/sci/ - Science & Math

Take the test idiots, I want to make fun of you.

>>12193852
what if we make fun of you for taking the test instead

>>12193854
I have lots of free-time lately, as I am taking a year off from university. I found the test fun.

>>12193444
The first question tells me all I need to know about this "intelligence" test- make the problems open and vague, such that practice will boost scores.

Raw metrics, such as working memory are a far more useful metric.

>>12193444
The first question tells me all I need to know about this "intelligence" test- make the problems open and vague, such that practice will boost scores.

Raw metrics, such that can be derived from working memory are a far more useful.

>>12194096
Working memory is the least g loaded task, you retard.
Use your intelligence to answer the question, you're given all the information needed. I maxed it, you should be able to as well.

>>12193444
Is it really that good? The cube orientations I have ran into leave a lot to be desired. There is inferences that the questions do not take into account. Showing a cube labeled on three sides does not forbid concluding any set of 6 with those three numbers, or at least any geometric series. There are also well known statements about dice like every pair of opposite sides adding to seven. This is very problematic when the vertex they show is 1-3 exactly like a die. The ambiguity is actually quite bad when it comes to testing IQ. What is your favorite type of question from the test?

>>12194210
>Working memory is (almost) perfectly predicted by g

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289604000030

>A reanalysis of the data reported in Ackerman et al. using the correct statistical procedures demonstrates that g and WMC are very highly correlated

https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.131.1.61

>Confirmatory factor analysis yielded consistently high estimates of the correlation between working-memory capacity and reasoning ability factors

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289605800121

>Working memory and the general factor of intelligence (g) are highly related constructs

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289608000044

You idiot. WM is the MOST g loaded parameter we can measure OF ALL.

Between my exceptional WM and exceptional IQ, the former means much more than the latter.

You're a midwit with practice, fooling yourself into thinking you're anything greater. And it's your ilk that needs to be beaten back to your place in the pecking order. You're a total failure.

>>12194264
Very interesting. You Googled "working memory highly correlated with g" and picked 4 random abstracts you thought would make you seem knowledgeable. You didn't actually read those, did you?
My WAIS IV WMI was 143, practice effect my ass.

Either way, digit span on the WISC IV has a loading of 0.57.

>>12194316
Digit span is a very poor measure of working memory. You clearly have no idea of what you're talking about.

Working memory is a better predictor than IQ for academic success, and it has been the consensus now for a while. This is not niche knowledge.

Use a website like humanbenchmark if you want to test your raw working memory.

>>12194316
>>12194353
Verbal and visual are the two you should care about most.

>>12194353
Ah yes, because visual WM is SO MUCH BETTER than auditory WM

>>12194370
Your inapplicable statement makes me doubt your aptitude.

>>12194387
You're pretentious usage of genteelisms elucidates to me a paucity of intelligence.

>>12194452
>He thought my sentence was difficult and pretentious
Oh no.
*Your and thanks for the words, genteelism seems quite useful.

>>12194466
Nice dubble dubs, but I believe you have a higher severity of autism than I.

>>12194479
Good.

Now skedaddle, midwit scum.

>>12193444
Only got 51

>>12194252
How do you overthink this, lol?

>>12194521
51 is actually good.
The online norm is deflated because of demographic bias. Look at the image I posted in the OP.
The mean is 25.77 and the standard deviation is 12 according to the study of N = 97,000~.
(51 - 25.77)/12 * 15 + 100 = 131 IQ

>>12194561
That's pretty consistent with what I've gotten on other IQ tests. Still, its brainlet for this board.

>>12193444
This test is bullshit. I did half of it and it was just simple cube rotations and some standard series completion. Literally preschool tier. And then I had to take a phone call and in the mean time lost my session status. What the fuck? How poorly written is the test if you can't even pause it for a minute? Can't be bothered to waste my time again with this trivial crap.

>>12194635
I don't think you fully understand how dumb the average person is.
This study is N = 97,000!
Only 1 in about 500~ got a 60/60
Look at the other paper for more internal statistics.

>>12193444
I like that they included none of the above for the rotating block question

>>12194668
why? There is definitely an oversaturation of rotating block questions and any serious visual artist (with fundamentals) will have a natural advantage on all of them going in. This just proves why IQ tests are dumb.

>>12194561
Where is that mean/sd from ?
Also why would the internet test be biased? Are people on the internet smarter?

>>12194822
It's from the image I have in the OP, the data was compiled from the Harvard study, that link is also in the OP.
People on the internet aren't smarter, but people who seek out IQ tests (which is really the only way to find this test now, is to look it up to take it purposefully) are smarter on average.
Usually almost a standard deviation smarter, although this varies depending on the test.

>>12194843
k. i don't think this is a very reliable test though.
i'm a humanities brainlet and that would put me at 136.

Phil majors have the 3rd highest GRE scores of all college majors behind Physics and Math. Econ is top 5 iirc. Verbal is also very highly g-loaded, no matter how upsetting this is to verbalcel monkeys like eng and cstards

>>12194860
The test has like 5 verbal questions though.

>>12194871
16

>>12194856
It's pretty reliable. Enough to discriminate 1/500 out of 97,000. The other paper in the OP has the internal consistency.
I don't think many people understand how dumb the average person is.

Wish I could see what I missed. I suspect it was mostly the simple letter-number sequence ones just because I'm bad counting. Also, holy shit that is a lot of cube rotations.

>>12193444
>feel smarter than 90% of my peers
>critical about even the most trivial things like how someone cooks or fixes a small error
>always thought it was my ego
>narcissism
>actually takes actual real IQ test one day
>132

is there really so little competent people in terms of IQ?

>>12194971
It is your ego retard. You're feeding it with your results. "Oh wow turns out I'm not an asshole I'm just smarter than everyone."

>>12194981
thats why I included "in terms of IQ"
any either way, in this case its the ego and supporting data

>>12194985
Yeah. It's good to be smart but a common trait amongst us is egotism which is disgusting. I follow the philosophy that it's best to be good to everyone and always try to look past yourself. Don't let that number get to your head.

>>12194998
Whether its in your future or not, youll make a good dad

>>12195014
Thank you anon that made me feel good.

>>12194971
Try the test I posted

>>12193444
i got 49, i refuse to believe ur chart has me at 129 iq, i am 130 take it or leave it

>>12194960
yea i wanted to cry after the what seemed to be the 30th cube rotation

>>12195077
What are the cube rotations testing exactly?

>>12195088
pattern, 3 d visualization both at the same time

>>12195077
There are only 24, pussies.

Proper correlation with WAIS IV
https://sci-hub.se/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0734282920943455

>>12195133
I don't mind the quantity of rotations, but I do mind that they never get more interesting. They start out challenging enough, but there is no appreciable increase in difficulty as you progress unless you're retarded. This is really true of all the item types on this test.

Your chart gives me a 134. The very first time I was linked this sort of test, it was the one on iqtest.dk, and I got a nearly identical score (133). Between the two, they produce the same result for me, so I guess it works, but this one was just annoying.

With the iqtest.dk one, there is a noticeable increase in difficulty in my opinion, and so you waste less energy on the same concepts/detail depth level. I remember there being at least two questions among the last few that felt impenetrable, which I probably wouldn't have figured out even if I had stared for hours. With this test I don't feel that way, I imagine it has a low ceiling for score validity, and if I were patient enough I think I would get them all, but I can't bear to spend an entire hour on this in the first place. I am certain I missed at least a couple that I understood correctly, but was just too bored to keep concentrating on since they were the exact same in essence as the last bunch.

Maybe I'm retarded and just didn't notice something had changed at the end. Otherwise, I don't really see the point in the tedious repetition unless part of the metric is to see how patiently you can concentrate through monotony compared to other test-takers, but maybe I'll look at the paper on it later.

>>12193444
I've been drinking rum all night and I got 32
Does that feed the beast within enough for you?
If I have to rotate a cube one more god damn time

>>12193444
Got 53 correct. Seems pretty consistent with respect to the other IQ tests I have taken. One question though. I always thought IQ also measured the speed at which you process data along with your problem solving ability. How is that accounted for in an untimed test?

Messed up the words and alphabet because non-native and other alphabet, but

>38 (110-120 IQ?)
>literally a midwit with fancy degrees
Should I just euthanize myself now? In my defense I just skipped the cube rotation ones at some point because they were getting annoying.

>>12195793
https://humanbenchmark.com/
Do the Visual and Verbal memory tests and report back.

>>12195802

>>12195823
Midwit I'm afraid.

>>12195802
>>12195823
>>12195830
o-ok took the verbal again :(

>>12195834
Sorry bro, terminal midwitism. I took the test in the short time I had and had to click off the verbal because I've got a lecture to attend in 5 minutes. Probably could've scored another 200 on the verbal, another 3 on the visual.

https://humanbenchmark.com/users/5f7b3262f1fc6400018f86e4/verbal-memory

>>12195892
Diagnose this, mr anon

>>12195900
You probably rushed the chimp test, practice may improve your figures.

Don't read into reaction time and aim trainer, people have different setups.

>>12195910
I wonder if cooming has any effect on this. I coomed to clairo about 2 hours ago for the record.

>>12195923

>>12195793
Your contributions to yourself and society (if you believe in that) matter more than a number.

Jesus, /sci/ is dumb

>>12195793
38=115.29
It really amazes me how we've grown to view a score 1 SD from the mean of an approximately normal distribution as "midwit" when it is literally not in the middle.
This board's obsession with IQ is kind of dismal. To the point of attempting to game tests until they produce a score best in line with our egos

>>12196727
A midwit is someone smart enough to realise they are "smart", but not smart enough to actually do anything with their smartness. Truly the most painful of existences.

The noble midwit is cognizant of highwit exceptionalism, and can recognise and appreciate such works. They cannot create anything to that standard, but they are helpful for propagating and using those ideas and concepts.

The growing contingent of unaware charlatans that do not abide by the above constraints is the subject of this (>>12196742) meme. Where midwits think they can do highwit things, and end up detaching themselves from reality- to the point at which even the retards notice this delusion.

A good example of this, would be the leftists that want unfettered immigration in west and expect their western values to be preserved. It takes midwit delusion and insecurity to overcome the obvious logical incongruence in that short sentence.

It's funny to see retards and highwits finding an alliance to the midwit scourge, whom are currently destroying civilisation with their entitlement.

>>12193444
Got a 37, which would put my IQ at 114 even though other tests have all put me in the high 120s-low 130s. Could be that the cube rotations fucked me up though, I always score lowest on visual-spatial sections when I take IQ tests.

>>12196727
If 130 is the threshold for wit, 115 is half of the way to wit, midwit. And it's a play on nitwit.

Anyway it's not that 1 SD higher intelligence is innately insufferable, it's that virtually everyone with that level of intelligence is corralled into the higher education system, a place designed in the West no longer for study, but to indoctrinate them with an authoritarian belief system while simultaneously inflating their sense of their own ability so that, in any case, they aren't inclined to consider the alternative to what the priests of Science TM supposedly tell them is the expert consensus on everything. They think themselves and everyone else in their bubble to be superior and to own the truth.

The consequence of this really is intolerable, you're left with an individual who depends on only two primary tools for "scientific" communication. The first being the supposed expert consensus (sometimes real, but usually misunderstood or imagined), and the other being that when they encounter some information that isn't sanctioned by their orthodoxy, they fall back on arbitrarily requiring, not even rigorous, but purely stupid standards of evidence, the kind that would not allow you to have insights about anything, and this is done to such an extreme that they reveal themselves not even to believe in empirical knowledge at all.

If I had to choose between working with a 100 IQ individual who didn't go to college, and a 115 IQ who did, I'm picking the former every time. If I had the choice of a 115 IQ person who didn't go to college, I'd prefer that person instead and not think of them as a midwit at all, but those people are now few and far between. It's not the intelligence level alone, it's the presence of just enough intelligence to permit the existence of a ridiculously inflated ego that makes midwits a problem. If you're a little more intelligent than this, you can go through college and likely not help but question the theocracy you're a part of.

>>12197186
i think ur cute

Got a 29

I'm literally known as a genius amongst every person I've ever met

What are the names of the logic puzzles in this test so I can study the methodology? I have a problem with answering things incorrectly on purpose if I encounter directions that aren't clear.

>>12197264
y-you too

>>12197290
The 4 item types contain a total of 60 items: 9 Letter and Number Series items, 11 Matrix Reasoning items, 16 Verbal Reasoning items and 24 Three-dimensional Rotation items.

>>12197050
There's no excuse for not being able to visualize the cube rotations. There are visual markers that help break down the answer.

I found out the real test, If you waste your time on that shit it means you are retarded as hell.

>>12197841
Based

If you can't solve this, you're a scrub

>>12197887
heh that's nothing, check this one out

>>12197985
What test is this problem from?

>>12194252
yeah i was getting kind of fucking annoyed because i couldn't tell if they were taking into account the relative orientations of the symbols on the cube with respect to one another or if they weren't concerned with whether a symbol preserved orientation through rotation.

>>12194252
They are not like dice.
Also, any other orientation in the options do not work physically without it being a totally different die.

>>12197887
>>12197985
These wouldn't even be approved IQ questions, since they involve lateral thinking, not just deduction.

>>12198138
Matrices are inductive.

>>12197985
9.
Because 877 is the amount of times I fucked your mom.

This test is fuckign easy.
I'd say it's around the 2SD mark (~130), t-b-h. I usually get ~140 on the legit-ish online tests and then you substract the usual 7-10 points.
I noticeably outperform the other plebs on objectively measurable metrics (being in the ~99.8th percentile on our national SAT-equivalent without studying, going to national olympiads etc.) but I'm honestly not on the level of the heavyweights- basically the cursed level, where you become a very specialized wagie, aware of but unable to reach the level of genuine understanding.

>>12198189
You are wrong about everything. Don't be retarded or delusional, I know you are not based on your score.
Look at the data before opining on something you know nothing about.

>>12197887
This problem is notoriously ambiguous.

>>12198147
Okay, you're being pedantic. I'm saying its implying creative thinking far too liberally. You can tell just from how they're designed

>>12198606
Looks like a pattern, not sure what you mean.

>>12193444
38 = 115 IQ on the dot.

Comfortably smarter than 86% of the population.

>>12197282
You must be from Kentucky then

>>12194252
This every question was ambiguous

Given the method on how to solve this crap you would score 60 every time

>>12198863
I mean like once you know the answer it should be reducible to some set of concrete principles, not just somehow making all the parts work together by supplying a convenient narrative of wtf is going on.

>>12199401
>somehow making all the parts work together by supplying a convenient narrative of wtf is going on.
This is literally all matrix questions, some are just easier than others.

Before I take this retarded test are there any tips or pointers that I should be aware of before entering?

t. Brainlet

>>12199676
Practice IQ tests in general, because it is a learned skill.

>>12194353
>Working memory is a better predictor than IQ for academic success
So our "top tier academics" are not the best thinkers they are just the best at memorizing shit?

>>12199676
(Haha. Tips for an IQ test?)

Yeah, take your time, and be very careful with your answer selection before hitting "next". Good tips for mostly any IQ test, but especially for this one, because like 80-90% of the questions are near-identical.

I scored 56/60, I have a very hard time picturing how anyone could miss more than a few questions on this test, they are very easy questions.

>>12199723
Working memory increases the fidelity of thought. It allows you to associate concepts with greater detail and accuracy.

If you don't have a large working memory, you are automatically filtered from difficult subjects. It's not a case of being slower, you will simply be unable to compute those problems.

IQ tests are quite a poor metric when compared to raw parameters like WM. They often feature strange mechanics that have no direct function for intellectual performance (like anagrams, mental rotations and open set matrix induction), there is a correlation, but it is a poor one.

>>12197050
>Got a 37, which would put my IQ at 114 even though other tests have all put me in the high 120s-low 130s. Could be that the cube rotations fucked me up though, I always score lowest on visual-spatial sections when I take IQ tests.

>>12198128
>yeah i was getting kind of fucking annoyed because i couldn't tell if they were taking into account the relative orientations of the symbols on the cube with respect to one another or if they weren't concerned with whether a symbol preserved orientation through rotation.

>>12199294
>This every question was ambiguous

>>12199401
>I mean like once you know the answer it should be reducible to some set of concrete principles, not just somehow making all the parts work together by supplying a convenient narrative of wtf is going on.

>>12194252
>Is it really that good? The cube orientations I have ran into leave a lot to be desired. There is inferences that the questions do not take into account. Showing a cube labeled on three sides does not forbid concluding any set of 6 with those three numbers, or at least any geometric series. There are also well known statements about dice like every pair of opposite sides adding to seven. This is very problematic when the vertex they show is 1-3 exactly like a die. The ambiguity is actually quite bad when it comes to testing IQ. What is your favorite type of question from the test?

Holy shit. Man.. I love you guys. Especially >>12194252 and all responses. Dice? Man I dunno what you just said, but I love it.

>>12194264
>You idiot. WM is the MOST g loaded parameter we can measure OF ALL.
>Between my exceptional WM and exceptional IQ, the former means much more than the latter.

>>12199778
>Working memory increases the fidelity of thought. It allows you to associate concepts with greater detail and accuracy.

Yes, YES!!!!!!!!!! YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I choose to believe you. Thanks for telling these FUCKS, on my behalf!!!! Working memory is more better for remembering of more shit, it helps you think better.

Me and my 12-13 digit span thanks you.

Hold on a second. If you guys are /sci/ regulars and tend to visit IQ test threads pretty often, doesn't that mean that you end up training the skills that make you good at doing IQ tests, inflating your scores? Though, maybe I'm just stupid and the skills can't be trained at all.

>>12199844
Digit span is generally a poor measure of WM. Sorry, Anon.

Also WM is more about toying with ideas in your mind, than as a mechanism for remembering "more shit".

>>12199867
FUCJK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It honestly boggles my mind how anyone with half a brain (which I’d thought encompassed all of /sci/) could score below 50 on this.

>The Three-Dimensional Rotation items had the lowest proportion of correct responses (m=0.19,sd=0.08), followed by Matrix Reasoning (m=0.52,sd= 0.15), then Letter and Number Series (m= 0.59,sd=0.13), and Verbal Reasoning(m=0.64,sd=0.22).

I thought maybe the matrix items inflated my score because I have tons of practice thanks to all the other online tests I’ve taken, but it seems like the average person literally can’t rotate a cube in their head? I was just bored out of my mind by the rotation items because they were so ridiculously easy.

>>12200028

I had to think about the rotation ones. I mostly did them by process of elimination, not literally seeing it rotate in my mind's eye. More like imagining what the other shown faces would have to look like in order for one refence face to be changed.

>>12200102
yeah that’s what I meant and did too. but there’s nothing remotely difficult about that process and I can’t fathom how anyone would struggle with it.

>>12200102
forgot to include my score.

>>12200028
>M = 0.19
What the fuck?
Really?

>You achieved a total score of 53!
>This means that you are 88.27% higher than 2063 participants who have completed the test.

As a kid I did a test which was on some cd which gave me iq of 117. This is over 15 years ago, that test also had a time limit. At Finnish conscription system I also did some type of iq test, I don't know what I got but the result didn't weed me out from leadership roles. That's my iq test history.

>>12193444
are you allowed to use a pen and pad? Or would that be against the rules? Anyways after a few questions I got bored and just stopped. I think the real catch with this test is most people dont care enough or have the patience to keep solving these repetitive problems. Seems more like a test of tenacity than innate cognitive ability.

>>12193444
>>12193852
>>12193875
You prob took the test multiple times. Anyway I got a 13 on the ICAR 16 test it translates to 90th percentile which translates to raw score of 52-53 on this test. Don't want to take the test its boring as all shit and can't concentrate for shit.

>>12198123
The autism test. Sorry anon, but you passed

>>12198189
Uh oh guys, you are all too smart.
I think we've niggered the norm for the test.
Too many smart people.
59/60 was 99.9th percentile but now just one less, 58/60, is 92nd percentile.
Lole

>>12201034
That would be against the rules AFAIK because then you are delegating some part of actually solving the question to the paper (because you don't have to maintain any working out in your memory)

I got a 48. It said im only better than 76 percent of normiees does that mean i passed?

Also i feel like this was just a screenjng to see how many autists there are that will sit down and try to rotate imaginary dice in their head for thirty minutes.

>>12195892
These tests have no scientific validity. Anyone capable of functioning in society will score above 300 on the verbal memory test, with or without good working memory. I have shit working memory and still scored 100.0%.

>>12193444
do I really need to do an IQ test?

A lot of these seem like something you can practice for.
What's the point in this?
I can sit all day for a week practicing rotating a cube in my head and score really well on that section.
Wouldn't that skew the results?
I'm very skeptical about this sort of stuff.

>>12204075
>Wouldn't that skew the results?
yes, so just don’t do it?

>>12204075
Sorry that you are so mentally retarded.
No, you can't really practice for these, doesn't do too much to your score, but it will inflate it. Which is why you're not supposed to practice, they are supposed to be clinical tools.
Sure, this is not a private clinical tool, and if you want to take one of those the BETA III is online for free, but this is SUPPOSED to be the best you could probably want to do for a free public online test. Read the research and norming done for it, look at the statistic, you will find that it's actually quite good.

>>12204065
no

>>12204095
>yes, so just don’t do it?
okay.
However, there's an obvious bias here that people seem to miss. Or intentionally miss.
If you're day-to-day work actually involves more mathematics or similar work (physics, engineering, banking, etc), then you will score higher on these tests regardless than those that don't.
That is irrespective of your cognitive ability. Yes there is probably some correlation between people that choose to study mathematics, and having a well above average intelligence.
But the test assumes, the participants have similar conditions, similar experiences and a similar background when performing the test.

Cognitive tests have questionable accuracy and very poor precision.

>>12204145
nah that's bullshit

>>12204179
>If you're day-to-day work actually involves more mathematics or similar work (physics, engineering, banking, etc), then you will score higher on these tests regardless than those that don't.
I agree, but how do you know that higher score doesn’t actually reflect higher intelligence (which might not be the same as raw cognitive capacity)? Because for all we know, IQ tests work really well at predicting various positive life outcomes beyond just academic performance.

>>12204145
No it doesn't matter.
The premise idea that cognitive ability is something you can accurately test for, is incorrect.
This is a PSYCHOLOGICAL area of study. Which means it is full of subjective hand-wavy crap.

>>12204192
t. has never read an actual paper on intelligence research before

>>12204191
>how do you know that higher score doesn’t actually reflect higher intelligence
It may be.
But it is only testing that person's ability to problem solve in a specific situation on a specific set of problems.

>>12204208
it doesn’t matter what it’s testing as long as the results have predictive value.

>>12204198
When I have time, I am going to sit down and tear apart psychology papers on cognitive testing.
It might be a year from now, but I'm going to do it.

>>12204210
correlation <> causation

>>12204210
do they have predictive value?

>>12204227
why are you asking like an idiot, just read up on the science. there’s mountains of evidence.

>>12204230
>he doesn't actually know
>assumes they do
>claims to have read the paper
>probably hasn't
This is why I hate cognitive testing.
Sure you probably know some statistics and know how to do stuff with the data.
But you assume the data is correct on face value, rather than, you know, asking questions, contemplating why it might be bullshit.

I bet you haven't read the paper.

God that took forever

>>12204230
>the science
Psychology is pseudoscience.

>>12204145
On the other hand, the guys in this thread and generally people who take IQ tests usually end up taking multiple tests which would inflate their score.

>>12204269
>x% higher than n participants
Is it just me or does this make absolutely no sense? English is generally broken on this site

>>12204287
Notice how it's worded as an internal memo.
What's the bet this came across some anon's university feed and they thought they would link it here to completely fuck their results lol.

>>12204299
https://www.psychometrics.cam.ac.uk/about-us/directory/aiden-loe
>business centre
Like fucking clockwork.
This is how psychology Dr's make money now. They build a whole discipline around building cognitive tests for corporate.
No wonder there's so many things wrong with them, they haven't even got real scientists vetting these.

>>12204075
I never get any better at them. But even if you could, why not just assume your first score is the real one? That's what you're supposed to do anyway.

Why do you think something is useless just because you can think of a way you might be able to use it incorrectly? It's like saying an oven is useless because you might burn yourself with it. Only retards do that.

So are the dice any possibility or is it supposed to be like a real dice?

>>12205362
sorry anon, you failed

>>12204210
Nothing really matters

about cube rotations, when 2 of the 3 faces seem to align and one of the symbols on X is not visible on the possible answer cubes, can we imply that the missing symbol is on the "hidden" side of the cube or do I choose "none of the cubes"

>>12193444
Imagine believing the results of a test that uses English vocabulary as a way of measuring IQ. Buddy,I'm french,let's do such a task with french words instead and see the results flip

>>12206960
If I understand your question, yes. There's no gotcha, it's a purely spatial exercise, so you can imagine it concretely, like if you were presented the X cube from a particular view, blindfolded, and then shown cubes on a table from a fixed perspective and asked to identify if any of them could be a possible physical rotation of the cube you were presented based on what you saw.

>>12207023
So pic related is correct? If yes then I might be pretty good at this.

>>12207040
Yuh, you got it.

>>12207068
fuck this one seems super ambiguous though, but I think the triangle might have the wrong orientation after rotating.

People who've had symmetry courses for chemistry or mathematics might have an advantage in this because they know the different types of rotation and geometry rules.

>>12207009
if you knowingly take an iq test designed for native english speakers that has a verbal component you're retarded.

>>12207106
OP never said that his IQ test will only consist of cube rotations and autistic questions regarding English words. I didn't know that you people unironically use that as a metric for intelligence,lol. Aren't the verbal parts culturally subjective? How is it a legitimate test if that's the case

>>12207106
>>12207009

Just learn the info that is presumed to be known ( the meaning of the word, I'd just translate if I were you so no synonyms are shown)
and answer the question, it's about the logic of the words and not their meanings, but knowledge about meaning/definition is presumed.

>>12207112
>are the verbal components culturally subjective
they're specific to the culture a person grew up in, that's why they're typically only administered in the language most common in that region. If you went to french speaking africa you wouldn't administer the verbal subtest in a language other than french. Verbal is considered a very g-loaded subtest and people who score well on that subtest tend to do quite well on the other subtests. The explanations for this are varied but the easiest to understand would be that being capable of articulating abstract concepts in multiple systems of representation, especially for organizing collective action, is cognitively demanding. See for instance trying to describe a new concept in a scientific publication to your colleagues, a new mathematical construction, a potential business strategy, military strategy. All of these require some degree of verbal-linguistic intelligence to accomplish.

>>12207103
yeah A is the only possoble one, unless there is another rule for allowable shapes.

how is this okay ffs? Impossible to tell what? It's either none of these or "can't tell" but can't tell what?

>>12197985
what the fuck is that, i think 6 because it's similar, alternating solid, similar shapes, and pattern in the number. But i'm retarded

>>12207134
obviously it's impossible to tell whether matt or richard is taller.

>>12207103
I sort of intuitively know that A makes sense without even thinking about it, but here's a shitty illustration of my thought process for how I would prove to myself that A is the answer.

>People who've had symmetry courses for chemistry or mathematics might have an advantage in this because they know the different types of rotation and geometry rules.
That's possible, but IQ tests tend to be a battery of subtests that address many abilities, so I presume things should even out, all else being equal. Also anecdotally, I had unusual circumstances as a child and received no education whatsoever, never even read a book, and I still do well on these, so I'm biased to think they're fair. We live in the internet age so it's not as if there was no exposure (I had video games), but virtually everyone should do better than me on most categories of testing if education gives a leg up, and I just find that not to be the case on any subject.

Anyway if I explain anymore of these I'll ruin the arrogant asshole OP's fun, I do appreciate the effort he put in but I think it's also helpful if it's communicated why these make sense.

>>12207146
if you can see 3 sides, then you can't see the other three, meaning the picture with none of the first three sides is possible. Plus all the others can be ruled out with logic.

>>12207143
but thats not the question, the question is which of the statements applies, with no premise at all. And the singular statement: you can't tell is stupid because you don't know what they ask.

>>12207146
nice gimmick with the smileys :D

22

>>12193852
>60 questions

nah i don't have time for that shit nigga

Got You achieved a total score of 51!

This means that you are 81.92% higher than 2102 participants who have completed the test.

*The percentile score is calculated on-the-fly. This means that your percentile rank may change as more people complete the test.

What a fucking meme. How am I supposed to answer the language questions perfectly when I don't know most of the words like daffodil/sequoia/random tree names(I picked daffodil as an outlier), and I'm pretty sure all my cubes were correct where did it all go wrong...

>>12193444
Is 72% decent?

>>12209432
for this test I sure, I imagine the average taker of the test is at +1sigma anyway so that makes you pretty decent

>>12194587
I feel you, how do you cope and what do you study?

>>12209289
did an icar 16 this time: Again Im pretty sure the wrong answer was the zach>richard|zach>matt thing where you have to choose "none of the above" instead of "you can't tell"

I think I cracked the cube rotation part, there is not a single one of the ICAR cube rotation problems that I can't solve now. I found 3 rules that I made up to be very helpful.

uuuh, c and e possible?!

>>12209502
Why is you cant tell even an option? Jesus

>>12209825
Yup. 5 options were wrong permutations of above relationship and the other two were you can't tell and none of the above

>>12198128
This

>>12193444

>>12209622
i think e is slightly longer on the taller rectangle

I got a 57 but I know I'm retarded because my working memory is average and I'm terrible at nback. Any anons know this feel? I don't think ill make it at this rate

>>12209966
If you don't take that into account the answers are ambiguous and the test would not only be useless but way too easy, so yes you have to take it into account.