/sci/ - Science & Math

CUNT

WORD

BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL WORDS

SHIT

BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL SHIT

This is a puzzle for a prize :D so dont post here, submit it for a chance at a prize

http://www.mensa.org.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=1475&u=pg_dtl_art_news&m=pg_hdr_art

I think the answer is Part. At least, that can be added to all of the words. Not sure if that works for "connects".

>>1544795

Part-own?

Explain?

Own high ridge high time high way?

Lol

Does it work?

Do they connect into a single word or just sentence?

what's a partridge? isn't that a name?

>>1544798

as in, not fully own.

For things like greyhounds and horses, you can part-own them as part of a syndicate. I've definitely heard it used in that context before

>>1544807
holy shit.
google motherfucker, do you speak it?

>>1544802

I believe it is "high".

Answer me, you cunt.

>>1544812
own high?
high own?

wut

This is utter bullshit, you can't ask a question like that and refuse to give context....

>>1544818
IQ test
Context

pick one

Damnit OP, this is the third time. The answer is "high". Confirm my belief, you fucking cunt.

Not a well-defined question.

>>1544831
Says you who didn't answer my query: >>1544813

>>1544824
It's not mutually exclusive to give coherent instructions AND perform an IQ test.

>>1544831
high own?
own high?

>>1544849

OWN HIGH-RIDGE HIGH-TIME HIGHWAY

YOU STUPID CUNT WHORE!

YOU STU

>>1544847
>Which four letter word connects all of the following words?

How is that not coherent? Have you actually ever done an IQ test?

>>1544852

Oh I see, you're one of those people that makes up the left hand side of the bell curve. Nice to meet you, the right hand side wishes you good day.

>>1544853
How is it coherent? What does it mean for a word to connect a different word?

>>1544852
So your contention it the first word doesn't matter at all?

>>1544859

>Which four letter word connects all of the following words

Read that over and over again until you comprehend it.

>>1544864
You're an idiot.

>>1544864
I prefer the alternative of question-askers just properly defining their terms.

the word is PRECIOUS.

>>1544858

What word connects the following words?

Bulb
House
Weight
Reading

It's only because the OP question is more difficult that you think it is incoherent.

IQ test questions always have a sense of ambiguity about them. Official tests will have one "correct" answer, and one or two "reasonable" answers, they're not as black and white as the internet ones you can do.

>>1544880
That one is easy. But connect means you can add it to any word? That is what the ambiguity is about.

>>1544888

Yes, and a mark of intelligence is working that out for yourself.

>>1544880
Light.

>>1544880

Bulb?

Could you explain? Not even Google helped me out with that.

>>1544880
No, it's still incoherent. The fact that I can see an interpretation that fits the facts available (including the four words given) doesn't make it any more coherent, for I have no way of knowing that my interpretation is correct.

>>1544891
Not assuming stuff you don't actually know is another.

>>1544896
Bulb-bulb?
niggah you gotta be shittin me
-1/10

the negative one is for someone having already answered it

>>1544891
Sorry but I've seen this phrased much more clearly on IQ tests:
Which four letter word can be added to all of these words to make new words?

"Connect" implies that it makes a continuous word or phrase. Plus, the fact that they're giving away a prize for this makes the harder interpretation more likely.

>>1544906

Agreed.

>>1544903

The assumptions/interpretations you make are what defines how intelligent you are.
Not making any assumptions because you think you are too intelligent (read: doesn't understand the question) makes you an idiot.

pic related

>>1544912

But this isn't a trick question, so it's hardly related

>>1544910
No, making undue assumptions make you an idiot. If you have assumptions about a question of which you don't know whether they're correct, the smart course of action is ASKING THE QUESTIONER.

>>1544906
>"Connect" implies that it makes a continuous word or phrase

How many phrases can you think of that have the same word appear 4 times every other word?

>>1544918
>doesn't get the point of IQ tests

>>1544913
It's related because OP's question is a question that's hard primarily because he's communicating badly - which, as xkcd says, is not cleverness.

>>1544919
None, hence the confusion.

>>1544922
Well then how is it an undue assumption to rule that possibility out immediately? Surely that's the intelligent option.

You have to remember that IQ tests are always ambiguous, that's what makes them difficult. They don't award pedantry.

>>1544920

In the one IQ test I've taken they stressed that:

You can take your time.
You can ask questions if you are confused about what you are supposed to be looking for.

>>1544910

nice

>>1544929

and if you asked them on this question I'm sure they would just say

"look for a word that connects the other words"

Meanwhile I'd be styling my way to 160, no questions asked.

>>1544935
Ok so what is your answer for this. Are you the HIGH guy?

>>1544926
Because I may just not be looking hard enough. If I rule out the possibility, I will stop exploring this avenue while it may have been the interpretation the questioner had in mind.
>Surely that's the intelligent option.
Surely asking the questioner what exactly he means is the intelligent option?

>You have to remember that IQ tests are always ambiguous, that's what makes them difficult. They don't award pedantry.
No, they aren't. The one I took 15 years ago wasn't. Yes, I remember it reasonably well.

>>1544929
This.

>>1544937
what? no, trace it back.
I'm arguing against the high guy i thought

>>1544935
Absolutely not. If they meant for you to find a reasonable interpretation of "connect" yourself, they would at least tell you that fact when asked.

>>1544942
Sorry I'm the PART guy and there are like 2 answers posted in the thread so I just asked.

>>1544940

Steering Wheel is to Car, as Letter is to ____?

Standard IQ fodder.
How is that not ambiguous?
Is this where you put your hand up?
> "Excuse me but this question is poorly phrased, I mean it could mean what affects the direction the letter travels in, giving Address, or it could mean what does the letter go in, giving envelope or even mailbox"

I done an IQ test about 11 years ago. I didn't ask any questions and neither did anyone else in the room.

From Wiki

Partridges are birds in the pheasant family, Phasianidae. They are a non-migratory Old World group.

>>1544950
No because that is a simple analogy. The question in the OP appears to be a variation on a popular type of question. Appears to be. But it could just be a weird way of asking that type of question.

>>1544955

ugh. Obviously neither side is going to budge.
If I seen this question on a test I would immediately write down part and move on to the next question.

You're obviously 2deep4me

>>1544950
>Standard IQ fodder.
On poor IQ tests, yes.

>How is that not ambiguous?
It is. I can think of 15 possible answers that I could reasonably argue to be valid, at least half of which wouldn't make the slightest bit of sense without my elaborate explanation.

>Is this where you put your hand up?
In a proper IQ test, in a one-on-one session with a psychologist, you would explain your interpretation and thought processes carefully and ultimately arrive at an answer, which isn't anywhere near as important as the thought processes.

OMIGOD ITS CUBE

TIMECUBE

ITS A CONSPIRACY

>>1544964

I done an official IQ test. I had to travel to an examination centre and was in a hall with about 8 other people (all were adults about 30-50 years older than me).

There was no 1 on 1 with a psychologist bullshit, there wasn't even a psychologist present iirc.

>>1544976
So what exactly makes it better than all those online IQ tests you find everywhere on the internet (or at least the reasonably good ones among them)?

The only thing an IQ test measures, is whether or not you're dumb enough to actually take it.

And you failed.

>>1544989
I never said it was better.
I don't believe in them and I only done it because I was a child and didn't know any better.

My school covered all my expenses for the day and it was a good excuse to skip school, so for those reasons, it was better than the online ones.

My IQ is 130 herpaderpa. No one gives a fuck you pretentious prick. I hope you get killed by a drunk driver. See if your pathetic IQ can save you then. My IQ is 124... T-boned in 4-way intersection by a garbagetruck, I wish I could be there to see the look on your stupid fucking face

>>1545036
I would report you for flaming, but I haven't a clue if that rant is even aimed at anybody.

Just chill out, find a thread you find interesting and post something constructive or informative.
Or just lurk a bit more, I know summer is hitting it's mid point, so you do have some 4chan experience, but the rest of summer would be a lot more tolerable for everyone if you just maybe spent it lurking.

Here's a tip: I wrote "sage" in my email field. It stops my post from bumping the thread.

Enjoy 4chan!

What if you just write a script that runs through an english dictionary word file and do it like that?

>>1545055

Don't report me... I've already been reported to the cyber police.

>>1545066
Cool. I see you're already familiar with the coolface meme, that's a good start.

If you have any questions about 4chan, refer to the Rules and FAQs or ask away.

Ok then, to whoever defends the phrasing of OPs question, why is the word "trow" not the right answer? It's a 4 letter word that connects the 4 words by using the first letter of every word. I don't know what the correct answer is, pretty sure mine is not, but still it answers the question as well as the correct answer probably does.

>>1544758
YOUR

also, garry shuffle (captcha)

>>1545100
It might be the answer.
In a real IQ test you are rewarded for deducing an answer using logic and reasoning.

Your logic and reasoning might not have got you to the real answer because it is somewhat flawed (why trow and not wort?) so you may not have achieved maximum marks for the question.

>>1544951
So knowing what a random bird is called is what passes as intelligence nowadays?

believe sombreros (captcha)

>>1545115
How is it flawed? It answers the question.

>>1545121
>(why trow and not wort)
The flaw is that the reasoning doesn't produce a unique answer

>>1545120

I'm pretty sure almost everyone has heard of a partridge, if not only from the days of chritmas song

>>1545129
The question doesn't ask for a unique answer.

>>1545138
I think you misunderstood my point.
My point was that in an actual IQ test, your reasoning wouldn't get you full marks because you're reasoning produces more than one possible answer and no way to favour one over the other, therefore it is flawed. You reasoning is flawed, not your answer (which is probably wrong, but who knows for sure)

>>1545138
>Which four letter word
>word
>singular

>>1545150
The problem is, when there is no bias clearly defined by the question, then all ways of reasoning are equally valid. That was exactly my point - the question was badly phrased in that it created no bias upon which to judge any way of reasoning.

>>1545152
I gave 1 word.

>>1545160
But your reasoning gave 2...

>>1545158
>then all ways of reasoning are equally valid

Well, no they aren't, that's the point of IQ tests (I think they're ridiculous btw)

Say my reasoning is:

Shaniqua sent me a txt urlier dem wurdz in, so da anser is shaniqua.

That is not valid reasoning within the scope of an IQ test.

>>1545167
i just emailed MENSA with your shaniqua argument. i'll split the winnings with you

>>1545167
Yes, because it doesn't fit the question, since it doesn't connect the words. If somehow it did, then it would be as good as any other explanation. It's a simple case of ugly duckling theorem: with no bias in judgement all choices are equally relevant. The question simply doesn't create enough bias, because all it demands is a 4 -letter word and a connection.
>>1545166
Yes, but the question never asked for "the only 4 letter word", it just asked for 1. When you're being asked for a 4-letter word beginning with 'a' then every answer that's 4 letters long and begins with 'a' is a correct answer, no matter if the person asking wants a different word than what you provided.

>>1545181
shaniqua IS a connection. she isn't 4 letters long though. matt would have been better.

>>1545181
>It's a simple case of ugly duckling theorem: with no bias in judgement all choices are equally relevant

The bias is self imposed. If I deduce some good reasoning that results in 2 possible answers and some other good reasoning that results in 1 answer, my own bias will sway me towards the reasoning with only one answer.

>>1545198
They are in both cases good examples of reasoning and none of those is promoted by how the question is phrased.
>>1545191
How is Shaniqua a connection?

all of this thread
>implying the intelligence of a person not only can be judged subjectively but also be rated with a metric system.

guys i am working with postgraduate student in MIT (i am a postgraduate too) in cognitive sciences. He is a part of mensa and his iq supposedly measures 179 and i 131 and i still am far better in problem solving in every aspect of our field.

>>1545211
But the one that results in a unique answer is promoted by the fact that the question asks for A word. You can get into semantics to defend your faulty reasoning, but that's not what an IQ test rewards, and at the end of the day that's all that matters.

For example:

NOSE is to FACE as DOORKNOB is to ________?

Now one "equally valid" reasoning, according to you, would be to find a cypher that takes the plaintext NOSE and gives FACE. There are an absolute plethora of such cyphers, each giving a different cyphertext for DOORKNOB, so I just choose a random one for my answer.

OR, I could note that a nose protrudes from a face, and the only thing that a doorknob protrudes from is a door.

Better reasoning as it provides a unique answer

>>1545227
I'm guessing that field isn't English Language

>>1545245
because forgetting a word while typing on some random site automatically excludes you from the conversation

>>1545254
yep. you are excused

>>1545236
The problem is that a given cypher also provides a unique answer. The fact that there are multiple solutions (namely, different cyphers) that you want to lump together for an arbitrary reason does not make these solutions less valid, for there's also a plethora of such arbitrary reasons to lump solutions together. After all, I can invent a classification that includes all but one cypher AND your protrudes-from relation, and then declare my cypher is better because it's not part of the classification.

>>1545227

>can not only be judged subjectively
>rated on a metric system

Your .message seems to be an oxymoron. IQ tests are not dominantly subjective (assuming fluid intelligence is being measured). Though, I do question the accuracy of these measurements, their useful application to the real world, and their ability to predict success.

>>1545264

Yeah, and your reasoning for "lumping them together" would be weak.

The first step in doing well on an exam is to know what exam you are doing.

Many test makers assume the test makers can somehow read the minds of test makers and understand the sense of the questions at the time.

Mensa is a lot like that i think, their tests is not standardised, it is just some tests that forces you to think like test-makers and it is very unnatural.

>>1545269
So what makes your classification better than mine?

>>1545264
Also,
>the fact that there are multiple solutions (namely, different cyphers) that you want to lump together for an arbitrary reason does not make these solutions less valid

The reason is arbitrary but well founded and logical, which is what an IQ test looks for. You have to remember that we are talking about IQ tests here. They are criticized for a reason

>>1545276
What exactly do you mean by "well founded"? Not picking nits, I honestly don't understand what you mean.

>>1545236
The difference in this situation is that the phrasing in this question is crystal clear - there is a similarity between two objects, find a word this given object has the same similarity with. There is a clear bias - unless the answer provides a clear analogy to the first pair, then the answer is wrong.
In OPs question, there is no bias like that. If it said "a 4 letter word that can be added to these words to form new ones" then the bias is formed, and every answer that doesn't conform to that is plainly wrong. In OP's case, the bias is too weak to prohibit multiple answers, thus making every answer equally correct. The answer isn't made wrong, or worse, just because using the same principle you can receive an another answer.

>>1545268
first of all both are correct, and secondly i am with you 100%

>>1545281
As in it's foundations/motivations are well thought out regarding the question. It was a poor phrase to use, sorry.

>>1545286
I'm afraid I still don't understand you. That sounds like a semantically empty statement to me.

>>1545269
First way of making a fair test is making sure the answers aren't subjective but can be objectively valued.

>>1545282
But the similarity (my point) is that it still doesn't give you motivation for which reasoning to favour, you have to do that yourself, and that's what you get rewarded for.

>There is a clear bias - unless the answer provides a clear analogy to the first pair, then the answer is wrong.

How is there a clear bias? What in the phrasing of the question (all 8 words of it) alludes to the fact that the protrusion reasoning is better than a cypher reasoning?

>>1545299

which is why IQ tests are such a poor indication of actual intelligence

>>1545302
So ultimately, this test rewards you only for having the same gut instinct as the questioner? That doesn't sound like a good measure of intelligence at all if you ask me.

>>1545302
It gives you the motivation to first think only of words connected to doorknobs, and then to favor those that have a similar connection with doorknob as a nose has with face. That is a clear bias, because other words you can think of (hand, open, grab, etc.) do not share the same similarity.

>>1545316
As I have already said about 4 times ITT, that is one of the reasons why IQ tests are not taken seriously and are heavily criticized.

>>1545319
But why does that better the cypher reasoning? Nothing in the phrasing of the question leads you to that conclusion.

Any assumptions you have made about what the question is asking (e.g analogies, not cyphers) are what the question is designed to test.

>>1545321
Yeah, not criticizing, just making sure I understand your point properly.

>>1545329
This is why it's never presented like you did on IQ tests, instead there is a block starting with the instruction like "find the words that complete these sentences best", which provides you with clear bias that what you read is not a cypher but a normal sentence and what you are looking for is a single word.

>>1545350

But you could find a cypher that gave you an actual word that would still make the sentence read coherently and correctly.

It's up to you to assume what "best" means

>>1545359
But the instruction doesn't ask for any of that.

>>1545365
It also doesn't ask for you to compare the geometry of a face with the geometry of a door.

>>1545368
The instruction does not, but the sentence does.

>>1545350
Also, the sentence isn't the cypher, what I mean by the cypher reasoning being lies in the phrase "is to"

It's up to the reader to decide exactly what "is to" means. It will always be an assumption.

>>1545373
No, you've interpreted "is to" to mean that.

123 is to ABC as 134 is to ____?

Would make you think ACE, because this time you've interpreted "is to" to mean a simple substitution cypher.

>>1545385

135***

>>1545385
This interpretation comes from understanding english and while that is a simple cypher on it's own, it's assumed everyone who takes these tests understands english.

Which four letter word connects all of the following words?


OWN RIDGE TIME WAY

>>1545399
I fail to see your point.
So what if that is the root of this interpretation?

>>1545406
What do you mean by "that" and "this interpretation"?

>>1545399

Not the Anon you're debating with, but this is an issue. English knowledge is subjective to one's environment. I could simply have not been exposed to certain words or cultural references. Even if I had, they may be long gone out of my head by the time of taking the test. Pressured environment can harm memory. Besides, IQ tests aren't designed to measure long term memory. The question method itself is flawed. The question reeks of rampant subjectivity, an ugly thing to see in common usage on a test designed to measure reasoning ability.

This is of course using the question as an "IQ test question" example.

OWN RAPE
RIDGE RAPE
TIME RAPE
RAPE WAY
what's the prize?

It's ambiguous because it's a competition you morons.
They want answer + explanation, and then they choose from what they think is the best explanation to get a winner, kinda like those "Say why you should win".

>>1545385
ACD

>>1545410
Reading comprehension not a big thing in schools you went to no?

>This interpretation comes from understanding english

>What do you mean by "that" and "this interpretation"?

Well by "that" I mean "understanding English" and by "this interpretation" I mean "this interpretation" exactly as you did.

>>1545414
I'm not saying the second example with finding the word that completes the sentence is better than OP's example for measuring IQ, I'm just saying that the second example is phrased much more precisely, thus allowing you to come up with an objectively best answer. What the second question measures I do not know, but what the test composed of questions like OP's would measure I'm sure of: absolutely nothing.

I came on here expecting basement dwellers showing off their intelligence and trying to convince people that their subscription to High IQ magazine means something.

Thank you, sci, I had a good laugh. Now I'm going to go play some guitar and get laid.

>>1545451

You also create toaster schematic and suck cocks.

>>1545451
>implying anyone on 4chan can get laid.
oh you.

>>1545423
You're being a douche at the beginning of your post.

About what you said before, if you understand english then you know that "is to" part implies a relation, so there's no need to put that in the instruction. That's so simple that if you show a sentence like that everyone knowing english would understand what it means. And that relation provides a bias.

Show OP's sentence to anyone, and most of the people will have a different idea of what a "connection" between words means. That's why the bias is too weak, and that's what makes the question badly phrased.

>>1545451

ITT: no one showing off IQ.

actually, everyone that has posted any kind of opinion ITT has been specifically anti IQ.

enjoy your right hand

>>1545474

Flesh-light. HAH! YOUR POINT IS MOOT!

>>1545471
That's not what I meant.

Everyone will know "is to" implies a relation. Correct.
Just as everyone knows "connects" implies a relation.

You are tested on what you think that relation is.

It's pure supposition that "most" people will have a different idea on what the connection is.

My pure supposition would be that most people will either look for a word that pre or proceeds each word to form new words/phrases.

I'm glad someone else realized that the questions in IQ tests can be interpreted in many different ways but the testers will only accept the interpretation they deemed correct.

what tells you that 123 = abc means that letters from a to z are assigned numbers from 1 to 26?
it might in fact be a very long formula that happened to yield the results of 123 for abc but for z it could perhaps be 93 or something like that, thats not impossible.

>>1545487
But in the second situation, you are shown an example relation that your connection must follow. In OP's, you're not given that example, so it provides no basis on which to evaluate different connections, which makes all of them equally good.

>>1545496

The tests always have some kind of note urging you to pick the simplest solution. If you lack intuition about what is simple, you're probably a retard anyway.

>>1545512
Yes, but in the OP you are given an actual command. "Find the 4 letter word that connects the four words"

So firstly, any reasoning which gives answers, say, some 4 letters long and some 5 letters long, is already false reasoning.

Secondly, it is up to you to interpret "connect", and you will be judged accordingly. That is the crux of an IQ test.

THEY ARE POOR REPRESENTATIONS OF INTELLIGENCE

They have a deliberate sense of ambiguity and Occam's Razor almost always triumphs.

Can you come up with a better answer than part?
With the reasoning that you can place part before the other words to create new words and part is the only word that has this property.

It is a simple logical deduction that gives a unique answer, so will most likely be correct and well rewarded.

Fags gonna fag.

>>1545535
I fail to see a reason why any reasoning that gives you multiple answers must be automatically false. I also see no reason why the answer 'part' is better than 'trow', since both fulfill the requirements in the question completely. 'Part' has some additional qualities, but these are actually uncalled for in the question, so they do not matter. As it stands, both answers are equally correct and none can be selected as the better.

>>1545513
i disagree with you. some of the greatest minds were not able to do basic mathematical operations but they were able to do complex equations

...

>>1545550
I didn't say that reasoning that gives multiple answers is false

> also see no reason why the answer 'part' is better than 'trow', since both fulfill the requirements in the question completely

The reason is that the method used to get trow also gives wort. The method used to get part does not give any other answer.

According to you, both methods are equally valid (which I don't agree with but let's run with it).
So if both are equally valid, why don't you consider choosing the one with a unique answer to be a better tactic?

At the end of the day you are playing a game that you should be trying to win. Part of the "intelligence" it is apparently testing is how you choose one answer over another.

Question: Are IQ tests designed by lower-IQ persons for high-IQ persons reliable?

>>1545568
If I found the answer that answers the question truthfully, then I've already won, and there's nothing more to win. You can assign any method of evaluation of the answers, such as "whether the first letter of the word is closer to the beginning of the alphabet" or whatever you can come up with, but unless these rules are clearly stated in the test instructions or can be trivially derived from the question, they make no difference in final evaluation.

>>1545595
But that isn't how IQ tests work! Can't you see this?

>>1545606
To tell you the truth, I've never seen an IQ test constructed as badly as OP's question. They might be worthless when it comes to measuring intelligence, but at least most of the time they are unambiguous

The amount of false information regarding intelligence and IQ tests in this thread is staggering.

>>1545650
Necromancing a dead thread with no new input?

bitchinrapnigga.jpg

>>1545650

Back yourself up with an argument.

>mensa_logo_public.standing_gif

fucking standing gifs how do they work?

I would like to note that an IQ test isn't meant to measure intelligence. It's meant to measure your score on that given IQ test.

These scores can then be related (correlated as psychologists would put it) to 'real life' achievements such as a test score, level of income, or even health. This correlation will then give you some certainty (but no garantees) as to how well a person with that given score on that IQ test will perform in life on those given variables.

We could for instance say that: On average a person with an IQ score in the range of 120-130 on this given IQ test will have on average a 10% less chance of developing a smoking habit.

>>intelligence is stable, can be generalized, can be objectively measured.

(Some birds manage to remember the complete map of an island the size of a small town over a complete season and come back after winter and find the food they burried earlier. A feat humans normally only develop for instance as cabdrivers.)

>>1545722
do you believe birds would score high on IQ tests - spatial intelligence section?

ITS BR, AS IN BRAZILIANS

THEY TRAVEL ALONG THE BR-RIDGE, TAKING THEIR SWEET BR-TIME, DOING THINGS THEIR RIDICULOUS BR-WAY

WHAT COLOR ARE BRAZILIANS? THAT'S RIGHT, BROWN

is the answer "space"?

>>1545735

I think they would not. This does not however change anything about how remarkable this feat really is.
I'm trying to point out that intelligence in itself is subjective.

My example was, in regard to IQ tests, maybe a poorly chosen one as it does not relate to fluid intelligence(given there can be a clearcut definition about what fluid intelligence is). However, there is no IQ test that measures mere fluid intelligence.

In regard to fluid intelligence: there is not one way define 'good' intelligence. To take the example earlier. One might make a case that the simpler, easier answer is a correct one, making "door" a likely candidate. However, coming up with a difficult cypher to formulate the answer is a more difficult one.

But now I'm drifting off again into a discussion which was closed earlier. There's no way to decide what type of intelligence or line or reasoning is the better one, unless for instance, when you make some arbitrary statement preliminary to the test, saying something like: Adher to Occams Razor.

My own
My ridge (bf's name for my rack)
My time
My way

am I high q?

is it PATH?

PART-OWN (?)
PARTRIDGE
PART-TIME
PARTWAY

NIGGER OWN
NIGGER RIDGE
NIGGER TIME
NIGGER WAY

Is it "nigger"?

>>1544758
Who the fuck cares?
Fuck Mensa
I don't need to join a club to know I'm smart