debi says i'm getting up in six hours. hm. that should be fun. i think this is going under the category of "we will have fun *now*!" *grin* should be good, though. i wonder if i'll survive our little excursion. mountainy things are fun, but i'm a wuss. eh, not really, i'm just not in terribly good shape right now.

oh, and amusingly enough i can now document that. i got bored (again) today and looked at someone else's blog for no particular reason. a few days back she visited this site, and i felt inspired to do the same. consequently, i now have a model that looks only somewhat like me. they have no options for long hair, and really how could anyone capture face with two questions? eh. *shrug*

in any case, i shared the wealth with genarti, and so now we both have figures that have severely deficient amounts of hair. i'm almost tempted to try and fix it. i like fuddling with images. it's great fun.

the other site that was featured in that particular blog rather offended me. *grin* apparently i'm only worth *exactly* $1,888,180.00. i have no idea where they come up with this from... i think i'm getting major negative points for physicality and family history of diabetes, bloody pressure, etc. i object to their categories, to some extent, though. vagueness abounds. plus i don't have actual stats on my iq, so i took kathryn's estimate. (kat says, "mine is one forty five, and you must be smarter than me, so...") somehow i don't think that it can be valid. not that these things really mean half of what they're supposed to, but still.

the issue with iq is that it measures logical, mathematical and lingual skills, and nothing else. granted my logical and mathematical skills should be above average, and my lingual skills should be excellent, actually, but nonetheless, these do not strike me as things i would call my strong suits. i'd be thrilled if howard gardener turned out to be correct. of course he's progressed from the seven intelligences i was required to learn (lingual, logical/mathematical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, musical, kinesthetic, and spatial--whew! i forgot the seventh!), but at the time... i was looking at these and feeling pretty good about them. i have to be pretty good at lingual, logical, musical, and intrapersonal, i think, plus i'd say i'm probably around average with interpersonal, kinesthetic and spatial. how can i go wrong? =Þ

looking at things like iq and sats i simultaneously feel like a) they're not valid measures of self, b) they're not evaluating me to my best advantage, and c) they still make me look good because they're so much worse for others. so i'll rant about how meaningless all this is, but i still get all uppity about how i happen to do well with these tests. *rolls eyes* at least i'm aware of my idiocy and hypocrisy.

in any case, kat claims she thinks my iq should be at least one fifty, probably more, but i claim that it's just odd if that's true. i wonder if the idea of genius has really been degraded that much for it to be said i can be on that level. what does genius mean anyhow? i think my conception of it certainly bars me from its holy gates. blergh. i really do believe that, don't i? i worship intelligence. argh. bad me!

anyhow, i've been contemplating intelligence too much of late anyhow, and i refuse to dwell on it more. plus it's also quarter of three and i'm supposed to be out of the house by nine. right. ok. i'll catch on sleep on monday night on the plane ride? that's a blatant lie. umm. ok, i'll just learn to live with five hours sleep a night. seems to be what i'm getting if i like it or not. eh. g'night.
posted by Unknown at 1:55 AM