🧵 Puzzles from intelligence tests
John Puzzle at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 05:44:12 UTC No. 16585484
I am compiling a list of puzzles typically seen on these so called high range iq tests you see on the internet and putting them in a scorable google form for the sake of entertainment.
I'm selecting from the puzzles that I solved, the ones that had interesting ideas and that were generally able to be solved just by observation, without guess work, the idea should just come naturally from the clues ( for almost all of the puzzles ).
I've split them into 4 sections:
1) verbal associations
2) atypical spatial matrix puzzles
3) atypical numerical sequences
4) bonus puzzles.
The bonus section is a free form section where I will add a variety of different puzzles that should be solvable with little to no knowledge ( could include math or even physics intuition puzzles )
Let me know what you think of them and feel free to send your puzzle suggestions that could be added to such form.
https://forms.gle/DwWpxCqDQtCDxffw6
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 00:11:39 UTC No. 16586179
John Puzzle at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 05:39:02 UTC No. 16586349
7 what?
raphael at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 06:25:39 UTC No. 16586373
>>16585484
>https://forms.gle/DwWpxCqDQtCDxffw
whats the point of this? most of this board is <105 FSIQ lol
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 08:41:22 UTC No. 16586458
>>16585484
Is this loss?
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 12:59:06 UTC No. 16586588
4, 3
Object completeness
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:16:06 UTC No. 16588506
4,6
they are cute
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:46:22 UTC No. 16588530
>>16586373
data harvesting glow worm
John Puzzle at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 02:42:13 UTC No. 16588676
You guys aren't remotely close to solving the puzzle from the pic. Don't just guess either, say full logic. The pattern is elaborate and the most difficult one from the compilation. Not something that can be approached with latent schizophrenia.
I assume the 2 people who gave 4 3 and 4 6 refer to the image in the post.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 02:45:14 UTC No. 16588681
>>16588676
Seethe object completion is perfectly logical you're just dumb
John Puzzle at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 02:53:08 UTC No. 16588685
Shallow logic. It's typical that people online have no sense of what a good pattern is, you don't even know what the fuck you mean by object completion. For starters, what do they complete and why not have 64 instead of 46? What enforces the order?
Crazy how confidently retarded people on the internet will be even though they are completely out of their depths. You know, you could just try again, think of some better logic that ACTUALLY works and isn't some arbitrary stuff
John Puzzle at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 02:56:08 UTC No. 16588688
Ah, you are the 43 guy. So why not 34?
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 02:58:54 UTC No. 16588691
>>16588688
>>16588685
4, 3
object completion is the completion of objects relative to the whole image, in a progression
Seethe
John Puzzle at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 03:09:04 UTC No. 16588702
First of all, there is nothing that gets completed at all, let alone in any order. You are invited to draw it out so I can make further fun of your cretinous solution.
How about you try the rest of the items. Let's see how far you get with your amazing reasoning. Lol
You don't have a rule for what defines completeness, what are the objects that need to be completed. Clearly you can see yourself that there are remainders and even if you just choose the components that can fit together, you will still have components that could belong to objects to be completed that never get completed.
Man, every time I post induction puzzles online some arrogant halfwit comes and shits all over them with their idiotic answers unable to admit that maybe they didn't spend enough time thinking or just are not clever enough.
My suggestion is that you try the other puzzles from the visual section as I picked them to train you to solve this item.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 03:10:41 UTC No. 16588704
>>16588702
Low IQ
Object completeness count
0, 1, 2, 2, 1, 0
John Puzzle at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 03:17:04 UTC No. 16588713
Bro is tripping.
Ok, since you are incapable of writing any logic and since I can tell whatever you wrote is cretinous and just doesn't work, I'm just going to assume you have schizophrenia. You may continue yapping alone.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 03:20:00 UTC No. 16588716
>>16588713
Seethe, you cannot rotate and combine shapes, clearly.
John Puzzle at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 03:20:02 UTC No. 16588717
>>16586373
Damn, you were right. I regret posting it here. I didn't want to post on r/cognitiveTesting because in the past I posted the solutions to some of the puzzles ( then deleted them) and r/gifted and r/mensa is full of pretentious cretins.
If you have any suggestion for where I can post these, then I'm all ears.
r/puzzles is not allowing these items either.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 03:23:23 UTC No. 16588718
>>16588717
Leave forever you are unwanted
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 03:29:46 UTC No. 16588721
Nooooo that's the wrooooong patteeeeern you were supposed to use my autiiiiismmm not yoooooourss
Fag
John Puzzle at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 03:36:28 UTC No. 16588726
>>16588721
Cretin. Not all patterns are equal. You know that mostly retards come with the complain you have. First, show me you even see whatever batshit insane logic he has. Demonstrate it working, then demonstrate it isn't some arbitrary autistic arrangement that dismisses all 90% of the clues in the image.
Stop sucking each other's dicks because your ego can't take being wrong.
What, are you some postmodern liberal? Hurr durr, I can conjure retarded logic so it must necessarily mean that the intended solution is equivalent to mine.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 03:47:32 UTC No. 16588741
>>16588726
Sucks to be wrong huh bitch? My patterns are superior to your patterns.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 03:54:29 UTC No. 16588746
>>16585484
The images follow a particular trend as you go from left to right in each row. In the first row, the first image is two circles which are overlapping and the number of enclosed regions are 3 + 1(the region outside the circles but inside the square). The second image, has just one circle which is intersected with a line, but the line doesn't affect the number of enclosed regions. So, the number of enclosed regions is 1 + 1(again the region outside the circle but inside the square). The third image has just some intersecting curves and a line, so the number of enclosed regions is just 1.
John Puzzle at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 03:55:17 UTC No. 16588748
The author of the test I took the puzzle from confirmed my solution and if I put the 2 of them side by side, mine not only actually makes sense it actually uses the clues laid out in the image, doesn't just take arbitrary structures and ignores the rest. My solution is infinitely better than what you laid out and consistent with the other sequence puzzles that I compiled which maybe you should've tried first because maybe then by sheer luck you would have solved one of them correctly which would open your mind to how shallow your thinking was up to this point and would've saved you from embarrassment.
I get that you are just trying to piss me off at this point. It is honestly typical in places like this.
John Puzzle at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:01:16 UTC No. 16588750
>>16588746
Sorry, what item are you referring to?
What do you mean by each row? The item in the post image is a single row. Further more it isn't describing accurately what it is happening. Just vaguely related. Seriously, what are you talking about?
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:01:40 UTC No. 16588751
>>16588748
imagine being this much of a pussy
nobody likes you
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:02:41 UTC No. 16588752
>>16588748
Nobody is clicking your link, fuck off back to plebbit
John Puzzle at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:07:15 UTC No. 16588753
Are you 2 losers done? You can fuck off from my post if you don't like it.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:09:49 UTC No. 16588755
>>16588753
You're worthless and your pattern recognition is dogshit as shown by your reply methodology
John Puzzle at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:14:50 UTC No. 16588757
>>16588755
"Reply methodology" hahahahahaahaha.
Holy autism.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:19:22 UTC No. 16588762
>>16588757
Low IQ
John Puzzle at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:29:53 UTC No. 16588770
Hey man.
It isn't me who can't solve the items, now is it?
Now go try the simpler ones and learn so that you may not appear like a butthurt schizlord.
Do you think my intent is to fight here with people? Do you think I posted the compilation for that? No, but if you aren't going to put a modicum of effort and just assert that you solved the puzzle with an objectively shitty solution, then expect to be contested.
The puzzle in the post image is the last one from the visual section there is a tutorial that is subtly taking place and the penultimate problem is a subproblem of the last problem put there as a helper item.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:34:13 UTC No. 16588772
>>16588770
Nobody is clicking your link you fucking NIGGER
John Puzzle at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:35:48 UTC No. 16588774
I literally just got 2 submissions. Cope and seethe. Pretty sure way more clicked.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:37:06 UTC No. 16588776
>>16588774
You're scum
John Puzzle at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:38:01 UTC No. 16588778
Just take the L man.
John Puzzle at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:38:32 UTC No. 16588781
I am a little fucking bitch.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:39:08 UTC No. 16588782
>>16588778
>data harvesting
Literal scum
John Puzzle at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:42:49 UTC No. 16588785
>>16588782
Do you have schizophrenia?
Data harvesting? For what? I mean sure, but what is it so sinister about it, cretin?
Don't worry, you won't be abducted, nor inducted into any secret group. You're too fucking stupid
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:44:54 UTC No. 16588788
>>16588785
No clue bud, but you can't have it.
Go fuck off to plebbit
John Puzzle at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:46:15 UTC No. 16588789
>>16588788
Wah Wah Wah
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 04:47:22 UTC No. 16588792
>>16588789
bitch ass nigga
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 06:38:51 UTC No. 16588880
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 06:41:18 UTC No. 16588885
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 03:16:14 UTC No. 16589824
https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 03:42:00 UTC No. 16589829
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 04:44:10 UTC No. 16589845
>>16585484
I don't mean to denigrate the test itself but, the word association segment alone has multiple correct answers that can all be well-justified subject context and interpretation.
Almost every IQ test uses some form of multiple-choice to abate this ambiguity and to ameliorate the quality of the test because one answer can be definitively justified as 'more correct' than others. A good analogue may be something like the Miller Analogies Test, Reynold's Adaptable Intelligence Test,Weschler Intelligence Scales, Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, etc.
John Puzzle at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 07:17:34 UTC No. 16589910
>>16589845
I do get your point, but It does happen that most people who try, if they think deeply about their answer, do arrive at the intended one. I took the items from existing tests and some shared around in puzzle communities. You can let me know which items you find ambiguous. I did consider scoring multiple answers and I don't mind changing the answer key if the provided solution is comparable in strength or conceptually the same as the intended one.
With the visual ones I guarantee there should be no such ambiguity.
Stanford binet doesn't and Wechsler don't have multiple choices for their verbal items, they have scoring guidelines.
Anyways. I don't mean this to be an IQ test.
John Puzzle at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:12:43 UTC No. 16589932
>>16589824
The answer he provided is wrong. It's not even a hard problem.
The correct answer is 3. Number of intersections = number of curved components.
Overlaps make it harder to see which are the original curved components, but it works perfectly.
This puzzle is easier than 60% of the spatial items from the test I assembled
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:19:36 UTC No. 16589935
>>16589932
no surprise as SE has always been a shitty site.. it's somehow even worse than reddit.
John Puzzle at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:30:17 UTC No. 16589941
>>16589935
on reddit someone would solve it and someone else would go on a rant about multiple intelligences. On SE some mathematician would complain about the lack of rigor completely missing the point of an induction puzzle, then give a wrong answer.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:27:35 UTC No. 16590051
>>16589910
This is not true, there is a bell curve in and of itself regarding finding multiple solutions
You are in midwit hell for insisting upon the intended solution
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:29:23 UTC No. 16590054
And in regard to "intended" solutions, we all know the art is superior to the artist, and that often artist intentions ought to plainly be ignored
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:34:41 UTC No. 16590113
>>16585484
Not doing your homework
John Puzzle at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 15:50:02 UTC No. 16590327
>>16590054
>>16590051
Are you confused about my claims?
Did you miss the part where I said I consider adding multiple acceptable answers. I just can't add multiple choices because that trivializes the puzzles.
I've administered similarities on wais 4 and 5 and often enough people get the guideline answer as it is written there without too much thought.
I guarantee that it isn't that big of a deal that there aren't answer choices here. Im tired of these midwitted complaints to what is essentially a puzzle compilation and not an IQ test. I guarantee your solutions would be inferior to what is considered intended here and that you lack the intuition for what makes a good pattern.
Your complaint mainly applies to the verbal section, the numerical one is even harder to mess up and that is proven by the test statistics ( same for verbal usually ).
Even if this was treated as an IQ test. An intelligent person will not miss too many of the intended patterns and since this would apply to everyone, they would have the right rank.These puzzles have been scrutinized by many people. I'm not just posting some shitty ones.They have been battle tested. Spare me your subjectivity crap. I may believe that there could be better solutions to at most 3 of the verbals and 2 sidegrades for the numericals, but you will not be able to find any for the spatials nor anyone here.
Why don't you show your alternative answers here?
I'm experience and while I've seen and came up with better solutions than some authors, it is still more often than not that the intended solution is a top or practically the best solution, or at least something most people arrive at. Now, this selection is of the better such puzzles.
"Art is superior to the artist" is such a low hanging fruit counter argument which just proves lack of experience with this context.
If you do provide better answers or even equal to the intended, then I will discuss your solutions with some friends and then add them to the answer key
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:50:15 UTC No. 16590935
>>16590327
Didn't read, kill yourself