Maths-Felch

The following is the result of a conversation with the eminent blackalicious Professor Ballantine Baines.  This follows on from my request for some classified information. Over to you BB.

“It turns out I don’t command any more attention than anyone else;  Crispy Cream has not replied to my e-mail in the same way as you would have been ignored.  Too much yapping to be done, see; too much updating of Facebook and Bebo, see; too much endless personal phone calls, see . . . there’s just not enough hours in the day for the girl; that girl really should have an assistant.
I’d prefer not prompt her or actually go into her office to find out in person so I can use this as a test of how useless she is.  I’ve devised a simple formula:
IQa
T  x  IQt
where
IQa = average human IQ (which is 100)
T = the time taken to perform a simple unique task in hours
IQt = IQ of test subject
It would be reasonable to expect someone of average intelligence to perform such a task (in case a routine request that would be considered a normal part of the test subject’s daily duties) within an hour.
100
________    =   1
1  x  100
A person who scores above 1 would be regarded as useful, but a score of less than 1 would indicate that they are less than useful.
Also note the formula takes into account and compensates for those with higher than normal or those with subnormal intelligence.
Someone with an IQ of 90 would therefore still be regarded as useful if it took them 1h 6m to accomplish the task, whereas someone with an IQ of 110 would be expected to complete the task in 54 minutes.
I think this is a fair test because it gives the thicker participant a little extra time to perform their task in a sort of mental handicap system.
Based on the axiom that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys, I’ve assumed our test subject’s IQ to be 70, which is the generally accepted IQ of a trained chimpanzee.  I acknowledge that a chimp is not a monkey, but it is merely semantics that the axiom specifies a monkey rather than a chimp, and chimps also like peanuts, so I’m happy it holds as much for great apes as it does for simians.  I also accept that most experts disregard IQ measurements of chimps, dolphins and other animals on the basis that the tests are specifically designed to measure humans near the normal range of intelligence and cannot yield reliable results with animals.  However, our test subject also lies outside of the normal range of human intelligence, so the standardized IQ measurement is as appropriate for a chimp as it is for her!
I’ve devised a logarithmic scale for interpreting the results based on a normal distribution around the mean (or 1).  Unfortunately, I have no empirical data to test this against for reliability and have to rely on the assumptions I’ve made.  As data comes in, it should be possible to adjust the log scale with the addition of constants.
Broadly speaking, a score of 0.9 to 1.1 is deemed normal and allows for standard deviations,
0.5 to  0.9 :   questionable use;
0.33* to 0.5:  marginal useless
0.25 to 0.33:  useless
0.2 and below:  a complete waste of space
on the other side of the equation
1.1 to 2 :  quite useful
2 to 3:  genuinely useful
3 to 4:  very useful
5 and above:  exceptionally useful
For reference, to score 0.2 (a waste of skin) a person of average intelligence needs to take 5 hours or more to accomplish a simple task, whereas to score 5 (exceptionally useful) they need to do this in 12 minutes or less.
For someone of our test subject’s estimated intelligence, a score of 0.2 would require spending 7 hours 9 minutes to perform the task, and to score 5 they would need to do it in just a shade over 17 minutes.
I’ll let you know as soon as I have a result.
Anyway, I’ve found out the information you needed. (13 is the answer – I can do big sums without a calculator despite having only 10 fingers and keeping my boots on!  Top tip: imagine you have extra fingers). This took me approximately 3 minutes to do, which at my IQ gave me a score of 13.79.  I am off the chart in terms of usefulness! That’s enough torture for you for now.

Thanks Ballantine. You know you the man, you know it, you know it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s