Our Methodology

A rigorous, mostly serious, scientifically adjacent framework for measuring intelligence against a sack of doorknobs.

The Scientific Process

Every DKI score follows a strict 6-step evaluation protocol.

1

Specimen Acquisition

The subject to be measured is placed in a controlled environment adjacent to The Sack™. Both parties must be at room temperature. No one is allowed to give the sack a pep talk.

2

Baseline Calibration

The Sack is verified to contain exactly 47 doorknobs (±0 tolerance). The burlap must be original. If any doorknob has developed a personality, it is replaced.

3

Cognitive Challenge Battery

Both the subject and The Sack are administered a series of 14 standardized tests including maze navigation, pattern recognition, and "which way does the door open?" All tasks are graded on a −5 to +5 DKI curve.

4

Ambient Intelligence Differential

We measure the "vibe" in the room. If The Sack makes the subject look bad by comparison, points are deducted. If the subject can at least open a door, bonus points are awarded.

5

Statistical Normalization

Raw scores are run through the Doorknob Normalization Algorithm (DNA™), which adjusts for variables like humidity, day of the week, and whether Mercury is in retrograde.

6

Peer Review

Results are reviewed by a panel of three experts: one scientist, one philosopher, and one person who just really likes doorknobs. Consensus must be 2-out-of-3 or the test is repeated.

The DKI Formula

The mathematical foundation of the entire framework.

The Fundamental Equation

DKI = (Ssubject − Ssack) × k

Where Ssubject is the raw cognitive score of the test subject, Ssack is always 0 (because it's a sack of doorknobs), and k is the Doorknob Constant (approximately 1.0, but we like to include it because it makes the formula look more official).

Frequently Asked Questions

Addressing common concerns about our methodology with the seriousness they deserve.

No. In 847 administrations, The Sack has achieved a perfect score of zero every single time. This is what makes it such an excellent reference standard — it is profoundly, reliably, cosmically inert. One time a doorknob rolled off the table and someone said "it's trying to escape" but that was gravity, not intelligence.
This means the subject is precisely as intelligent as a sack of doorknobs. This has only happened twice: once with a different sack of doorknobs (expected) and once with a particular government form that we are not at liberty to name.
Absolutely. We accept submissions of any object, organism, concept, or institutional policy. Living subjects must sign a waiver. Non-living subjects must be accompanied by someone who can sign a waiver on their behalf. The Sack does not need a waiver because it has been grandfathered in.
We prefer the term "science-adjacent." Our methodology follows the scientific method in spirit, if not in letter. We have a hypothesis (things can be dumber or less dumb than a sack of doorknobs), we test it (yes), and we publish results (this website). That's basically peer review.
Doorknobs have a certain gravitas. A sack of screws sounds like a hardware store inventory error. A sack of bolts sounds like a medical condition. A sack of doorknobs? That's a statement. It's evocative. It demands to be a unit of measurement. The idiom chose us; we merely formalized it.
The entire scale must be recalibrated. The 47-doorknob count is sacred. In 2025, an intern accidentally removed a doorknob for "personal use" and we had to invalidate six months of data. The intern scored a −0.75 on their subsequent evaluation, which felt appropriate.