Brain Power

[Anonymous No.3682166]

So /sci/ what is your score?

No better way to start a sunday morning than with a nice little IQ-test.

http://www.cerebrals.org/wp/tests/test-of-inductive-reasoning-tri52/209-2/

[Anonymous No.3682174]

>>3682166

>Inductive Thinking
>Valid Psychometrics

Pick one.

[Anonymous No.3682188]

> 37 years old
> still wasting time with intelligence tests
How does it feel to know you've wasted your life?

[Anonymous No.3682273]

>>3682174
Actually various pschometric-testing scores tend to be very stable over time. So there is little use in trying to deny the fact that they measure some actual quality of the test-subjects brain or cognitive process. However one may of course debate what it in fact is that they measure. But that is a debate you should take with the team that constructed the test (and the ones who constructed previous tests that it is based on). And while I certainly will grant you that there may be some fuzziness in operationalisation of some terms, it is more likely a difference of degree not case.

>>3682188
By that logic everyone who solves a puzzle, crossword or sudoku has also wasted their life... not very likely.

I enjoy doing puzzles as a relaxation, and as the rest of my family still is sleeping it is a nice way of starting ones Sunday morning.

Oh and by the way, you are indeed a shitty troll.

[Anonymous No.3682326]

This come kind of troll website?

Just spent the better part of 30 minutes doing this test

Never gave me a score

Thanks for wasting my time OP

[Anonymous No.3682333]

>>3682326
Works just fine. Did you wait for the scoring and then click the next page?

[Anonymous No.3682381]

b
u
m
p

[Anonymous No.3682518]

>>3682166
It irritates me how the sequences are just scattered around. I need them to be lined up to see a pattern.

[Anonymous No.3682546]

>>3682273
> puzzle, crossword or sudoku
> intelligence tests
> he thinks they are the same
I can see why you defend so much your tests of intelligence, considering how low you seem to score in tests of intellect.

[Anonymous No.3682575]

God damn how long is this test?

[Anonymous No.3682583]

I got to question 50 something and i got to the point where i just wanted it to end, so i skipped until it finished.

127, even though i stopped.

I'm okay with this.

[Anonymous No.3682670]

>come to 29
>fuck this shit
>skip everything
>get 121

[Anonymous No.3682694]

>>3682166
Gender age name email sat scores etc etc etc...

OH HAI GUISE NICE DATA-MINING OP.

[Anonymous No.3682702]

>>3682670
heh, I skipped at 43 or something just to see how many questions were left, wouldn't let me go back once I reached the end, still scored 120.

[Anonymous No.3682708]

>>3682273
>Actually various pschometric-testing scores tend to be very stable over time. So there is little use in trying to deny the fact that they measure some actual quality of the test-subjects brain or cognitive process

Pay no attention to those who do not understand the concept of g loading.
Keep up the good work.

[Anonymous No.3682735]

>mfw OP left us

[Anonymous No.3682745]

question 50? This ends at question 30.

[Anonymous No.3682756]

>>3682745
I think that it consists of levels, and if you skip a certain number of questions in a row, it automatically skips to the end.

[Anonymous No.3682770]

Skip everything after Q20... get 120

[Anonymous No.3682781]

>>3682745
If you get too many wrong on the medium difficulty level there's no point to go on to the more difficult questions as it already analyzed your ability to a sufficient extent.

[Anonymous No.3682801]

stopped giving a shit about 3/4th of the way in

got 116

[Anonymous No.3682824]

I got 118

is this good I study math

[Anonymous No.3682916]

127. I think I would've received 130 if I didn't half-ass the last third or so.

[Anonymous No.3682932]

Troll site.

Some of the sequences don't even make any fucking sense at all, and that's providing the shapes are even IN a damn sequence.

[Anonymous No.3682943]

>mfw OP left

[Anonymous No.3682946]

>>3682932
No, you just can't figure them out. Don't blame a test the goes accurately up to 160. That is improper.

[Anonymous No.3682955]

>>3682943

>mfw OP has been samefagging his troll thread for hours because nobody gives a fuck

[Anonymous No.3682972]

>>3682955

>Very high IQ score
>Can't match his performance
>Call it a troll thread.
Stay classy, anon.

[Anonymous No.3682983]

>get 104
>will be the only person on all of /sci/ who admits to having an average, non-120+ score

>implying everyone on this board is above average or at dramatically high IQs

[Anonymous No.3682986]

I did ~5 questions, then it started asking me for information on my ACT/SAT scores. Skipped all of those. Test was 1 min total. *scratch head*

I'm confused.

(got an 83.)

So /sci/ ...Am I fucking retarded?

[Anonymous No.3682997]

>>3682986

No, you just took a heavily biased, buggy and inaccurate test that isn't even an IQ test.

[Anonymous No.3683013]

>>3682997
>Dumbfags circlejerking
Nothing to see here folks.

[Anonymous No.3683015]

>>3682997
Retook it and got a 114. It also gave me ~25 questions rather than 5.

[Anonymous No.3683023]

It's not an 'intelligence' test, it doesn't determine if you are a retard or a genius.

It is what it is, its simply a way of testing your inductive reasoning.

One area of intelligence, not intelligence itself.

[Anonymous No.3683060]

>>3683023
>Doesn't understand g loading

[Anonymous No.3683088]

>>3683060

>Thinks the g factor is science

[Anonymous No.3683104]

>>3683088
>Thinks that a consistently resurfacing neurological variable that has stood up to decades of rigorous criticism is not science

[Anonymous No.3683293]

how many questions does it have? or doesnt it have an end at all..

[Anonymous No.3683316]

>>3682943
Sorry, I had to go help a friend move some things into his new apartment, and then I went to the gym.

Amusing that only one other person posted their score, but a whole slew of whiny fags complaining about how it was difficult, long (or some other convenient escape), and still claim above 2SD scores without any backing image.... weak.

[Anonymous No.3683344]

>>3682166

Yeah I am not autistic so this kind of testing bores the fucking shit out of me. I got everything right until I quit because I didn't want to fill in random shit about myself.

[Anonymous No.3683346]

>>3683316

i got bored after 45 something questions

[Anonymous No.3683356]

>>3683344

i didnt fill in any of the USA testing stuff. i didnt even know what this means.

[Anonymous No.3683365]

>>3683344

LOL, you can just click the next page without giving any of your previous scores.

[Anonymous No.3683397]

>get to question 15
>fuck this shit
>skip the rest
>102

yep

[Anonymous No.3683399]

>>3683316
You also frequent the gym?
We should hang out and start a society of Übermenschen masterminds.

[Anonymous No.3683456]

>>3683399
I already have one, but you are welcome to join if you like.

[Anonymous No.3683532]

>>3682166
ITT: people who fail at logic reasoning and then in disappointment post inflated scores and disparaging comments without any support.

"Pic or it did not happen" is the rule of thumb even if you claim you scored a measly 115.

[Anonymous No.3683550]

>age: 37

Now that I'm done laughing at you, I scored 134 on this test. I took it a good 4 or 5 months ago.

[Anonymous No.3683581]

>>3682708
>>3682708

Yes, this guy is right. Tests of general inductive reasoning (like this one) are g-loaded at only .60.

Tests of general (note: general) intelligence tend to correlates with one another at .8 at the very least, many single subtests of WAIS correlate higher than .6 with full scale intelligence.

But this test is a reasonable predictor of specifically abstract reasoning and mathematical aptitude (as measured by the SAT at least, I would assume similar high correlations would be found with the ACT math, GRE math, etc).

Many people tend to have cognitive specializations, so don't get antsy if you only score 120 and wonder why the fuck you still got a 34 on the ACT.

Those with profoundly high language aptitude tend to only have above average or superior abilities in other domains and this tends to be true for other strengths.

[Anonymous No.3683593]

>>3682273

>give 200 word reply
>image of this is me not giving a fuck
Does not compute

[Anonymous No.3683595]

Why is all that personal information and so on required if it accepts all values(that is, does not compute anything based on them) IF THIS IS NOT A DATA MINING TRAP?

[Anonymous No.3683609]

>>3683595
>>3683595

I'm quite sure it calculates your score relative to your age if you give a valid response.

I had experimented with this, I put in a young age of 18 and did the first few of the early questions, then I tried again with an age of 53.

My score was markedly higher for the younger age, I believe it was 15-20 points larger in fact.

[Anonymous No.3683615]

>>3683609
And what about the part where it wants all your standardized testing scores too?

[Anonymous No.3683633]

>>3683615
prolly for validation of their scoring.

[Anonymous No.3683637]

>>3683615

Data collection in attempt to correlate the test to other standardized tests to establish validity.

The creator posts correlations of his various tests under the "tests" tab.

[Anonymous No.3683652]

>>3683615
It's trying to gather comparative information to assess the reliability of the test scores with regards to other more recognized and reliable tests.
This is common practice when creating new normalizable tests.

[Anonymous No.3683657]

do 2 questions

THis is fucking boring and stupid

skip to end score is 100000000000000000 for not taking stupid test

[Anonymous No.3683659]

>121

[Anonymous No.3683679]

>>3683581
>Along with excellent Alpha reliability coefficients over ages (ranged from .92 to .96 in persons aged 7:5 years to 62 years; the value for the entire sample gathering 1,020 persons was .95), the JCTI RIX has also demonstrated high validity. As a result of factor analysis for construct validity, the JCTI showed to be very highly loaded on the general ability factor (.88) that latently linked it to the subscales of the Scholastic Assessment Test-Recentered (SAT-I) and proved to be the most loaded in inductive reasoning (.96).

[Anonymous No.3683705]

>>3683679
>>3683679

What does he mean by "general ability factor"?

It isn't logical for a test of inductive reasoning to correlate with other ability tests on the level of almost being on par with their retest validity, considering these tests never correlate with one another more than .84. Especially for a test of inductive reasoning.

[Anonymous No.3683708]

Some kind of puzzles I just picked random answers because I couldnt figure it out

[Anonymous No.3683712]

117, skipped last 4 questions and didn't fill out any of that other crap... guess I did OK

[Anonymous No.3683721]

>>3682932


>Can't figure out relatively simple patterns
>Rages
>I lol

[Anonymous No.3683745]

110. No idea what to use that number for.

[Anonymous No.3683767]

>>3682955
>>3682943

>mfw you have no face

[Anonymous No.3683774]

is the test timed or can you take as long as you want on the questions?

[Anonymous No.3683775]

Fuck you OP what the fuck is this stupid unending shit.

[Anonymous No.3683782]

>>3683775
5

[Anonymous No.3683788]

>>3683775

I said 3

[Anonymous No.3683789]

>>3683782
Explanation?

[Anonymous No.3683792]

130. Shit was extremely boring.

[Anonymous No.3683800]

>>3683775
Some shits move and dominate other shit, while being dominated by other shits, when the shit is not the most dominant.

[Anonymous No.3683803]

>>3683782
More like 3.

[Anonymous No.3683811]

>>3683788
>>3683803
3 bros unite.

[Anonymous No.3683817]

>>3683775
Lol, there is no logic behind that. I bet you can invent a few solutions to the same patterns. This is not science, it's psycho-quackery. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.3683819]

>>3682166
>claim good IQ score
>have islamic crap as a start button
>not able to do a proper screenshot

I'd be surprised if you had 70.

[Anonymous No.3683828]

>>3683817

I think the answer is 5

[Anonymous No.3683832]

>>3683817
>>3683817

I laughe dat your sarcasm

[Anonymous No.3683835]

>>3683817
Mine there is an answer, and it's 3 through process of elimination. (specifically center bottom becomes the very bottom when black alternates to the top)

Yours on the other hand is basically follow this pattern: 1

[Anonymous No.3683837]

>>3683817
i may be wrong about this buy uhhh...there's two squares, and there's two L-shaped things, so there should be 2 circles...right??

[Anonymous No.3683839]

>>3683828
What's the logic?

[Anonymous No.3683844]

>>3683839
It's number 3, they are all mirrored but the circle, which is missing, thinking outside the box, guys.

[Anonymous No.3683848]

>write your ACT scores below
>I'm not even from the US
I could melt down fucking dragonforce with my rage

[Anonymous No.3683854]

>>3683819
not op, but it's the OHM, how old are you and why can't you recognize it

[Teacup !obkpuSWh5M No.3683858]

>That feel when I didn't even do any question after 33 because I got bored
>That feel when I still have 132

[Anonymous No.3683861]

[Anonymous No.3683866]

>>3683775
and for this, they are spinning, some images cover the others, some images change after being covered, are you guys blind?

[Anonymous No.3683872]

>>3683861
4

[Anonymous No.3683874]

[Teacup !obkpuSWh5M No.3683877]

>>3683861
In that one first the figures overlap, then they rotate 45 degrees clockwise. Then in the last pic they rotate 45 degrees counter-clockwise.

I'm laughing at how stupid you all are. Told you that I was a genius. Turtles do not have spines after all

[Anonymous No.3683899]

>>3683837
Then why is the L shape combined with the square if you only need to count all the figures. Why is that stupid jumbled succession? Where's the intelligent inductive reasoning in this. There isn't one, he just made it up. If you happen to score it like he decided, you have inductive reasoning.

[Anonymous No.3683912]

fuck you peasants

[Anonymous No.3683920]

>>3683877

Turtles are Mammals and they do have Spines.
Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.3683951]

>solid 3.5 gpa, only because i dicked around freshman year
>4.0 last two semesters

>IQ 109

then again i almost never take IQ tests, i assumed the challenge was to complete sets of patterns as they were rotating or deforming.

[Teacup !obkpuSWh5M No.3683979]

>>3683920
Nope, they're anfibians, and they have shells, not spines.

[Anonymous No.3683993]

>>3683979

Prove it that they are "Amphibians" and that they havent any "Spine".
Since you cant, just leave in humiliation that i imparted upon you.

[Teacup !obkpuSWh5M No.3683999]

>>3683993
>Humilation
>132 IQ long e-penis

I don't think so, Tim.

[Anonymous No.3684007]

Turtles are reptiles. Reptiles are vertebrates. Everybody who disagrees is a troll.

[Anonymous No.3684038]

>>3683999

If you dont feel heavily humiliated then you must be too idiotic for it.
Which is further affirmed by your lack of proof or evidence for your void assertions.

[Teacup !obkpuSWh5M No.3684043]

>>3684038
132 IQ babe.

[Anonymous No.3684089]

how many questions are there. i'm on 31

[Anonymous No.3684129]

is this acceptable for my age bro.

[Anonymous No.3684230]

>>3684043
You're small time.

[Anonymous No.3684234]

>114

i was sloppy and just picked answers if the pattern wasn't immediately obvious to me. still feel disappointed i didnt get 130+

[JamesClerkMaxwell No.3684255]

'stood test of time' means nothing, lots of illogic persists centuries. even millenia if you count government, but that's a social sphere and not a compeittion of logic. in my view, no form of logic compeitition was common at all until post-industrialization, when many have 'days off' etc and so many are educated to some reasonable ability of reading & math etc. it may not be intellectual development, but neither is one visual-only test of one's ability to do visual-only tests. its' self-correlating, and this is stated clearly as a matter of fact in the theory. the truth is that we're looking at an inapplicably narrow subset of capability through a window of statistical correlation that takes into account exactly two factors, both of which are determined in a classroom and have no context—that is, even the classroom itself is excluded. all that counts is what's on paper, and this is silly. however: I ahve to admit this does reflect a lot of thinking that exercises real power in our world, and that this kind of 'intelligence' test could be administered with success to any bureaucracy. Congress members might do well in it, but they are doing such a poor job in their actual professions that we might as well do away with 'intelligence' tests and simply correlate endurance with ability and call it a day. Whomever can endure the torture of looking at uncreative, repetetive shapes and unctuous rotating boxes the longest is necessarily the most intelligent person on the board and must immeidately proceed to the string theory program at the nearest high-powered, bureaucratic university setting possible. this person will save the world.

[JamesClerkMaxwell No.3684263]

This is a test for masochists. The longer our cognitive sciences regard intelligence as a one-dimensional, linear characteristic, the longer our industries will be held in the oil & fossil age and our lives will be laden with undue stress and hierarchy. Waste. The g factor is a pretentious pile of narrowminded rule setting designed and supported by the 'intelligent' people of our society. What makes you feel intelligent, barring accomplishment or seeing something clearly that nobody else does? Do you get that feeling all the tiem? It's called "conscious experience!" everybody has it. yours is unique, and it might make you quicker, sharper, or better at retaining or figuring certain things, but human intelligence hasn't even been systematically approached, let alone understood or metered. i liken this sort of sorting to eugenics, or playing godlike because you're rich or empowered and live in a different world. it's a bit of sociopathy to arrange people like this.

better policy might be simply to make a science and an art out of giving young people what they need to develop, and not lying to them. that would help things much more than "IQ tests," which are so pointless and inapplicable to real world decisionmaking and real-science problem solving that it is generally ignored by all but those with the highests marks. What does that fact alone tell you? we're sorting people, that's all. it offers nothing to understand most people.

[Anonymous No.3684279]

i feel depressed

i struggled with this test, i struggled with some of the patterns. i only got a score of 120, nothing compared to the people in this thread. i only skipped the last two questions.

i wish i was smart

[Anonymous No.3684281]

>>3684129
>yfw iq corrects for age

[JamesClerkMaxwell No.3684299]

also, give me a relatively narrow area to study, and I can surely make a bell curve appear. for goodness sake, we're grafting a linear measure onto a dynamic system! everyone in engineering knows this would produce erroneous results—meaningless, destructive results, even if you're not dealing with people and their lives. Worse, we're grafting a linear measurement that produces the same statistical outcome, in aggregate, as dropping pennies into a pile. What you're getting is a randomized set, I am sorry to report. It's no more meaningful than the apparent 517-vote-or-so difference between the "two penises" who ran for election in 2000. They turned out to be very different in life practice, but our institutions prevent this from manifesting where it matters. I submit that IQ tests support this obviously vacuous result pattern. Again, having experienced professional psychology and the institutions that it produces, it is very, very clear that we simply need to drop the bullshit alphamale competitive stance and get serious about making a science of providing developing minds with what they need.

now, for my personal experiential take on the test: it provides one with a sense that it'll be stimulating, but this wanes hard and fast. it's striking me as a burnout test, i.e., something designed to test how long it takes for a system to fail. this is done in engineering also.... "a beach with no treasure."

[Anonymous No.3684300]

>>3684279
feelsdumbman

[Anonymous No.3684307]

>>3684299
>now, for my personal experiential take on the test: it provides one with a sense that it'll be stimulating, but this wanes hard and fast. it's striking me as a burnout test, i.e., something designed to test how long it takes for a system to fail. this is done in engineering also.... "a beach with no treasure."
wut

[Anonymous No.3684317]

>>3684255
>>3684263
>>3684299
Stop being so mad for not being able to compete with OP's score.

[Anonymous No.3684329]

>>3684263

>human intelligence hasn't even been systematically approached, let alone understood or metered.

[Anonymous No.3684340]

>>3684263
So I've been reading your entire fallacious rant up until I came across
>it's a bit of sociopathy to arrange people like this.
And this is what it all boils down to. An appeal to emotion and morality.
g factor has been systematically inspected and measured for almost a century now and is the latent intelligence factor that is responsible for high correlations between performances in different subsets of intelligence.
It has hardline brain physiological underpinnings such as brain structure and interconnectivity, all of which is well explored and documented.
But your political views bar you from admitting to the veracity of its validity and thus your place is not among scientists.

Good day.

[Anonymous No.3684352]

>>3684340
i'm ashamed of my low score. how do i increase my intelligence

[Anonymous No.3684364]

>>3684352
Depends, are you black or white?

[JamesClerkMaxwell No.3684375]

>>3684329

ur reading 'female anatomy' and finding it shocking

anyway it was not written with intention to post. i just threw it up here for those feeling bad about their score. it's just silly... what i meant in context was that institutions have no such widespread policy as to take the dynamic, multi-dimensional apparatus that is the human mind and feed it what it needs. instead, it's given a program, largely the same with some art thrown in as seasoning and alternate subjects if you're "smart." not meant to be publish-quality explication, that. fail admitted.

[Anonymous No.3684384]

>>3684364
why?

[Anonymous No.3684390]

>>3684281

does it really? So if i was older it'd give me a lower score?

[JamesClerkMaxwell No.3684469]

>>3684340

An appeal to emotion and morality, indeed. emotional intelligence is documented well, isn't it? look at the emotion resulting from the test... it's all over the page... even from its supporters & the others who kindly read my rant.

thanks for the attention, but the statistical correlations these tests yield is unimpressive. it's a bell curve. I don't think it matters how much practice has gone into it, or how many long axons interconnect. if you can point to the insight about human intellect these studies produce, I'd be delighted to read it. seems more to me like a method of sorting people.

[JamesClerkMaxwell No.3684550]

>>3684279
>>3684234

Please read my posts, starting with >>3684255
. It was meant to dispel the frustration. Then, if you will, take a stroll through the nearest city. Interact with a few people, search for something you want, and give yourself time this afternoon to reflect on the ease by which you conduct yourself in that environment. Think about the many connections you had to make to find what you were after, the timing, the order, the coordination, the ideas little events sparked, the coincidences you might have if you know people who stroll there... Then think about home and this LCD you stared at for so many minutes. Think about the obvious, straining simplicity and repetitiveness of this task.

Think to yourself: Is this a measure of my mind? Is this a valid meter for my behavior, my ability, my place in society, or even an institution of learning?

Lastly—this is most shocking to me—look at those posting in defense of the test. Why would they defend it saying '100 years of work' and cite mechanical correlations about neurons instead of just saying "hey, it means something!" and leave it at that? Why not state plainly its value rather than affirming the statistical correlations? Maybe it adds one dimension to it, but now we're up to two, and you just spent a day thinking and relating things you'd never have thought, all without effort.

Please don't take this to be a 'rant' against psych and neurology. I have found its insights about stress, about sleep and cognitive function, and a few other areas to be astoundingly insightful, and to be actually useful.

[Anonymous No.3684631]

Clicked buttons randomly; ended up with 110.

[Anonymous No.3684839]

I SKIPPED TO THE END AND IT WOULDN'T LET ME GO BACK IT SCORED ME WITHOUT ME DOING ALL THE QUESTIONS. PLEASE REVOKE THIS, I DON'T WANT THE WEBSITE OWNER TO THINK I AM DUMB.

[Anonymous No.3684887]

guys, remember that this test is on 10 index, not 15 like mensa, basically a 130 in this means a 124, and a 144 means a 130.

[Anonymous No.3685140]

>Quit at number 18
>socre 110
>mfw

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.3685170]

>>3684887
I think your numbers are backwards.

[Anonymous No.3685210]

>>3683872

Why?

[Anonymous No.3685214]

>Can't type anything in any field
Is there a non flash version?

[Anonymous No.3685345]

>>3684887
Can't tell if troll or retard.

[Lukas !AMSCIenCEY No.3685363]

can please someone tell me when does it end? how many questions there are?

[Lukas !AMSCIenCEY No.3685478]

>>3682702

then why the fuck didn't you tell us where's the final questions?

[Lukas !AMSCIenCEY No.3685488]

>>3682702

then why the fuck didn't you told us where's the final question?

[Anonymous No.3685694]

I got 125 or so after skipping about 5 when i got bored in the 40-somethings.

I did not understand the ones that seemed to have 2 sequences at all. I felt like I got almost all of the other ones right (and there were some super fucking easy ones even near the end when they had the rotating cube pattern or the triangles with a patterned windmill in front solution) but what the fuck were the ones with 2 sequences that converged to the blank, with one block after?

Also, why do I always get a bit less than mean+2stddev even though I seem to be better at math than almost everyone at my college was, and the college is supposed to be the top 3% or so of the population.

[Lukas !AMSCIenCEY No.3685829]

skipped some questions when bored.. meh, not bad I think..

[Anonymous No.3685827]

there were too many questions that were too easy, others were really weird

225

[Anonymous No.3685842]

>>3685694
Because you either aren't, or it isn't.

[Anonymous No.3685862]

nigga this test raciss.

[Anonymous No.3686095]

133

That's what I usually get in IQ tests.
I thought the questions were pretty good, most of them made sense.
I had a hard time when you have the 2 series of squares combining into one.

[Anonymous No.3686232]

holy shit that took long i got 138, was fun though

[Anonymous No.3686365]

>Answer 4 questions
>Get 98

[Anonymous No.3686432]

>>3686232
>no pics
>never happened

[Anonymous No.3686468]

>>3686432
but it did happen

[Anonymous No.3686470]

>do 4 or 5 questions
>get bored
>click through to the end
>get 107

I'm totally ok with this.jpg

[Anonymous No.3686477]

>>3686468
In the twilight zone.

[Anonymous No.3688519]

114

[Anonymous No.3688803]

Does this thing ever end?

[Anonymous No.3688832]

>mfw this thread is still alive.

also sage

[Anonymous No.3688841]

>a nice little IQ-test.

wrong, aspie asshole .

"non verbal" = useless test for gooks, autistic and schizophrenics. this in no way measures any purposeful intellectual quotient.

mfw: 102

[Anonymous No.3688852]

>>3688841
>"non verbal" = useless test for gooks, autistic and schizophrenics

Lol dumbfuck. Also, that grammatical syntax backfires.

[Anonymous No.3688858]

172

Awwwhhh yeeeeee

P.S. September 17. It begins..

[Anonymous No.3688891]

>>3688858
September 17.

Russia invades Poland.

[Anonymous No.3689202]

This was my first try and I was expecting at least 145 considering my past scores but got a measly 138. I might try to test again on a day free of stress and probably manage to score around 150.

[Anonymous No.3689463]

[Anonymous No.3690882]

bump for happy occations

[Anonymous No.3691070]

I took it and got 110

I've always been too lazy to finish

>mfw I guessed b for the second half of the problems.

>implying the scoring on this is a little high

[FrozenWinters !!XG3LfguzES6 No.3691293]

>>3688858
He is talking about MLP season 2; 172

[Anonymous No.3691342]

WHAT

[Anonymous No.3691379]

>do 5 of them
>what the fuck is this bullshit
>skip rest
>103

yeah right

[Anonymous No.3692028]

loltests

[Anonymous No.3692032]

>>3682166
I'm pretty sure this is the kind of IQ test that gives you a higher rating for not wasting your time.

[FrozenWinters !!XG3LfguzES6 No.3693015]

>>3683837
That was my reasoning. Still on test, 46. Is there an upper bound?

[FrozenWinters !!XG3LfguzES6 No.3693058]

I got board at the end, as the logic was repeating itself, 54 questions in total. Posting IQs on /sci/ is so fun!

[Anonymous No.3693256]

>>3693058

Ur name sounds Ukrainian

[Anonymous No.3693338]

This test was fucking LONG, also I'm searching for low scores now to make myself feel better

[Anonymous No.3693353]

eh guess I was pretty average... but now I need to go to bed. It's 5:30 a.m now because of this fuckin test

[Anonymous No.3693396]

>>3683293

where did you get that screenshot from if you don't know how many questions there are?

[Anonymous No.3693403]

>>3693353

fuck it was 6.30 in the morning not 5:30

[Anonymous No.3694373]

117 here an okay with this

[Anonymous No.3695720]

>>3682166
LoL this test is stupid i only answerd five questions and still got 165.

[Anonymous No.3695747]

>get to question 11
>fuck this shit
>skip the rest
>108

rofl.

[Anonymous No.3695776]

Bullshit test. Only 7 questions in and already a logical inconsistency. The maker of this test has failed his own IQ test, and OP is a sack of shit for posting it.

Question 7 apparently expects you to reason out that there are three sets of three images, in which each set represents an "A + B = C" operation. However, the test author has made a mistake in defining the "+" operation (see image). In the top set of images, the operation is a logical OR of the pixels (assuming white represents 1 or true) and in the second set of images, it represents an AND operation, unless you are to assume that black now represents 1... Either way, the operation is ambiguously defined and the question has no valid answer.

Fuck off with your poorly formed, pseudo-intellectual test, OP.

[Anonymous No.3695886]

>>3695776
the way I imagined that one is that you place the blocks side by side and "zoom" out. black blocks added together would result in a black block.
But yeah i agree that test was dumb.
and I got a 149

[FrozenWinters !!XG3LfguzES6 No.3698106]

>>3693256
It is. I am 75% Russian, though.

[Anonymous No.3698289]

>>3695776
it's just the opposite, the opposite of black is white, durr