Miscellaneous desk
< August 2	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 3

Augustine's Oak

The electric train service has finally arrived between Gospel Oak and Barking. One train leaves Upper Holloway at 23:40 (Monday - Friday) but doesn't call at Gospel Oak at all - it continues to Hampstead Heath, which it reaches at 23:48. There was a similar mystery train in the 2015 summer timetable. Omitting both Barking and Gospel Oak, it started from Woodgrange Park at 07:59 Monday - Friday, reached Hampstead Heath at 08:34 and ended up at Willesden Junction.

Why is this? Is it a throwback to the time when there was a direct passenger service from Barking to St Pancras and no application has been made to the Department of Transport to discontinue passenger services along a particular section of track? 2A00:23C5:CDAD:6500:4F9:80D3:4063:1292 (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy links: Gospel Oak to Barking line, Gospel Oak railway station, Barking station. OP, what did the London Overground say when you asked them this question? Seems like they'd be the ones to know. Matt Deres (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2A00:23C5:CDAD:6500:4F9:80D3:4063:1292: A train proceeding from the Goblin towards Willesden Junction can't call at Gospel Oak, as there is no platform on that line (see this external link which shows the track layout). Assumedly these trains run to get a train back to Willesden TMD, where they are kept. To stop at Gospel Oak, the train would have stop at the platform, then reverse twice to access the line towards Willesden. As to why a train starts at Woodgrange Park, I don't know the exact circumstances, but trains can reverse at Woodgrange Park for the line towards Stratford, where they could go to Liverpool Street or the North London Line. Another reason why some trains take unusual routes is to retain drivers knowledge of the route, in case they have to divert trains along these lines (see this document, which defines the standard for route knowledge).

Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 16:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC) (clarified 17:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, while on the platform at Barking one summer evening I was surprised to see a train on the indicator board bound for Liverpool Street. There are (or were) quite a few of these - they run through Woodgrange Park but don't stop there. 2A00:23C4:7916:5100:B5:BE45:9F68:23D1 (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is the banned user Vote X for Change and his post should have been deleted on sight rather than receiving the above good faith replies. It's unfortunate that I wasn't around at the time to delete the question, but we are where we are. --Viennese Waltz 07:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And humanity's understanding of a neglected commuter line in the north of London has been increased into the bargain. Alansplodge (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes that humanity will be reading this section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What was the person with the highest raw iq?

I heard that IQ is calculated in a way that makes the average score be always 100 and standard deviation be always 15. Is there a way where I can find the person with the highest raw IQ, without this extra bullshit correction? Or any formula to convert the IQ of someone that made the test at an specific date to raw iq?201.18.185.252 (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any standard psychometric measure called "raw IQ". That said, see Flynn effect, which proposes that average intelligence is currently growing (and is likely as high as it has ever been, though I suppose that's harder to check). If that is true, then the person with the highest "raw IQ" of all time may well be the person with the highest IQ now (though, again, it's hard to check; it's certainly possible that there was some more extreme outlier in the past). --Trovatore (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "extra bullshit correction" is how IQ is defined. IQ is, in itself, bullshit. There does not exist an objective definition of intelligence, much less an objective way to measure it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An IQ test primarily tests one's skill at taking IQ tests. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The most elite ultra High IQ Society is the Mega Society with 26 members with percentiles of 99.9999 or 1 in a million." according to Guinness World Records, see [1]. DroneB (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other 7000+ who qualify were apparently smart enough to avoid looking elitist/needy. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What percentage of the Mega Society has been unable to hold down a job? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we're all finished with the virtue signalling, I note that Wikipedia has a long and apparently well-referenced article entitled "g factor (psychometrics)", which presumably addresses such issues and the current evidence regarding them. --Trovatore (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An obvious response to the initial question is that we cannot ever know, because the vast majority of the Earth's population never have their IQ tested. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]