a certain type of autism or picture-thinking generally, will also artificially raise the score. In other cases, such as ADHD, the kid may get an artifically low score depending on time limit and so on.

So every test - relative to the statistical aggregate called the g-facor - have their faults relative to measuring it. The point is merely that some may - accidentally relative to what is meant to be measured - be especially suited to certain tests.

In any case, as i mentioned at the end, things like ADHD, autistic thinking, flawless memory or prodigious vocabulary, will be also be assessed in rigorous psychological intelligence testing, and will not accidentally raise or lower the score one way or another.

oh ok, that actually made sense. I was testing to see weather you knew what you were talking about or you just took random words and pressed 'post'.(what you usually do) :)

Actually I think it's the fact that i'm just in a really good mood atm. Got an email reply from someone I really admire and got a friendly imsg on here after i explained another post to someone else. A good circle, yay. Also got a gf, so i'm on some sort of even more fluffly cloud than usual. Was outrageously going to start the post with <3, lol.

good good :)

:)

I'm pretty skeptical of the utility of "IQ" in the first, but admitting its validity for the sake of argument, you're not allowing for potentially diminishing returns.

There are no "diminishing returns" because of how the scale works. It's just a matter of being smarter/dumber than 99,999% of the average population.

And diminishing returns do not work on any meaningful scale in terms of sociability, there have been studies that a person with (for example) IQ 160 will feel similarly out of place in a group of people with IQ 130, as someone with IQ 130 will feel out of place in a group of people with IQ 100.

That study sounds interesting. Do you have any idea where to find it?
Only bit of info i've gathered on the topic are indications (iirc) that something qualitative happens around 180.

I'll take your word for the first part of your comment since I haven't studied the actual IQ metric or mathematics, but the latter part of your comment seems to be a "sociological" issue, which to me is philosophy rather than a hard science, and therefore, I think, extremely subjective.

I'm leery of studies like those, but that's not to say they don't have some value. I'm just quite cynical concerning their conclusions.

Without knowing how smart you actually are, haven't you ever been talking to someone (preferably a group of people) and felt out of place because you are more intelligent than they are? I'm not talking about some superiority complex, more like you feel that they have different interests, different views, different (less adequate) reasoning, etc.

That's essentially how someone much more intelligent than you would feel about you. A huge difference in intelligence does not allow for mutual understanding in the same way people with similar intelligence would relate. This is especially apparent in children, while being somewhat less noticeable in adults.

This is not to say more intelligent people are fundamentally better than less intelligent people, but they will usually be quite different from them.

Without knowing how smart you actually are, haven't you ever been talking to someone (preferably a group of people) and felt out of place because you are more intelligent than they are?

all morning today on ESReality. look through my post history. I do think that perhaps I have some moral reservations about the implications of such an idea, and I would probably consider myself to be more toward the higher end of the IQ spectrum rather than lower (as if my asessment is meaningful).

in principle what you're saying makes some manner of sense, but what I'm saying is that I'm not sure that translates very well into reality. comfortability is one thing, but do we have concrete evidence that there is a direct relationship between the level of intelligence and the difficulties of conversation? in my mind, I feel as though most humans are at least capable of performing on higher levels, if not the highest. I've got no issues with someone being innately better at reasoning, I suppose, but I would like to think this can be learned as well.

it could certainly be that there is some subgroup of humans who've perhaps managed to become more intelligent on average, and with the vastness of the universe, I'd say it's quite likely there's probably been intelligent life at some point which may or may not have passed our own form of it in its ability (I'd guess it's likely that has indeed happened, as well). but as far as us humans are concerned in the here and now, I am not sure that being of greater ability necessarily translates into some great schism of intelligent discourse, or whatever.

I am not sure what about the metric of the IQ might preclude diminishing returns. I see what you are saying: any point along the curve is exactly relative in one-one-to correspondence to the next, but this is merely the scale itself, and has no bearing on how exactly we measure the human mind to apply these points on the scale to it in some way. for that reason it seems somewhat self-evident that the difference between someone who's mentally retarded with an IQ of say, 60, and someone who's of average or slightly greater intelligence wouldn't be directly comparable to someone who's of great intelligence, but not the greatest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC2TTslf_YM

robot-o

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2...018764.htm

it's understandable

cute -_-

omg, Lithuanians are so dumb :))

looks like a page from Chinese intellectual supremacy propaganda, though all this IQ is used to work on iphone assembly line while inhaling toxic fumes :D

toxic fumes aint even mad, they just killing

Iq measures the individuals ability to understand abstraction but not with associative learning. It correlates with academic success IIRC

For those who find spinning logos boring can read up on the controversy here:

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/

Imagination > Knowledge

> < <

Tell that to Einstein :p

he'd reconcile the claims in grand unification :D

how uk has 100 and us 95? they are so stoopid

I hope you understand that the picture has absolutely nothing to do with the title of this thread, right? It's a pic from a very controversial book written by some random guy.

oh

ty

np.)

I was trying to help at the first post too, just nobody cared;)

so its all bullshit?

Sorry, i don't know the answer to that question. If you ask for my personal opinion, I think it's not "all bullshit" but the authors were wrong, and the pic is incorrect.

due to humans doing more and more intellectual activities the global iq probably raises ... it's also trained ... but somehow I feel sorry for all those guys nowadays ... you see all these fat kids in the swimming pool nowadays ... you know they have experienced nothing in their life than school and pc games ... you know they never were going out ... they all lack something, and they are not really trained for being competetive ... they just did schoolshit ... and then they maybe know fantasybooks ... personally I am just annoyed by this ... I really think they should enter more sport competitions and go bit out more and experience also some nature ... imho physical workouts and experiences in nature have also a positive effect on the iq ...

quote lisa (the simpsons): "i want to live in a world where high IQ is an asset, not a liability"

nothing to add

Asia?

IHV LIKE 135 OR SO.. AND WHY IS IT FUNNY THAT POLAND HAS HIGH IQ? they r smart people they hv done great things troughout histor and continue to do so.. its just that most people here are so stupid they dont know much about history other than what they see in movies or what they picked up in their history class, and then talk nonsens. Also coz polish people dont speak english well like the rest they look more stupid.

that makes you EVEN SMARTER than jamerio!! WHOA

he was trolling u

they r smart people they hv done great things troughout histor

no one has made a comment about our Chinese overlords yet?

When you consider the average human mental health is ok, and you are batshit crazy, what do you do with yourself? Do you spend your life harassing 'sane' people? Do you try to help them? Do you try to segregate yourself from them? Is there really a way to change their sanity, or is it simply genetic?

It is funny though, that Poland cannot into space.

Its idiotic that some people claim that IQ is in your genes, facts tell the true story which is: your IQ is totally dependant on your education and your personal values. Some idiots tend to say that niggers are stupid, cuz its in their genes. Niggers are stupid, because their culture embraces behavior that tends to lead low IQ.

Also truth is that in the end all that matters is happiness. Usually stupid people are more happy than wise, cuz they dont regonize all the shit they should. We can argue is it more enjoyable to live a life as a dumb nigger or high IQ scandic, but the fact is that if they both get equal living stantards the dumb nigger will be happier.

ps. i am not a racist, using word nigger cuz i feel theres no reason to use it.

Anonymous swede already posted a serious discussion published in 2005 in Psychology, Public Policy, and Law here. Different perspectives, lots of stats, and a chance to make up your mind. Btw, it seems that normal range of cognitive ability doesn't have much to do with happiness.

You forget which is arguably the N1 factor deciding intelectual development, the quality of your social relationships. Your brain reconfigures itself as you grow, and more quickly the younger you are. Mothers out of the house, uninspiring teachers, ezquizoid cartoons, cocktail of chemical ingredients in all the crap that most fathers buy to their kids, violence, fluoride (rat poison), vaccines with mercury... Till 1950 you had Einstein, Bohr, Planck and his quantum revolution, Tesla and his mindblowing research, just to name a few.

Cause and effect of population control.

Usually the most innovative and genious are madmen according to the system our society uses nowadays. Instead of supporting them we put them to psychiatrics to normalize them, therefore minimazing possiblity for new crazy stuff. Take autism for instance, it gives one a chance to have incredible brainpower towards one thing, but instead of gift we view this as disease.

Also truth is that nowadays making big discovery is a TON harder than before, you need to get a shit ton of knowledge before you can go and research. Also things that havent been solved are ofc the things that even these genious back then couldnt solve, therefore they are extremely complex and even possibly need development in other sciences in order to be able to be solved.

Also back then we had so few committed and educated scientists so names stick out. Nowadays we have instead groups of scientists whose combined productivity and inventivity is many times more than any of those you named (aside from einstein)

http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la...1470.story

you know how biased those test prolly were? For example they take child whose parents have high IQ and compare him to child with parents with low IQ.. Its obvious that child with high IQ parents grows higher IQ since he will be significantly better breeded.

For non-biased test, take a nigger child and plant him into asian high IQ family and let them teach him the asian values and culture. You will amaze how he is capable of getting as high IQ as his foster parents. There are plenty of studies done in us from college IQ deviation between "races", what they concluded was that your enviroment and mindset defines 90% of your braincapasity

I guess we'll never know, but the article says it's gene differences alone that make the percentages.

you mean chink high IQ family?

twin studies about that exist. e.g. here:

http://txtwriter.com/onscience/Articles/intelligence.html

They say you are wrong.

To clarify, it is not linked to any racial features, just people who share identical genes!

Interesting colour theory, though one of course which I had entertained myself. I think you hit the nail on the head.

Good for you.

No one has mentioned the biggest factors: food and health care?

IQ tests are great for Privileged First World White Males who wants a number to reinforce their superiority to Others.

I consider myself to have a fairly IQ. I am extremely poor in solving mathematic puzzles etc. I might be quite eloquent as I speak three languages of which two are on native tongue level. But do I consider myself smart? Not at all.

Sure, I scored an average of 1.3 this semester but that is about it. I rate ability to make others happy way higher than being able to solve a complicated equation. Most of the time I commit myself to the idea of Altruism because that is how I usually derive happiness. Sometimes that backfires because I think less about me than others creating quite the challenge for myself to sustain that "happiness".

Okay, I think I'm messed up.

Being smart is for me being able to look into a complicated issue with hardly any prior knowledge. With research in the given matter, one should be able to unlock the problem in due time. This is what I learned while studying and I find this to be very applicable to other parts of life.

"I rate ability to make others happy way higher than being able to solve a complicated equation"

blowjob > science

158 and dumb as fuck when it comes to most things.

what's an iq, some kinda mammal?

Ultimate proof that IQ is worthless.

I was waiting for either you or tourist to say that, perhaps not so woàrthless after all