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

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:17:36 +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*.
> 
> How do you work that out?

Mathematically.

> 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.

Mathematically, if most people are stupid, the average goes down, and 
"stupid" becomes "below average" for the new average.

A score in the 120's is not "stupid" by any stretch.  Sheesh.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 21/07/2010 6:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> A score in the 120's is not "stupid" by any stretch.  Sheesh.

There is a terrible stench of snobbery about. o_O

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:51:30 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 21/07/2010 6:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> A score in the 120's is not "stupid" by any stretch.  Sheesh.
> 
> There is a terrible stench of snobbery about. o_O

LOL

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:17:36 +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*.
> > 
> > How do you work that out?

> Mathematically.

  If the curve of people's intelligence is not linear, it can mean that
the majority of people are actually below average than above it (or the
other way around, of course, depending on the sign of the derivative of
the curve).

  As a simple example, if we have 4 people with IQs 90, 90, 90 and 130,
the average will be 100, but the majority of these people is below average.
In other words, three quarters of the people are "stupid" and one quarter
is "smart".

  If you enter this group and score 100, it means that you will be smarter
than the majority (three people are "stupider" than you, while only one
is "smarter"), yet the average is still 100.

  Thus scoring 100 does not automatically mean that you fall exactly in
the middle, with half the population being "stupider" and the other half
"smarter" than you. There may still be more of one than the other.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:58:06 -0400, Warp wrote:


>   If the curve of people's intelligence is not linear, it can mean that
> the majority of people are actually below average than above it (or the
> other way around, of course, depending on the sign of the derivative of
> the curve).

For a large statistical sample, IIRC, it's basically a bell curve.

>   As a simple example, if we have 4 people with IQs 90, 90, 90 and 130,
> the average will be 100, but the majority of these people is below
> average. In other words, three quarters of the people are "stupid" and
> one quarter is "smart".

Except that when measuring "average" intelligence, your sample size is a 
population, not a small discrete number.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Am 20.07.2010 20:03, schrieb Tim Cook:
> http://www.cerebrals.org/wp/?page_id=209
>
> Had to randomly guess for a few I couldn't figure out. Got 130.

144. Despite having not the slightest clue how those puzzles that looked 
like "twist'n'mix" were supposed to be solved, and just doing more or 
less "solid guessing" on them - I suspect you have to have seen this 
type of puzzles before. (Then again, you actually do during the test, so 
I did make use of the "back" button.)

At any rate, the IQ test I did at age ~10 was a lot more straightforward :-P

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:58:06 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
> 
>>   If the curve of people's intelligence is not linear, it can mean that
>> the majority of people are actually below average than above it (or the
>> other way around, of course, depending on the sign of the derivative of
>> the curve).
> 
> For a large statistical sample, IIRC, it's basically a bell curve.

It depends on what it's a statistical sample of.  It only comes out a 
bell curve under certain assumptions about how what you're sampling 
behaves, and these will not hold in many circumstances.

That said, I think IQ tests do tend to come out more or less a symmetric 
distribution (and close to a bell curve) so pretty close to half of the 
population will indeed be below average, so the theoretical point Warp's 
making doesn't really apply in this case.

> 
>>   As a simple example, if we have 4 people with IQs 90, 90, 90 and 130,
>> the average will be 100, but the majority of these people is below
>> average. In other words, three quarters of the people are "stupid" and
>> one quarter is "smart".
> 
> Except that when measuring "average" intelligence, your sample size is a 
> population, not a small discrete number.
> 

It turns out that Warp's overall point is correct in this case, and you 
can also generate examples for continuous probability distributions. 
This occurs in cases where the distribution is asymmetric (see 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skewness).  I'm not sure what he meant by 
"the sign of the derivative", but maybe this was what he was thinking about.

I don't totally see how it applies to the conversation since "stupid" 
and "smart" in this context haven't been given rigorous definitions, but 
if you are to define them by which side of the IQ median you lie on, 
then he would be correct if the IQ distribution were asymmetric (which 
it mostly doesn't seem to be).

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:50:45 -0700, Kevin Wampler wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:58:06 -0400, Warp wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>   If the curve of people's intelligence is not linear, it can mean
>>>   that
>>> the majority of people are actually below average than above it (or
>>> the other way around, of course, depending on the sign of the
>>> derivative of the curve).
>> 
>> For a large statistical sample, IIRC, it's basically a bell curve.
> 
> It depends on what it's a statistical sample of.  It only comes out a
> bell curve under certain assumptions about how what you're sampling
> behaves, and these will not hold in many circumstances.
> 
> That said, I think IQ tests do tend to come out more or less a symmetric
> distribution (and close to a bell curve) so pretty close to half of the
> population will indeed be below average, so the theoretical point Warp's
> making doesn't really apply in this case.

They do tend to come out to be pretty symmetric - though it seems recent 
study suggests that this may not be accurate; but it has been the 
'standard' for some time.

>>>   As a simple example, if we have 4 people with IQs 90, 90, 90 and
>>>   130,
>>> the average will be 100, but the majority of these people is below
>>> average. In other words, three quarters of the people are "stupid" and
>>> one quarter is "smart".
>> 
>> Except that when measuring "average" intelligence, your sample size is
>> a population, not a small discrete number.
>> 
>> 
> It turns out that Warp's overall point is correct in this case, and you
> can also generate examples for continuous probability distributions.
> This occurs in cases where the distribution is asymmetric (see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skewness).  I'm not sure what he meant by
> "the sign of the derivative", but maybe this was what he was thinking
> about.

Well, yes, his point is correct in this case because he's crafted a small 
sample size that actually does bear out his assertion.  That's kind like 
a friend of mine saying that the red telephone boxes in England are 
extremely rare, only to have one show up pretty much everywhere we went - 
his sample size was his local neighbourhood, where there weren't any - 
ie, his assertion was based on a sample size that wasn't representative 
of anything other than what he was asserting.

Warp's done the same thing here as well - and in a small sample, sure, I 
can prove that over 50% of people are of above average intelligence as 
well by picking numbers that prove that.  That doesn't prove anything 
with regards to a large population distribution, though.

> I don't totally see how it applies to the conversation since "stupid"
> and "smart" in this context haven't been given rigorous definitions, but
> if you are to define them by which side of the IQ median you lie on,
> then he would be correct if the IQ distribution were asymmetric (which
> it mostly doesn't seem to be).

Well, true, neither of those terms really has a rigorous definition; it 
seems that when talking about IQ, those terms tend not to be applied 
along the curve.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
> Warp's done the same thing here as well - and in a small sample, sure, I 
> can prove that over 50% of people are of above average intelligence as 
> well by picking numbers that prove that.  That doesn't prove anything 
> with regards to a large population distribution, though.
> 

Perhaps the difference is that Warp's making a theoretical point while 
you're making a practical one?  It's certainly true in a theoretical 
sense that there can be distributions where the mean is different than 
the median even with many samples (which is what Warp is saying), but 
for the particular case of IQ this doesn't seem to be the case (which is 
what I think you're saying).

Did I understand correctly?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Well, yes, his point is correct in this case because he's crafted a small 
> sample size that actually does bear out his assertion.

  My point was that people tend to think that "the average IQ is 100"
automatically implies that half of the people will be below that and the
other half above it. That's obviously not the case. It depends on the
actual distribution of the samples (iow. if the distribution is asymmetric
around the average, then less than half of people will be on one side and
the rest on the other).

  It just sounded like this misconception was being touted in this thread.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 2010-07-21 14:21, clipka wrote:
> 144. Despite having not the slightest clue how those puzzles that looked
> like "twist'n'mix" were supposed to be solved, and just doing more or
> less "solid guessing" on them - I suspect you have to have seen this
> type of puzzles before. (Then again, you actually do during the test, so
> I did make use of the "back" button.)

Whoooa....oh wait.  You used the back button?  That's...cheating, you 
know?  You don't get to go back and correct answers on IQ tests once you 
realise a mistake you made.  :P

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

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:

> Whoooa....oh wait.  You used the back button?  That's...cheating, you 
> know?  You don't get to go back and correct answers on IQ tests once you 
> realise a mistake you made.  :P

Here's an IQ test: Write a small Python script that tries every 
combination of answers and finds the one that yields the highest score. ;-)

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

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> At any rate, the IQ test I did at age ~10 was a lot more straightforward 
> :-P

You realise that the reason it asks for your age is so that the older 
you are, the lower your score is, right?

It's called "intelligence quotient" because it's meant to be the 
*quotient* of your intelligence age verses your biological age. :-P

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

Post a reply to this message

Am 21.07.2010 22:14, schrieb Tim Cook:

> Whoooa....oh wait. You used the back button? That's...cheating, you
> know? You don't get to go back and correct answers on IQ tests once you
> realise a mistake you made. :P

No?

IIRC the IQ test I took as a child was like, "oh, I'm not sure about 
this yet, I'll do the others first, then go back to this one."

At any rate, they deliberately decided to include a "back" button, so if 
you're /reall/ intelligent, you're gonna use it :-P

Post a reply to this message

On 21/07/2010 9:25 PM, clipka wrote:
>
> At any rate, they deliberately decided to include a "back" button, so if
> you're /reall/ intelligent, you're gonna use it :-P

Damn! LOL

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> well by picking numbers that prove that. 

The basis of the bell curve and normal distribution are random samples. By 
definition, if you pick samples to prove a point, it's not a random sample.

-- 
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

On 21/07/2010 9:22 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> You realise that the reason it asks for your age is so that the older
> you are, the lower your score is, right?
>
> It's called "intelligence quotient" because it's meant to be the
> *quotient* of your intelligence age verses your biological age. :-P
>

Does that mean when you are my age your score will be 60? ;-)
-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> You realise that the reason it asks for your age is so that the older
>> you are, the lower your score is, right?
>>
>> It's called "intelligence quotient" because it's meant to be the
>> *quotient* of your intelligence age verses your biological age. :-P
>>
> 
> Does that mean when you are my age your score will be 60? ;-)

No. By then of course I will be significantly more stupid and/or dead.

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

Post a reply to this message

Le 21/07/2010 21:11, Kevin Wampler nous fit lire :
> It's certainly true in a theoretical sense that there can be
> distributions where the mean is different than the median even with many
> samples (which is what Warp is saying),

Let's take salary/income as a basic sample:
Mediam might be as low as 1500€/month.
Mean might be about 5000€/month... thanks to the few who earns/stole/...
about 100k€ or more (like 20m€) per month.

So, according to which one you select, you can say that the
buying-capability is about 5000€/month, or only 1500€/month... not
really the same numbers!

Post a reply to this message

On 21/07/2010 10:09 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> You realise that the reason it asks for your age is so that the older
>>> you are, the lower your score is, right?
>>>
>>> It's called "intelligence quotient" because it's meant to be the
>>> *quotient* of your intelligence age verses your biological age. :-P
>>>
>>
>> Does that mean when you are my age your score will be 60? ;-)
>
> No. By then of course I will be significantly more stupid and/or dead.
>

Ah! Grasshopper sees beyond tomorrow. :-P

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:14:30 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Well, yes, his point is correct in this case because he's crafted a
>> small sample size that actually does bear out his assertion.
> 
>   My point was that people tend to think that "the average IQ is 100"
> automatically implies that half of the people will be below that and the
> other half above it. That's obviously not the case. It depends on the
> actual distribution of the samples (iow. if the distribution is
> asymmetric around the average, then less than half of people will be on
> one side and the rest on the other).
> 
>   It just sounded like this misconception was being touted in this
>   thread.

Oh, I see what you're saying - the distribution is actually more like 50% 
of people fall into a range of 91-110 (if I remember correctly).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:11:34 -0700, Kevin Wampler wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 
>> Warp's done the same thing here as well - and in a small sample, sure,
>> I can prove that over 50% of people are of above average intelligence
>> as well by picking numbers that prove that.  That doesn't prove
>> anything with regards to a large population distribution, though.
>> 
>> 
> Perhaps the difference is that Warp's making a theoretical point while
> you're making a practical one?  

That well could be.

> It's certainly true in a theoretical
> sense that there can be distributions where the mean is different than
> the median even with many samples (which is what Warp is saying), but
> for the particular case of IQ this doesn't seem to be the case (which is
> what I think you're saying).
> 
> Did I understand correctly?

I think so. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:26:49 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> well by picking numbers that prove that.
> 
> The basis of the bell curve and normal distribution are random samples.
> By definition, if you pick samples to prove a point, it's not a random
> sample.

More or less my point. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 7/20/2010 1:03 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
> http://www.cerebrals.org/wp/?page_id=209
>
> Had to randomly guess for a few I couldn't figure out. Got 130.


I started rushing through the latter parts because I had no idea how 
many questions it had and scored 131.
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Am 27.07.2010 20:40, schrieb Mike Raiford:
> On 7/20/2010 1:03 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
>> http://www.cerebrals.org/wp/?page_id=209
>>
>> Had to randomly guess for a few I couldn't figure out. Got 130.
>
>
> I started rushing through the latter parts because I had no idea how
> many questions it had and scored 131.

Just for fun, I tried giving random answers right from the start: The 
test ended after just a handful of items, with a score of 78.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> Just for fun, I tried giving random answers right from the start: The 
> test ended after just a handful of items, with a score of 78.

That wasn't very clever.

Post a reply to this message

> http://www.cerebrals.org/wp/?page_id=209
>
> Had to randomly guess for a few I couldn't figure out.  Got 130.

It got very very repetitive (yes I figured out how to do the squares and 
triangles inside that 2x2 rotating cube, no need to give me 100 questions 
using the same idea), I got bored and clicked next repeatedly until the end 
and got 125.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> It got very very repetitive (yes I figured out how to do the squares and 
> triangles inside that 2x2 rotating cube, no need to give me 100 
> questions using the same idea), I got bored and clicked next repeatedly 
> until the end and got 125.

I love the way everybody else isn't even trying properly and yet they 
manage to get much higher scores than me.

I guess I have to just rationalise it as "Hey, it's an internet IQ test. 
It doesn't actually *work* or anything..."

Post a reply to this message

On 7/30/2010 6:06 AM, clipka wrote:

> Just for fun, I tried giving random answers right from the start: The
> test ended after just a handful of items, with a score of 78.

So, then ... it's adaptive?

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 7/30/2010 7:38 AM, Invisible wrote:
> scott wrote:
>
>> It got very very repetitive (yes I figured out how to do the squares
>> and triangles inside that 2x2 rotating cube, no need to give me 100
>> questions using the same idea), I got bored and clicked next
>> repeatedly until the end and got 125.
>
> I love the way everybody else isn't even trying properly and yet they
> manage to get much higher scores than me.
>
> I guess I have to just rationalise it as "Hey, it's an internet IQ test.
> It doesn't actually *work* or anything..."

Eh.. looks like my score is about average for this group. Andrew, you're 
well above average (in terms of most humans) you have nothing to worry 
about.

For some reason, this forum tends to attract supergeniuses. I really 
wouldn't worry about what your IQ is compared to others here. It's 
tantamount to some sort of ...brain envy.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:

> So, then ... it's adaptive?

Would explain why it doesn't tell you how many questions there are...

Post a reply to this message

>> I love the way everybody else isn't even trying properly and yet they
>> manage to get much higher scores than me.
>>
>> I guess I have to just rationalise it as "Hey, it's an internet IQ test.
>> It doesn't actually *work* or anything..."
> 
> Eh.. looks like my score is about average for this group. Andrew, you're 
> well above average (in terms of most humans) you have nothing to worry 
> about.

Heh, if only.

Don't go thinking that just because somebody's a nerd, they're 
necessarily intelligent. I've met at least one person who had a 
fascination with cryptography, and yet was utterly unable to comprehend 
even basic facts about it. (E.g., why a polyalphabetic cipher is 
stronger than a monoalphabetic cipher.)

> For some reason, this forum tends to attract supergeniuses. I really 
> wouldn't worry about what your IQ is compared to others here. It's 
> tantamount to some sort of ...brain envy.

Well, so long as it's not brain evy that's fine.

Post a reply to this message

> I guess I have to just rationalise it as "Hey, it's an internet IQ test. 
> It doesn't actually *work* or anything..."

Exactly, those kind of shape matching tests are everywhere, I really doubt 
how good they are actually judging intelligence.  If you've done a handful 
of them (and especially if you've discussed the solutions with others) 
you'll remember the basic principles they often use and will be more likely 
to solve other ones.

I still remember a maths test we did at school, some of the questions were 
about getting the next number in the sequence, the usual stuff.  Then there 
was something like "3,3,5,4,4,3,5,5,..." and lots of people guessed (some 
correctly) but nobody figured it out.  Since that day when the teacher told 
us the answer and we all went "doh!", remembering that sequence has helped 
me solve several similar problems in other tests.  I would only call that 
intelligence if you figured it out the first time on your own with no prior 
knowledge of such "tricks" used in those kinds of tests.  Now when I can 
answer a question like that, it's mostly memory skills and not much 
intelligence.

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> For some reason, this forum tends to attract supergeniuses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STeVTzWelns


-- 
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

scott wrote:
> it's mostly memory skills and not much intelligence.

Memory is a very important part of intelligence.  However, this isn't memory 
skills. This is having already been exposed to the same or very similar 
problems before.  I.e., memory of exactly the solution for this type of 
problem, not memory in general.

-- 
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

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:02:57 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> On 7/30/2010 6:06 AM, clipka wrote:
> 
>> Just for fun, I tried giving random answers right from the start: The
>> test ended after just a handful of items, with a score of 78.
> 
> So, then ... it's adaptive?

Sounds like it, yes.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:05:47 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> For some reason, this forum tends to attract supergeniuses.

I was commenting to my wife the other day that this is the only online 
forum I've ever participated in where discussions range from "Duck season
!" "Wabbit season!" to discussions about the applications of special 
relativity - and everything in between.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Am 30.07.2010 15:11, schrieb Invisible:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>
>> So, then ... it's adaptive?
>
> Would explain why it doesn't tell you how many questions there are...

Reading is knowing: See <http://www.cerebrals.org/wp/?page_id=44> for a 
bit of details...

Post a reply to this message