http://www.cerebrals.org/wp/?page_id=209

Had to randomly guess for a few I couldn't figure out.  Got 130.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:

> Had to randomly guess for a few I couldn't figure out.  Got 130.

Why thank you for destroying my self-esteem and robbing me of 2 hours of 
my day. >_<

My score is a pittiful 121.

In addition to confirming that I'm stupid, this test showed me something 
else: Being shown page after page of apparently random collections of 
shapes and being told "there's a pattern here, you're just too stupid to 
see if" is not only extremely demotivating, but I found it to be deeply 
disturbing on a psychological level. It felt like I was losing my mind. 
The lack of order was actually upsetting to me in quite a powerful way.

I guess that's what you get from being an obsessive/compulsive neuropath.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> It felt like I was losing my mind. 

"Another kind of green!"

"Damn, what's with you and all these greens?"


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> "Another kind of green!"
> 
> "Damn, what's with you and all these greens?"

"This is a very ugly colour. I almost feel sorry for it."

Post a reply to this message

On 2010-07-21 11:10, Invisible wrote:
> In addition to confirming that I'm stupid, this test showed me something
> else: Being shown page after page of apparently random collections of
> shapes and being told "there's a pattern here, you're just too stupid to
> see if" is not only extremely demotivating, but I found it to be deeply
> disturbing on a psychological level. It felt like I was losing my mind.
> The lack of order was actually upsetting to me in quite a powerful way.

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?

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

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

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:05:03 -0400, Tim Cook wrote:

> On 2010-07-21 11:10, Invisible wrote:
>> In addition to confirming that I'm stupid, this test showed me
>> something else: Being shown page after page of apparently random
>> collections of shapes and being told "there's a pattern here, you're
>> just too stupid to see if" is not only extremely demotivating, but I
>> found it to be deeply disturbing on a psychological level. It felt like
>> I was losing my mind. The lack of order was actually upsetting to me in
>> quite a powerful way.
> 
> 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?
> 
> If they'd asked you to actually *explain* what the progression was
> instead of a multiple-guess situation, I'd be screwed.
> 
> But look on the bright side; your score of 121 is still quite a bit
> higher than the mean of 100.

I managed 125, but didn't bother answering the last 3-4 of them since I 
had no idea what the progression was.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 21/07/2010 5:17 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I managed 125, but didn't bother answering the last 3-4 of them since I
> had no idea what the progression was.

Damn! you beat me by one. I think it was the most boring test I've ever 
seen. In the end I just picked any answer for the last half dozen or so. 
So I failed because I didn't think to skip forward to the end.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

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

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:06:38 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>> 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...

By definition, you know that's not true.  "Average" is *average*, not 
*below average*.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>> 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...
> 
> By definition, you know that's not true.  "Average" is *average*, not 
> *below average*.

How do you work that out?

Depending on precisely which "average" you mean and what kind of 
distribution the population follows, if *most* people are stupid, then 
the "average" person is also... stupid.

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

Post a reply to this message