I need help from a genius

[Savy]

So all the ones in this test seem to go top to bottom. Again, this is just annoying. If you know that, it gets a lot easier. I feel like if you do them regularly you're much quicker to catch on to rules like that. Same with number sequence tests. You can be really smart but if you've never done one you get completely lost, but you could be really dumb and have someone tell you which sequences are important in these tests and have them score pretty high. At least in the standard IQ tests. The matrix67 one is all noise to me.

Hence why IQ tests aren't a perfect thing. They have lots of biases.

Pattern recognition though is just that it doesn't matter which way it goes the idea is to see the pattern. As much as following patterns like that is useful there are lots of things you can't prepare for and those preparations can also be used to trip you up.

[oskar]

Hence why IQ tests aren't a perfect thing. They have lots of biases.

Pattern recognition though is just that it doesn't matter which way it goes the idea is to see the pattern. As much as following patterns like that is useful there are lots of things you can't prepare for and those preparations can also be used to trip you up.

Are there enough of them to keep tripping me tho? This is pure speculation but I bet I could improve my IQ by at least 30% if I put in an hour every day for a year. Did I get smarter? Probably not, I just got better at the game.

[Savy]

Are there enough of them tho? This is pure speculation but I bet I could improve my IQ by at least 30% if I put in an hour every day for a year. Did I get smarter? Probably not, I just got better at the game.

I would imagine with things like pattern recognition you have an almost infinite amount of patterns and infinite ways to use them to create problems. As I said you can improve your IQ by a few points with practice but it isn't making huge differences. This isn't based off what I think it's based on having read about people just doing that. The only caveat is all of these people were above average IQ to begin with, 120+ which may show that there are diminishing returns but going from 100 to 130ish (i.e. average to mensa) isn't happening.

edit - I'd also argue you did actually get smarter but yes maybe less so than your results would imply.

[Poopadoop]

Are there enough of them to keep tripping me tho? This is pure speculation but I bet I could improve my IQ by at least 30% if I put in an hour every day for a year. Did I get smarter? Probably not, I just got better at the game.

I agree with this to some extent. A lot of these types of questions rely on a person being able to intuit out a rule after which the answer is obvious. And if the same rule is being used over and over again the reward is getting a lot more correct, which doesn't seem right. (Not to take away from Savy figuring out this one, because I never got it, though to be fair I assumed the answer given in the OP was the correct one).

But logic questions, vocabulary questions, and questions that involve spatial mental manipulation typically don't have this issue. It's not like you're going to suss out what an antonym is and suddenly improve your vocab score by 50 points.

[Poopadoop]

Fun facts about IQ:

1) Gardner argued in the 80s that there were at least nine different types of intelligence, and conventional IQ tests only examined 2-3 them. I like it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory..._intelligences

2) Presently, IQ tests focus on convergent thinking (i.e., coming to a single answer) and do not tap it's opposite, divergent thinking (coming up with multiple answers). The latter can also be thought of as 'creativity'. Here's some sample questions testing divergent thinking:

Name as many words as you can that begin with the letter 's' in one minute.

How many different uses can you come up with for a paper clip (one minute)?

[wufwugy]

Fun facts about IQ:

1) Gardner argued in the 80s that there were at least nine different types of intelligence, and conventional IQ tests only examined 2-3 them. I like it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory..._intelligences

2) Presently, IQ tests focus on convergent thinking (i.e., coming to a single answer) and do not tap it's opposite, divergent thinking (coming up with multiple answers). The latter can also be thought of as 'creativity'. Here's some sample questions testing divergent thinking:

Name as many words as you can that begin with the letter 's' in one minute.

How many different uses can you come up with for a paper clip (one minute)?

This makes me feel better. I can't solve any puzzle >elementary to save my life, but I'm gangster at the two examples you gave for divergent thinking.

[Savy]

I agree with this to some extent. A lot of these types of questions rely on a person being able to intuit out a rule after which the answer is obvious. And if the same rule is being used over and over again the reward is getting a lot more correct, which doesn't seem right. (Not to take away from Savy figuring out this one, because I never got it, though to be fair I assumed the answer given in the OP was the correct one).

But logic questions, vocabulary questions, and questions that involve spatial mental manipulation typically don't have this issue. It's not like you're going to suss out what an antonym is and suddenly improve your vocab score by 50 points.

Can I just point out that I also thought the original answer was correct but to find the answer I was looking for a pattern and found the pattern and hence got the answer. It's unlikely that there is a pattern there that doesn't give the correct answer otherwise it would be a bad puzzle. I'd also argue that I'd have gotten the answer quicker if I had the correct answer from the beginning.

Pattern recognition is an important skill in life and the more you know about various patterns is helpful for spotting patterns in things that matter such as your work and life. It isn't a nonsense that is just used to define IQ.

The irony of the contents of a spoiler box on a poker forum giving incorrect answer shouldn't be lost on any of you either.

[Poopadoop]

Can I just point out that I also thought the original answer was correct but to find the answer I was looking for a pattern and found the pattern and hence got the answer. It's unlikely that there is a pattern there that doesn't give the correct answer otherwise it would be a bad puzzle. I'd also argue that I'd have gotten the answer quicker if I had the correct answer from the beginning.

Pattern recognition is an important skill in life and the more you know about various patterns is helpful for spotting patterns in things that matter such as your work and life. It isn't a nonsense that is just used to define IQ.

The irony of the contents of a spoiler box on a poker forum giving incorrect answer shouldn't be lost on any of you either.

No-one is saying pattern recognition isn't a useful skill. The issue is when they use the same 'rule' for a series of questions, in which case the test is whether you can get the 'rule', not whether you can recognize patterns. Two different things.