BOOK ABOUT A FALL OF MAN

[Anonymous No.21654056]

Book that tell the story about the fall of man, like the guy goes from being aN ok normalfag to full blow loser. Not happy endings.

[Anonymous No.21654136]

>>21654056
the answer is 2

[Anonymous No.21654152]

>>21654136
How did you get that answer?

[Anonymous No.21654156]

>>21654056
I say 2
My logic is: The dark inner arrow is required for the large lighter outer arrow on the opposite site. A dot only appears when there is no inner dark arrow on the opposite side.

[Anonymous No.21654195]

>>21654152
symmetry:
From left to right a ball appears and half of the triangles disappear, also the triangles that disappear are the triangle with the colour of the ball below the line and the opposite above the line. Frome top to bottom the same happens but mirrored. If we apply both rules, which we have to since the missing image is in the bottom left the only possible answer is that all triangles disappear and the balls on either side with opposite colors remain.

[Anonymous No.21654203]

>>21654136
>>21654152
also i cant help you on your actual question since i am currently reading houellebecqe and his self insert characters start and end as degenerates

[Anonymous No.21654308]

>>21654152
1. the triangles have no cases where they increase in quantity, only being removed (1 light and 1 dark triangle were removed in the 2nd, so the 4th should also have another pair removed; a pattern that repeats every even progression)
2. the circles have a pattern of being added (was added in the 2nd, so the 4th should repeat it as well)
if you rely solely on a pattern that has evidence, you would answer that.

i wonder if it's taken for granted that the pattern is read left-to-right in a 1-2-3-4 manner. anyone who doesn't follow that premise won't be able to answer it, though technically you could follow a diagonal order instead, the answers don't respect that kind of thinking. someone with an even wider capacity for pattern recognition might necessarily take longer due to seeing many more possibilities, even though their capacity would allow them to find patterns more normal people wouldn't. you might say someone more intelligent would understand that these tests come with their own rules and thus, consent to simply follow them at their level, but that still constitutes a vulgarizing of their own intellect, chipping it away to make it fit simpler forms. anything communicable in language is already the outcome of a generalization: a loss of particularities.

in the end, i can't say for certain if this really does contribute to a measure of intelligence. higher intelligences, at least ontologically, wouldn't be accessible to lower ones.

[Anonymous No.21654315]

>>21654136
Correct, but this question is poorly written, as five is also a viable (but more complicated answer). The answer is still two, however.

[Anonymous No.21654318]

>>21654056
>Above line: What is cyan disappears, navy triangle stay as is, navy dot appears
>Below line: What is cyan remains, navy triangle disappears
So it should be 2

[Anonymous No.21654347]

>>21654315
>as five is also a viable (but more complicated answer)
no. there is no progression that substantiates 5. even if you didn't follow a left-to-right reading for the order, it would still be 2. adjacent blocks have a diminutive relation. diagonal blocks have an inverse relation. the missing block is diagonal to the "first" block, so it should be the inverse. it should thus lose the triangles, and add the circles, in order to complete the inversion: to have what the other doesn't have, or to lose what the other does have. the 5th one retains the triangles so it fails to be an inversion

[Anonymous No.21654351]

>>21654315
>but this question is poorly written
where is the writing?
all i see is a logical sequence

[Anonymous No.21654356]

i think it's 3…

[Anonymous No.21654385]

>>21654347
Yes there is. Rather than being so ludicrously presumptuous, you ought to have asked me since you cannot see it yourself.

>>21654351
Haha, very funny. Designed, then.

[Anonymous No.21654395]

>>21654356
It is not three, as there is no logic for three which excludes four.

[Anonymous No.21654401]

>>21654056
I remember questions like this when they gave me an IQ test as a child because they thought I was mentally retarded back before high functioning autism was a term. The only problem solving question I remember was being given 10 minutes to add the numbers 1-100 together and explain how I solved it and then being incredibly impressed by my retard bullshit

[Anonymous No.21654415]

>>21654385
no there isn't.

[Anonymous No.21654416]

>>21654395
i see now i ignored the small triangles disappearing in panels 2 and 3
maybe i should study iq tests

[Anonymous No.21654436]

>>21654056
>Panel 1: cyan triangle above and below
>Panel 2: cyan triangle below
>Panel 3: cyan triangle above
>Therefore, the only remaining combination, Panel 4: no cyan triangle
>Panel 1: navy triangle above and below
>Panel 2: navy triangle above
>Panel 3: navy triangle below
>Therefore, the only remaining combination, Panel 4: no navy triangle
>Panel 1: no circles
>Panel 2: circle above
>Panel 3: circle below
>Therefore, the only remaining possibility, Panel 4: circle above and below
Therefore, 2 is the correct option.

[Anonymous No.21654450]

>>21654056
sorry op, i dont think anyone ITT gives a shit about your question. withal, i don't they should

[Anonymous No.21654466]

>>21654450
nobody here reads

[Anonymous No.21654475]

>>21654466
the logical progression: everybody not here reads.
well duh. can't shitpost too well with a book in your hand now can you, genius?

[Anonymous No.21654483]

>>21654436
Best explanation

[Anonymous No.21654546]

>>21654415
Stay ignorant, middling.

[Anonymous No.21654586]

>>21654546
why would i need an explanation for an answer that is wrong. you're just sad no one's interested in your special snowflake take. maybe beg me and i'll ask.

[Anonymous No.21654593]

>lit can't do a simple IQ test question

Grim

[Anonymous No.21654626]

My answer is 4... if you wanna know why then grovel at my feet.

[Anonymous No.21654634]

>>21654626
I think 4 too but based solely on gun instinct.

[Anonymous No.21654642]

>>21654593
>cant do
Read the thread

[Anonymous No.21654687]

>>21654056
What is this test called? I vaguely remember people coming to my elementary school and picking people out to do this test. I wonder if they were looking for retards or geniuses.

[Anonymous No.21654704]

>>21654634
Nevermind, fren. I believe we are wrong. I also thought about it intuitively, and by that I mean, I thought about those neon lights which progressively light up to fill up their message and which at the end black out to start anew. I looked at it from left-to-right, and I thought that if I chose 4 then the cycle could repeat again. However, this method doesn't exclude 2 or 3 from being possible answers as well. Number 1 or 2 seem to embody the neon light analogy better; the former moreso than the latter. So if we look again, this time diagonally, we see that they (the diagonals) complete one another. Number 2 seems to be the one which will follow (create?) this pattern.

[Anonymous No.21654710]

>>21654687
IQ test aka: midwit filter

[Anonymous No.21654726]

>>21654704
Yeah 2 is right if you think about it but 4 looks right aesthetically.

[Anonymous No.21654789]

>>21654586
I literally couldn't care less. Like I said, stay ignorant, middling.

[Anonymous No.21654844]

>>21654195
>>21654203
>>21654308
How long did it take you guys to get the answer? I feel like it would take me at least a few minutes to figure all that out

[Anonymous No.21654853]

>>21654687
>>21654710
its a subset of test called raven matrices

[Anonymous No.21654857]

>>21654347
>no. there is no progression that substantiates 5
There is. Number 5 has the virtue of having all the shapes show up at once. One can imagine them as a family which wished to join up but which couldn't get the timing right. However, since number 5 is presumed to be correct by virtue of it being a possible permutation, then all the others are correct because they are possible permutations as well. Though again, it might be that the 'pattern' ended because it completed its 'task'. The task being finally having met up. Therefore, there is no pattern. Unless of course, you presuppose a 'question'.

[Anonymous No.21654869]

>>21654857
The eternal midwit

[Anonymous No.21654870]

I got 2 but my logic was retarded:
>In the first row they eliminated 1 element from the top/bottom
>Then added dark blue circle on the top left
>Therefore 2 is the only possible solution

[Anonymous No.21654890]

>>21654869
Would you like me to explain it better for you? It isn't very hard to understand what I am saying, so I am not sure why you chose to respond like that. If you had understood what I am said then there isn't any reason to disagree because there is nothing to disagree with.

[Anonymous No.21654899]

>>21654857
There is actually a logical, sequential method by which five can be the next in the sequence and two is eliminated as an option. It requires thinking about images as a progression in three dimensions, and that's all the clue I'll give, so as not to help this scoffing doofus >>21654586

[Anonymous No.21654910]

>>21654899
>It requires thinking about images as a progression in three dimensions
Ahh, I see. Or at least I think I do. It has to with bases, right?

[Anonymous No.21654914]

>>21654910
Hmm, actually I don't know. What are circles? Spheres or cylinders? And do they attach?

[Anonymous No.21654932]

Anybody wanna recommend this guy a fucking book?

[Anonymous No.21654933]

>>21654436
This is correct

[Anonymous No.21654974]

>>21654910
>>21654914
Imagine that the two dimensional objects are rotated or folded in three dimensional space. Regard the images from top left, to top right, to bottom left, to answer five. Rather than the dots being toggled on/off and triangles appearing/disappearing in response, the rotations reveal the dots. It can be achieved very smoothly, thus showing a weakness in the question. Answer 2 is the intended answer, but the achievability of 5 is an oversight.

[Anonymous No.21655037]

>>21654974
If you focus on artistic composition I think that 4 balances the picture best and is the least ugly to insert. 2 ruins it and 5 is too busy.

[Anonymous No.21655143]

>>21654974
I applaud the ingenuity, but I am afraid I don't believe it is as consistent as you seem to think. On the first rotation, BlueUp and BlackDown work in unison to reveal BlackCircle, right? Then on the second rotation, BlueUp and BlackDown reveal themselves and undo BlackCircle while BlackUp and BlueDown rotate to reveal BlueCircle. So if it be consistent, then when BlackUp and BlueDown reveal themselves it should affect BlueCircle; that is, BlueCircle should disappear. Unless for some reason you make it so it affects BlackCircle instead, I don't believe this is achieveable without further 'axioms' or 'expediences'.

[Anonymus No.21655253]

>>21655143
The answer is 2 but it's a poorly designed question because the grid is 2x2 and so the information provided is scarce enough to leave room for interpretation. Typically these questions have a 3x3 grid and it's for good reason.

[Anonymous No.21656483]

>>21654974
your rotational logic would work but it's disproven by needing a circle present in the initial progression. top right and bottom left correspond as rotations of each other. after rotating, the circle is in the same place but the color switches. top left which should correspond to ? when rotated would still have no circles if it follows your logic.

and if you rotate in the third dimension by flipping it, the circle would be on the other side.

[Anonymous No.21656525]

DeTh of a salesman, friend

[Anonymous No.21656585]

>>21655143
>>21656483
Not quite what I mean. The first take is closer than the second; It's difficult to explain clearly, I suppose.

[Anonymous No.21656588]

>>21654056
Let the GENIUS ENTER - You Midwits!

Top Left to Bottom Left:
1.Upper Inner Triangle (Navy) Dissapears
2.Lower Outer Triangle (Navy) Dissapears
3.Blue Circle Appears in the Lower Right Side of Line
4.Upper Outer Triangle (Blue) Stays Intact
5.Lower Inner Triangle (Navy) Stays Intact

Top Left to Top Right:
1.Upper Outer Triangle (Blue) Dissapears
2.Lower Inner Triangle (Navy) Dissapears
3.Navy Circle Appears in the Upper Left Side of Line
4.Upper Inner Triangle (Navy) Stays Intact
5.Lower Outer Triangle (Blue) Stays Intact

Taking these Patterns into Account, NO-2 is Answer:

Upper Right to Bottom Right:

1.Upper Inner Triangle (Navy) will Dissapear
2.Lower Outer Triangle (Blue) will Dissapear
3.Blue Circle will Appear in the Lower Right Side of Line
4.The Dissapearance of Upper Outer Triangle (Blue) will stay Intact
5.The Dissapearance of Lower Inner Triangle (Navy) will stay Intact

Similarly, Bottom Left to Bottom Right:

1.Upper Outer Triangle (Blue) will Dissapear
2.Lower Inner Triangle (Navy) will Dissapear
3.Navy Circle will Appear in the Upper Left Side of Line
4.The Dissapearance of Upper Inner Triangle (Navy) will stay Intact
5..The Dissapearance of Lower Outer Triangle (Blue) will stay Intact

TLDR; Answer - No.2

[Anonymous No.21656823]

>>21654056

The triangles appearing in the bottom left are the triangles subtracted from the top left to the top right.

[Anonymous No.21657214]

I thought it was 2, only because I thought it was loss.

[Anonymous No.21657228]

>>21657214
Jej

[Anonymous No.21657353]

>>21654395
There are logics that get three and five. There's weaker logics for four, but one, three, and five are all potentially logical answers depending on the logical system you're operating under. Two is the most common answer as it assumes the dot is cancelling shapes in the first panel and remaining shapes will cancel: in short, it assumes you are viewing this like a fraction problem. If you assume the circles aren't removing their cross the line small circle and aren't removing their same side of the line outer circle, then most the other answers open up. For example, if dots generate uncancellable shapes is an assumption of the logic system, then two is an impossible answer, and five is the only potential answer. You could also write a logic system where proximity plays a part on elements' effects on each other. Most people will assume the logic system works as a progression, with symmetry and the overall logic of basic mathematical functions, so the answer is two in those systems, but turn the dots into representatives of foxes, the outer triangles into chickens, and the inner triangles into rocks, and three is the only logical answer.
tl;dr-- any logic only works under the given logic system's operations and assumptions

[Anonymous No.21657357]

>>21657353
>you assume the circles aren't removing their cross the line small circle and aren't removing their same side of the line outer circle
I mean triangles for the cross line and same line shapes being removed here.