| User | Comment |
|---|
| JessicaWoman99 | | posted 29-Sep-2007 3:26pm |
Just 2 were correct wow |
Enheduanna  | | posted 29-Sep-2007 3:41pm |
7/10. I said pretty much all of them were false, since I tend to be skeptical of outrageous claims, whether they turn out to be true or not. If I were really an editor presented with these statements, I would look them up somewhere. |
cloudhugger  | | posted 29-Sep-2007 3:57pm |
I fooled myself into thinking I was not gullible. I sucked at the test. Some of those 'Myths' have been around so long I swear I learned them in school. |
Frostbrand  | | posted 29-Sep-2007 4:49pm |
8. Damn I'm good. |
Crayons  | | posted 29-Sep-2007 4:58pm |
8. I'm really skeptical actually. |
| Iseult | | posted 29-Sep-2007 6:08pm |
I got 8 right. |
| MacGregor | | posted 29-Sep-2007 7:23pm |
I got six correct. I don't really know if it's an accurate measurement of how gullible I am although it was interesting. |
| ausfox | | posted 29-Sep-2007 8:04pm |
Gullable? Anyway, I got 5 correct |
paulyw  | | posted 29-Sep-2007 8:53pm |
7 correct. I think I did fairly well.  |
| RGirl | | posted 29-Sep-2007 9:23pm |
6 correct. I don't know about this measuring gullibility because often truth is stranger than fiction. |
| ultamate | | posted 29-Sep-2007 11:27pm |
I got 7 right. I never heard a lot of those so I just guessed. |
| mrmarm | | posted 30-Sep-2007 3:12am |
I only got two wrong. |
| mrmarm | | posted 30-Sep-2007 3:14am |
I think I got 5 and 7 wrong, the scientist shock wave thing and the turtle one, but I got accidentally put True instead of False. SO technically I got nine. |
| jettles | | posted 30-Sep-2007 9:19am |
i got 6 correct. |
| Iseult | | (reply to RGirl) posted 30-Sep-2007 12:02pm |
I don't know about test being competely accurate measure of gullibility, however, I just had fun doing it, and thought other people might, too. |
| Biggles | | posted 30-Sep-2007 2:52pm |
I got 9/10 - just got the question about turtles never dying of old age wrong. But I still think that "never" is a bit too strong - "negligible senescence" doesn't mean "no senescence". |
| thecomic22 | | posted 30-Sep-2007 6:00pm |
Not very. |
| Enigma | | posted 30-Sep-2007 11:44pm |
I'm sure I've read loads of stuff about lightening having photographic qualities though. And seen pictures from reputable people, but apparently not if I believe that site. |
| moviesnob | | posted 1-Oct-2007 10:09am |
6/10 |
| cerealkiller |
3 correct. We have oriental cockroaches that live in the yard.... I'll have to test the living without the head theory. |
dab  | | (reply to Biggles) posted 1-Oct-2007 8:34pm |
Apparently there's some work out there that shows that animals in the wild do not die from old age. In more concrete terms, their chances of dying does not increase with increasing age. |
| Maarten |
6 of 10 correct.
I got the following stories wrong: cockroaches, monkeys, ducks and turtles.
|
| EyesOfCharisma |
4 correct... Although I am not sure what this has to do with gullability |
| FauxLo | | posted 12-Oct-2007 2:58pm |
FoxTurtle got 7 out of 10, so... |
| autumnlight |
7/10 |
| southernyankee | | posted 25-Nov-2007 12:03am |
8 / 10.
The only ones I marked true was the turtle one and the gravity one (high school physics, the poles are closer to the center of the earth than the equator, hence more gravity).
Damn, I almost wish I were a turtle. Although you would eventually run out of brain cells because they don't replenish themselves. |
| southernyankee | | (reply to Biggles) posted 25-Nov-2007 12:05am |
I would have guessed that they would eventually run out of brain cells. |
