IQ Test

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I'm satisfied.

110

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I took this same test 2 years ago and got a score of 124. Could it be that the time spent in Know Thyself has jacked me up 2 points?

I laughed several times at the words I used to make sense of my calculations, saying things like, "OK so when you squiggle on the Pac-Man principle here you get a square with a squiggle, so....." Or giving nonsensical names to shapes in order to differentiate them: Floop, Doofer, Duder, etc.

That made it really fun.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It was ridiculous till somewhere in the middle on a question with something like buckets, and then it was hard. Last question was impossible. I used to score higher on other tests, that's a good one.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Now I could join the Mensa-zombie club.

 

108

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Once you figure out the logic, you can pass any visual IQ test. It's a jewish trick. You need to be little over the avarage, and with 15min to 30min training and you'll figure it out. It's quite logical. This coming from a quy who figured it before I ever did a test.

I suspect the IQ test from the begining was a way to try to legimizise Mensa and politicize intelligence, but that's another topic.

I've heard that one can train for IQ tests and add a couple of points but due to the time limit, I think there are limits. 15 to 30 minutes of training once or on a regular basis? Or are you saying there is a recipe for solving the patterns?

Anfang wrote:

I've heard that one can train for IQ tests and add a couple of points but due to the time limit, I think there are limits. 15 to 30 minutes of training once or on a regular basis? Or are you saying there is a recipe for solving the patterns?

Let just say, that your whole life is one big training, and your own jurney to improvement. Or that's how I look at it. Everything contributes even eating, sleeping, doing work, solving puzzles. Doing pattern recognition will improve your pattern recognition, and that IQ test is just that. Of course our brain and subcontious is more complex, and in it's complexity so simple. Doing chess,N puzzles, math, or even doing hard labour, and needing to solve problems in the work place is simple pattern recognition. So by living an active life you are training. The dumbest state I've found myself was when I sit on my pc all day for years, it was a time of depression, selfloathing, and dumbing down. Person becomes dumber, but his ego doesn't let him accept it. Yes I did games, while at PC, but that is really a poor justice to all the lost training that could happen in an abstract social, and material envirements.

Now if you get past 120, you shuld get easily 135 by simply solving the puzzles with time, and then when you do other similar test, you will recognize the underline logic which repeats over and over again, but the symbols change.

Also I should point out, that the whole thing is a scam as more then one logical conclution might be right, but only one answer is considered to be right one. Also there are multiple ways to achive the same answer.

126

I redid it:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This is the second time I've taken this test, I didn't practice.

The average of the 2 scores would be 127. It might be more accurate to do it several times.

What for?

It's bullshit. You can get a different result each day.

Why is it bullshit?
The average would be 100 for everybody?

Apaosha for example.

His/Her score has gone from 122 to 133 to 127.

The average Joe Blow of 100 could go from 100 to 122 to 70 to 90, which one is accurate?

Just to be clear: I've done this test twice total. Last year I got 122, just now I got 133. The average of the two is 127.

The patterns made more sense to me this time round. So either I'm smarter, or they made it easier. It would be no problem to max the score if you practice.

Average Joe Blow would have an IQ of 100 by definition.

Now let the professor explain it...
haha

That IQ test has a standard deviation of 15. That's the usual for IQ test Gauss-distributions.
It means that 68% of  the population are in-between 85 and 115.  (100 +/-15)
And 95% are between 2 times the standard deviation, so between 70 and 130. (100 +/-30)

Because it's a symmetrical distribution, it means that about 16% of the people are above 115.
And 2.5% are even above 130.

Btw. 4.1% of the population have an IQ above 126, not too bad.
Just one point below Apaosha's average.

Quote :

Btw. 4.1% of the population have an IQ above 126, not too bad.
Just one point below Apaosha's average.

Quote :

Just to be clear: I've done this test twice total. Last year I got 122, just now I got 133. The average of the two is 127.

This is the second time I've taken this test, I didn't practice.

This is all too ridiculous.

At least he/she was smart enough by one point to get into the 4% of the population.  Why average out, if the score is 133, is this not what you are?  Imagine next year's result, 10 points up from this year, 143 and way off the chart.  Amazing.  In fact it sounds a lot like ILP's comments........ I could have been a member of Mensa, but just didn't get round to it.

Or it proves the point of how inadequate these IQ tests are.

I think you can reach a certain threshold of intelligence where it becomes easier to take these tests. At which point the score becomes inaccurate. Most of us here are probably beyond that threshold.

Like what Vrilseeker was saying; the underlying logical pattern that went into constructing the tests can be recognized and understood, making solving them easier and quicker, resulting in an inflated score.

Those IQ tests are based on pattern recognition. During that test some of the exercises seemed to repeat. "Oh, it's again the clockwise rotation of the black element." And sometimes they were just combinations, like "It's clockwise rotation and all those three symbols have to be used in each row."

So, if I recognize those principles, which the exercises are based on then it becomes probably much easier for me. Also, I think there is a threshold beyond which these tests can't measure accurately. I mean, if you finish all those exercises perfectly, then what's your score? I think in that particular case, the result would be 140.

How's that test supposed to give an accurate result between let's say 60 and 180 with only 39 questions? The range must be more limited.

Let's assume two different people, above a certain intelligence threshold, do the test. They'll have probably  most of 30 to 35 answers in common (the 'easy' ones, for them) and now, about 5 questions are supposed to pinpoint the IQ between 120 and 140 (or even beyond 140, maybe).

Or what about luck? That last question definitely scores a lot of points, yet there is a one in six chance that you pick the right answer by chance. That could very well be 5 IQ points depending on the calculation-mechanics of that test.

Quote :

This is all too ridiculous.

(Just that one point...)

Then don't take it too seriously ; )

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

Fun. Vrilseeker makes a good point. Someone with a naturally high IQ can probably elevate their score pretty substantially just from practising IQ tests.