/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1784616]

rage thread?

So i just got back from an interview, as part of the interview I did a numeracy language test. It was all simple stuff, but one question made me RAGE. As part of the test they gave you a word, you then had to pick the a word from a list of 5 with the most similar meaning. So the moderator didn't have the answer sheet in front of him, he said he didn't need it.
Here's the word: Invaluable
and here's the two relevant options:
Worthless
Valuable

You can probably guess where i'm going with this. Obviously i chose valuable, but apparently, that's wrong and INvaluable means worthless. Being that it was a job interview and i am a huge pussy, i politely disagreed to no avail.

[Anonymous No.1784626]

I suppose one could argue that "invaluable" means that one cannot quantify/qualify its value. "Valuable" means that you can assign a value to it. In this sense they are direct opposites.

Most people would probably agree that something that is "invaluable" is actually SO "valuable" that it goes beyond all description, but that's just the connotation most people assign to it.

"Worthless" means to most people that it has NO worth, however. "Worth" is not a perfect synonym for "value" in my mind, but to some people that might be the case.

[Anonymous No.1784631]

>>1784626
>one could argue that "invaluable" means that one cannot quantify/qualify its value

then wouldn't it be "UN-valuable"

OP is right.

in·val·u·a·ble

adjective /inˈvalyo͞oəbəl/ 

Extremely useful; indispensable
- an invaluable source of information

[Anonymous No.1784637]

Bump for moar rage

[Anonymous No.1784643]

>>1784631
>>1784626


I agree with OP as well, but I'm trying to play devil's advocate. People usually don't believe stuff just for the hell of it. I'm sure that the guy conducting the interview had some sort of rationale for his decision; I was trying to guess at what that might be.

Other possibility: Interviewer was irl troll.

[Anonymous No.1784645]

>>1784616
Inflammable means flammable? What a country!

[deleted No.1784649]

1/10

OP Chose Worthless but thought it would be funny to go on 4chan and argue the opposite in an attempt to be original and funny.

[deleted No.1784655]

>>1784631
There is just no way someone can be this dumb.

Let me guess, you think the Opposite of Visible is Unvisible too?

[Donne !!+SByMppsy+r No.1784670]

Are you sure it wasn't a completely different test, designed to see if you had the guts to pipe up? The lack of the answer sheet would support that.

[satago110 No.1784672]

>>1784655
Uninvisible: excellent album by Medeski Martin and Wood.

[Anonymous No.1784674]

>>1784670
possible, but highly unlikely.

[Anonymous No.1784676]

>>1784655

the definition any is right, there is no other meaning for invaluable.

box - boxes

ox -oxen

our language is whats retarded

[Anonymous No.1784683]

>>1784631
>>1784655

>implying that English actually follows a set of rules that are ubiquitous and logical

it's English guys... we do whatever the fuck we want, because we have a terrible time following rules, so we just fucking make more rules that we then again don't follow all the time and create a shitstorm... it really is the American way.

Just sayin."

[Anonymous No.1784685]

>>1784655

I once listened to someone defend Scientology as a more valid belief system than Christianity because it was based on science. I once listened to someone denounce evolution by claiming that its assertion that cavemen raped dinosaurs in order to produce hybrid species was insane.

I wholeheartedly believe that there are people who are this stupid. I have encountered them. Their beliefs are incorrect, but they still must be based on some sort of logic. Idiots operate on some sort of framework. Operation without a framework is the province of madmen.

In answer to your question: no, I don't think that the opposite of "visible" is "unvisible", I think the opposite of "visible" is "invisible". Is it safe to assume that someone who used the word "unvisible" in a sentence meant "invisible" and is simply ignorant?

[Anonymous No.1784688]

>>1784685

You were doing great there up until that last sentence, bro.

[Anonymous No.1784703]

>>1784688

I take it you don't get out much. Try riding a bus around sometime. You'll learn a thing or two about people. These things will depress you, but that's life.

[Anonymous No.1784715]

>>1784631

I posted this and I am not stupid, nor was a making any serious argument about anything

Interested

Uninterested


There you fuckin pricks!

[Anonymous No.1784717]

This was really a test of how well you will tow party line even when it's against your rational judgement.

No one in the company is consciously aware they're running this sort of test. Nevertheless this sort of political filter will always exist in some form no matter who is doing the applicant review process.

When applying for employment, you will always be confronted with a questions that seem so ridiculous they must be a tricks: an honesty test. The reverse is true. They are dishonesty tests. Telling the employer what it wants to hear, o mater how insipid, is always rewarded. Sticking with honest answers will eliminate you from consideration.

[Anonymous No.1784725]

This was really a test of how well you will tow party line, even when it's against your rational judgement.

No one in the company is consciously aware they're running this sort of test. Nevertheless this sort of political filter will always exist in some form no matter who is doing the applicant review process.

When applying for employment, you will always be confronted with questions that seem so ridiculous they must be tricks. The naive will assume they're honesty tests. The reverse is true. They are dishonesty tests. Telling the employer what it wants to hear, no mater how insipid, is always rewarded. Sticking with honest answers will eliminate you from consideration.

[Anonymous No.1784726]

>>1784715

I'll just go ahead and be that guy:

The opposite of "interested" is "terested"

[Anonymous No.1784729]

likable - unlikable

valuable - unvaluable (invaluable is taken)

I see nothing wrong with this.

[Anonymous No.1784745]

>>1784670
>completely different test

That was my first thought
That would tell you more about a person than knowing a word

[satago110 No.1784821]

>>1784726
What are you ferring? Or are you inferring?
Lords, I wove them!

[deleted No.1784834]

>>1784726

actually its rested.

lrn2english

[deleted No.1784839]

>>1784821

he was uninferring that actually

[Anonymous No.1784868]

>>1784821
>>1784839

I wasn't "inferring"; you were "inferring". I was "replying".

[Anonymous No.1784873]

>senior year of high school
>Christian Existence (bullshit class, Catholic school, ho-hum)
>in our notes our teacher used the word quantum to describe something extremely large, I don't recall the context
>I point out that quantum means extremely small, not large
>he brushes me off with, "I don't know I'll have to look that up"
>never mentions it again
>end of the year, comprehensive exam worth one half of my grade
>one of the 250 scantron question refers to "the quantum extent of space" (or something like that) in a true or false
>the answer he wants to put is true, but because he doesn't know what fucking quantum means it's false
>can't tell him, he's not the moderator for my test
>put false, maintain pride, lose points

[Anonymous No.1784881]

>>1784873
> yfw quantum means discrete unit and has no inherent reference to size

[FM No.1784884]

>>1784725
> tow party line

[FM No.1784889]

>>1784873
> mfw when you didn't follow up to complain about the question

[Anonymous No.1784900]

>>1784881

For some reason I always took "quantum" as referring to the smallest possible discrete unit.

[Anonymous No.1784909]

>>1784900
Someone should have paid attention more in their bullshit classes...