How do IQ tests like pic-related accurately measure someone's intelligence? Seems bullshit to me

How do IQ tests like pic-related accurately measure someone's intelligence? Seems bullshit to me

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

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

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

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

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

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

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        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

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

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

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

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

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

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

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Cause there's only 2 triangles and 2 squares.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        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

        Ok and?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Ok and?
          And it wants 3 of each

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

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

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I never did any

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

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

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          am I moronic

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

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

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

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

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > 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.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

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

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/zsnZALN.png

      How do IQ tests like pic-related accurately measure someone's intelligence? Seems bullshit to me

      >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

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >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

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >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

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >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

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >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.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >See IQ Test thread.
    >It's full of coping morons.
    Just another typical day on IQfy

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *