Tim Cook wrote:

> To be fair, I think the ones I was completely guessing on and managed to 
> get right qualifies as dumb luck rather than intelligence/subconsciously 
> seeing what the pattern really is.  And that was, like...a lot of the 
> ones with the merging/rotating square things at the end.  Seriously, 
> what was up with those?

A lot of these types of puzzles seem to only make sense if you can guess 
what was in the designer's head at the time. Which is a good test of 
imagination or empathy, but intelligence? It seems if you don't tend to 
think in the particular ways that the designers do, you're stumped.

It's like, here's a series of numbers. What's the next number? Well, 
gee, is the sequence based on mathematics, anagrams, glyph 
similarity...? If you pick the wrong category, you'll never ever find 
the correct answer!

> If they'd asked you to actually *explain* what the progression was 
> instead of a multiple-guess situation, I'd be screwed.

I think if more of these tests *explained* WTF you're actually trying to 
do, it would work better. I wasted about 20 minutes trying to figure out 
what the pattern in the *answers* was before realising that I was 
actually meant to be looking at the _other_ set!

> But look on the bright side; your score of 121 is still quite a bit 
> higher than the mean of 100.

Unfortunately, the "average" person is really, really stupid...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message