Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:43:59 UTC No. 16099500

There are people who literally can't solve this. Would you disagree that they must be of low intelligence?

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:45:34 UTC No. 16099505

lmao
>how does the ability to learn and apply the mechanics of a system correlate with the ability to solve cognitive problems?

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:45:40 UTC No. 16099506

It's simple.
If you get it wrong, you're dumb.
If you get it right, you're smart.

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:54:00 UTC No. 16099512

>>16099483
I don't understand the answers. Why is it triangle and square?

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:57:08 UTC No. 16099517

>>16099483
> Seems bullshit to me
now i know you got sub 115 on the famous online iq tests

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:58:16 UTC No. 16099521

>>16099517
I never did any

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:00:40 UTC No. 16099527

>>16099521
take CAIT, or fsiq or mensa norway,denmark,finland
and the recent aptitude iq test

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 18:24:32 UTC No. 16099644

>>16099527
am I retarded

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 19:47:54 UTC No. 16099781

>>16099512
Cause there's only 2 triangles and 2 squares.

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 19:55:18 UTC No. 16099792

>>16099483
They don’t really do it. You can do a lot better by being sort of familiar with the patterns that get reused in lots of iq tests, e.g. configurations where there’s one of each thing in each row and each column
>>16099781
Ok and?

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 21:39:09 UTC No. 16100034

>>16099644
Could always be worse. Also I think the knowledge portion doesn't really belong on this kind of test

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 22:09:05 UTC No. 16100082

>>16099483
If the rule was that each row needs to have one shape each, then the provided answers are correct.
If the rule was that each *column* needs to have one shape each, then the provided answers are in the reverse order. (First one should have square in the first ? and triangle in the second ?, instead of what is shown, and so on.)
So it is bullshit.

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 22:32:00 UTC No. 16100110

>>16099505
For the most complex ones there are more than one solution, yet only one answer is valid.

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 22:38:20 UTC No. 16100117

>>16100110
Yes because coming to the normie answer is important if you actually want to apply your intelligence to anything useful.
>noo but le HECKIN 0.999999999...
nobody caries. check your ego and find the practical answer

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 22:45:31 UTC No. 16100129

>>16099483
> filtered by simple pattern matching
LMAO
> For the most complex ones there are more than one solution, yet only one answer is valid.
If you can't deduce on your own why the other options are not correct then that is your limit.

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 23:09:16 UTC No. 16100159

IQ tests are mostly bullshit, as someone earlier in this thread pointed out they are indeed useful in the lower end of the spectrum, some people seemingly lack some rudimentary pattern matching processes. Other than that though I think any rational and honest person would see how silly it is to use particular tests as any true kind of representation of general intelligence
You've also got the variability of the person taking the test, e.g. being tired or anxious or different brain cortisol/serotonin levels can affect your attention levels, which many of the tests entirely hinge on
Also practicing IQ tests automatically makes you better at them, as most of them follow extremely similar pattern principles. Sometimes they like to switch up the rules or not explain themselves properly, maybe this is to test 'outside the box' thinking or maybe it's just entirely luck based bullshit on which solution seeking methods you try out first. Often also there will be alternative answers which are valid, which don't add to your score or whatever

Some people try to get around these criticisms by saying the IQ test inaccurately measured your IQ, or g-factor, but that doesn't really defend the accuracy of IQ tests themselves methodologically. They are basically saying that somehow randomly an IQ test might line up with this abstract idea of 'g-factor', how do we know this? idk lol

They are fun mental training exercises and basically just well developed toys. I actually think IQ tests could be a good measure of other things, like people who score higher on these tests are more likely to have spent more time alone or on the computer, especially through their younger years. It could also reflect a lower level of stress in childhood or something or lack of specific kinds of stress

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 23:49:45 UTC No. 16100230

>>16100117
the more abstract they become the more it's needed that they clue you into the correct way of reading the shit.

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 23:51:29 UTC No. 16100234

>>16099644
at least you didn't get under 120 like i did

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 23:52:20 UTC No. 16100237

>>16099483
The real problem is that they're a game
Once you learn the different types of patterns they through at you it becomes way easier
Like I can tell right away OP's pic is asking
>what is missing in each row
But if I hadn't seen this type of question before it would probably take me longer to figure out that's what its asking

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 23:59:38 UTC No. 16100245

>>16100159
>>16099483
>they are indeed useful in the lower end of the spectrum,
i think statistically they are just as correlated to things like gpa or income in the high range as in the total range

>see how silly it is to use particular tests as any true kind of representation of general intelligence
why? even if you do not think they represent "intelligence" they are still correlated with a lot of metrics that you would actually want to be high in, like gpa or lifetime earnings

>Also practicing IQ tests automatically makes you better at them, as most of them follow extremely similar pattern principles. Sometimes they like to switch up the rules or not explain themselves properly,
read the wiki page on iq, not all "iq tests" are raven's matrices like in the op, there are knowledge/vocabulary tests correlated to it and questions with answers that are basically objective, like arithmetic problems for an example, can be used too

Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:45:13 UTC No. 16100307

>>16100245
>i think statistically they are just as correlated to things like gpa or income in the high range as in the total range
The higher the IQ score, the more loosely and noisy the correlation becomes between things like GPA or income. There does seem to be some form of correlation, but again this could be due to a lot of factors. For example people with higher IQ's are typically going to be from higher income households, will have had much less stress in their childhoods - lots of factors - which are all powerful influences for real world measurements like income

>read the wiki page on iq, not all "iq tests" are raven's matrices like in the op, there are knowledge/vocabulary tests correlated to it and questions with answers that are basically objective, like arithmetic problems for an example, can be used too
Raven's matrices and tests of that type are a major component of all IQ tests. They are more developed now, but they are what's meant when people refer to pattern matching.
Also some of those questions with objective answers are typically in the first half of the test, as you go on there may be multiple viable answers (not always of course) but there's a sort of unspoken rule about IQ tests where what you are actually trying to do is get into the mind frame of the person who constructed the test, rather than pure pattern matching abstractly.

Knowledge and vocab are murky if you wish to actually test some idea of general intelligence. I think including them is a tacit admission that IQ tests are more like a test for social integration rather than intelligence itself

Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 01:05:07 UTC No. 16100327

>>16099792
>Ok and?
And it wants 3 of each

Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 01:17:21 UTC No. 16100339

>>16100307
>the more loosely and noisy the correlation becomes between things like GPA or income.
I don't think that's true, I think it's basically linear, but even if it isn't 100% as accurate so what?

>Raven's matrices and tests of that type are a major component of all IQ tests.
So what's your point, even if that's true "all" IQ tests have a component that you can learn the answers to? So what?

>They are basically saying that somehow randomly an IQ test might line up with this abstract idea of 'g-factor', how do we know this? idk lol
How could any method line up with measuring your intelligence?

>I think including them is a tacit admission that IQ tests are more like a test for social integration rather than intelligence itself
Is your entire point just they don't measure "intelligence"? What is "intelligence" then? Even if you say they are instead a test of social integration, they still correlate to metrics you care about

Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 02:02:56 UTC No. 16100393

>>16100339
>I don't think that's true, I think it's basically linear, but even if it isn't 100% as accurate so what?
I'd have to go back to look at it again, but from what I recall looking into this a while back the correlation does become quite weak as you go higher than like 100iq, they essentially seem to rely heavily on the trendline being set by <100 IQ

>So what's your point, even if that's true "all" IQ tests have a component that you can learn the answers to? So what?
So then even when giving the benefit of doubt to IQ tests, it already is heavily compromised on the grounds of prior information. It's inherently an inaccurate and therefore poor test then

>How could any method line up with measuring your intelligence?
I don't think any will

>Even if you say they are instead a test of social integration, they still correlate to metrics you care about
They do correlate in some ways yes, as does upbringing, lack of stress, personality styles and such. About as well as IQ tests do

Your question on what is intelligence is a good one and hard to answer, we tend to project skills as signals of intelligence when skills should be a distinct category. In terms of innate intelligence I think practically speaking all humans are identical, apart from those who have kinds of brain damage which puts them into the 70/80 IQ area. Some humans have variations in how they think and function, these may arise from neuron complexes making them appear slow yet broad in thinking, or less neuron density where people may be faster yet process less information. We seem to just create a concept for intelligence arbitrarily and apply those specialisations for or against it, but the idea of intelligence itself right now seems to be based around outcomes or results which we deem useful in some way... that's fine... but this has nothing to do with innate intelligence which is what IQ research purports to resolve

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 05:06:16 UTC No. 16100606

>>16100129
> I am good a sudoku
>So my behaviour is justified
Absolutely not under any circumstances, no.

Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 05:07:40 UTC No. 16100607

>>16100129
> I am good at sudoku
>So my behaviour is justified
Absolutely not under any circumstances, no

Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 07:05:32 UTC No. 16100737

>>16100159
>I actually think IQ tests could be a good measure of other things, like people who score higher on these tests are more likely to have spent more time alone or on the computer, especially through their younger years.
NTA but... define younger years, please.

Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 20:39:41 UTC No. 16101867

>See IQ Test thread.
>It's full of coping retards.
Just another typical day on /sci/