Personality Cafe banner

Do you guys like IQ tests?

7846 Views 60 Replies 24 Participants Last post by  Red Panda
Mensa IQ Test

I know I do, doing some Te related activity energises me

Also I know you are all competitive, so more reason to beat that :p

Still though I'm beyond hopeless when it comes to seeing the big picture. It's tragic
See less See more
1 - 12 of 61 Posts
I was doing a thing with Raven's Progressive Matrices about a year ago, and I was really excited about using them as a kind of test for automated reasoning.

Apparently I didn't do enough with them, or something. Or else I had a stroke and didn't realize it in the meantime. Or there's a wizard who turned my blood into a powder for the amount of time it takes to perturb certain key neural pathways in order to gather information about my passwords saved on my computer while I thought I was taking the test.

Anyway, 65 is a good golf score, I think, and you're supposed to drive that speed, in mph, I guess, if you're old. Speed kills.

I had the same matrix as Turi, and I'm tired of looking at that one -- I basically just guessed, and still don't see it. I thought one of the tokens could represent state in an elementary machine, but I just am out of executive function to look at it.

Someone of legal IQ age should probably explain that one, put it to bed. Maybe spoiler it, please: I know I won't go to sleep without looking at it again, and if it can be solved, I'm sure I and anyone else can with enough examination.
See less See more
I assume I know how much I'll score and don't see it as something that has real life application (I still feel stupid) so I don't get the reward after finishing it. More like "I wasted my time on stupid patterns that all are the same! F***!"
I'm on board with your first ¶ -- I found myself very distracted, prone to a tiny bit of mind-wandering in some part of the brain, and partly annoyed toward the end that the patterns didn't jump out at me with only a minimum of manipulation.

In part I was distracted by the number of similarities I could see with the patterns to a number of different styles of thinking: graphical manipulation, transformations in linear algebra, propositional logic operations, and some graph theory that I could see a few valid ways of understanding, but knowing that only one is correct.

Not making an excuse, just stating what I think my errors were. It does inspire me to do more work on the Raven's, in addition to going back to some of Smullyan's cute little puzzle books (I like the one on lambda calculus -- the title was something about blackbirds or something, I don't remember).

But I'm kind of interested by the part of your post I quoted. I'm not at all criticizing your point of view -- it's very understandable, and yet I don't quite understand. I can see, since you did indeed demonstrate fine ability, yeah, it might seem like asking....I don't know, a language student to spend time conjugating verbs or whatever.

However, the one thing I enjoy about the Raven's is that it's the one absolutely subject-free (arguably -- see my issues above) framework that seems to work the very skills I use when working on various logics, and the same skills for dealing with algebraic relations (homomorphisms, and so forth over various structures). I know not everyone's really into that stuff, but that's why I approach the Raven's as kind of like doing scales on a musical instrument, or maybe doing pushups or something.

Not intended to be advice in anyway, just that I was interested to hear your different perspective, and since I think it's a fascinating subject, thought I'd pop back in and do some blah-de-blah.
See less See more
darkjoe said:
You would never tell irl . I make sure to always hide it
Facial expression
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 1
You're asking why I don't enjoy it just for the mental exercise itself?

The most important thing- it can be a useful skill, for me, in the real world.

Same with practising memory etc

Not sure if I wasn't talking off topic.
Not at all, and I'm happy for the feedback. Not the most important question ever, perhaps, but I was curious.

Yeah, I see your point -- as I matter of fact, I still despise those logic puzzle books of Smullyan, because the cutesiness drives me mad. However, he's important to me as a thinker not only for his work on analytic tableaux (a proof system for various logics that is not only extremely convenient, but is ideally sorted for automation), but because he was the doctor-father/mentor of Mel Fitting, who I think is still the most dryly witty logician out there today (the humor is there, in books like...but it is the most dry, offhand humor I've ever seen, easily missed among pages of pretty abstract talk of sets and logic -- I wish I could find a great example, but it'll have to wait).

So, those sorts of puzzle books (you know, like "lady and the tiger," "knights and knaves," type of things) drive me nuts not just because they're often infuriatingly hard (for me) sometimes, but they seem very pointlessly baroque. It's like chess, sort of a fancy little game with a whole narrative behind it, versus checkers, which is (to me) pure abstract number work. Yes, I know checkers has been solved (relatively recently), and chess hasn't really been proved AFAIK except in some promising trials, but I still think the analogy is apt. And, yes, I'm a (mediocre) chess player who has mad respect for checkers.

Oddly enough, the (sort of corrupted) purity of the Raven's excites me just because it's so raw. It's like looking at assembly code or machine code -- to most people, it's sort of weird robot talk, and it is, in a way, but that's what makes it exciting to me.
See less See more
To answer the question in the original post, I only like the test after I have all the (accepted) answers to dissect.
Excellent. Another who believes in the Schaum's Outline theory of learning material. (Schaum's Outlines are a series of books on mostly technical subject whose main feature is presenting hundreds of problems with detailed solutions -- usually there are some errors in the answers, but that's what makes them fun! Insta-superiority finding bad copy!)

I'm not going to bother with anymore online tests -- but I'm enjoying reading some of the published collections (of Raven's) I accidentally found online. Kind of fun, after you get past the boring ones.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
I don't really know since some people claim it's accurate and some don't. I just don't believe that my IQ is so high.
Are you sure? The parents of my ex-whatever (8-year-cohabitating-thing) were both 160 people, and I got to know each of them pretty well, but at least my ex-whatever's father admitted to having lifelong self-doubts and insecurities (he earned a Ph.D. Chemistry, M.D., specialist in Anesthesiology when he was young).

I mean, all joking about my "65" IQ, I know for fact my abstract and visual reasoning takes more work for me than it does for other people, from my studies -- have you "hit the wall" for yourself yet?

Why not? You're probably quite able, but maybe you haven't tested yourself in real-world applications or disciplines to trust the numbers.
then I realized halfway that I should read the patterns horizontally instead of vertically as I did
Oh. I think I have to go put my head in a bucket of ice water, for like an hour.

Well, FWIW, the easier ones seem to work just fine reading vertically.

I think I'll have to .... never water....where was that thread about stupid again?

Well, maybe after a few days of penitent expiation, I can post my score like the cool kids.

Thanks, though -- I'm sure it was mentioned somewhere, but I don't often bother reading instructions.

ETA, oh, @Red Panda yeah, there's supposedly two components to IQ, it's on wikipedia or a textbook someplace, I can't remember.

EETA and I get the double bonus stupid, because two days ago I was actually working out of some Raven's books. They didn't have instructions, but honestly, I should have figured out something was up. Maybe stupid CAN be fixed.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 1
You're probably right.
Though the world's highest IQ average per country is 108(Hong Kong and Singapore), however, that might include people without sufficient education. My brother got around 110-120 on an actual IQ test, but it ended up being a scam because it didn't include any Mathematics. I think it might be possible for me to get 130-140 on an IQ test because I'm good at recognizing patterns and inductive/deductive reasoning(I was educated earlier than most people of my level). I also ace all the science assessments(they were actually pretty easy, to be honest).
Thanks for the perspective. I'm a little confused about the mathematics part: as you know, formalisms in math are very much learned behavior (even though the notation is, these days, I believe pretty standard world-wide). You know how they say, "when you're starting in math, you use numbers, and as you do more, you end up using the alphabet" (or something like that)?

I would think the idea psychologists came up with for various Gf measurements were designed to abstract away specific details like that, but I'm not at all sure.

I don't know -- it seems like you've put a lot of thought into it, certainly more than I have, so I can only wish you the best of luck in your efforts, and thanks for putting your experiences into words. Sounds corny, but it's true.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Just look at the case of Chris Langan; he has a phenomenally high IQ in the area of 200, but due to a lack of experience with navigating those realms he dropped out of college and ended up working in construction.
Never heard of him before: nice Wikipedia page on him. Kind of a good reason to tell the kids to stay in school. I mean, he's no Ted Kaczynski, in terms of accomplishments, but I think it would be very gracious of him to share some of his solution to P=NP problem before his number's up.
What none apparently understands is that you can practice IQ tests. Your results are not correct if you've taken several IQ tests again and again. This is the reason I never trust anyone who claim to have an IQ score online.
Well, that's the good thing about them.

It's like Aristotle in de anima, praxis, where the subject and the goal are the same.

You can always do better. Or, sometimes worse or the same.

And, if not, you can understand the test better, and work a different Raven's.
I say you turn that IQ test "yes."

Also, people are idiots.

1 - 12 of 61 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.