/lit/ - Literature

>>16284102
I understand you struggled with the memory section, as I felt my brain beginning to melt during that too, but the spatial questions were very easy, and could be solved by an imbecile given enough time:

How can you struggle to rotate an object in your head, especially when you have rotated examples on the screen? If you struggle with complex rotations, so long as you recognise one simple rotation in the answers, you can use that as a visual aid which when itself rotated in a simple way yields other rotated answers. The above method should help you attain all the answers. I don't think it's really necessary, but still why didn't you just do that, even as a way of checking your answers?

Similarly, there is no excuse with the spatial dots. You can immediately identify the quadrant that the centre of mass is located in simply by noting the number of squares and their distance from the central dot, which requires no intuition at all. From that rough area, it is then quite easy to approximate where the centre of mass is. Half the time I was close but not actually on the dot, but that was good enough apparently. I suppose there is a degree of intuition.

Not great... The above shows how intelligence should be measured (if ever) over a long period of time by professional researchers, not estimated by an online test.