I know the correct answer but I still can't solve this:
https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/paJjrMl.jpg
Spoiler:top middle (edit: it was actually bottom right)
Printable View
I know the correct answer but I still can't solve this:
https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/paJjrMl.jpg
Spoiler:top middle (edit: it was actually bottom right)
Any specific rules and criteria or just which is the missing piece?
Seems like a pattern recognition puzzle, but I recognize no patterns.
Number of enclosed spaces doesn't seem important.
Number of isolated pieces doesn't seem important.
Overlaying images in the rows and/or columns doesn't seem to produce anything consistent.
I don't see how the dotted lines work.
What am I expected to notice that I'm missing?
A bit of context would be excellent.
Like... what other puzzles are like this one?
Is this even meant to be a "similarity" puzzle or a "missing piece" puzzle?
Should I be extracting a symbolic logic from these lines and shapes to create a mathy thingy or something?
Tried.
Failed.
It's the last question of a pattern matching IQ-test. Just google images for "iq test pattern". The logic can be just about anything.
The solution could be something like this:
http://i.stack.imgur.com/VKvR0.jpg
Unfortunately I imagine I don't fall into the very minute groups of people who nail IQ tests completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketfours
It strikes me as some sort of overlap where the images met with two lines becomes no line and the single line stays with some sort of rotation or reflection but I can't quite get it.
From top to bottom that is.
Wait, is it not the bottom right one?
If you flip the top image so _ would become - and overlay them you get the bottom picture with adding of lines cancelling out?
I was too fixated on the one being the correct answer being similar to that but not quite right, either that or I'm missing something/completely wrong. Had a few drinks but seems rightish.
This was along the lines I was trying to work on. I noticed the bottom centre one kind of looked like half an upside-down 10. I tried viewing the images through a mirror at an angle, and tried tracing the outlines so I could place them on top of each other, and next to each other, but could see nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketfours
Yes that does seem right. Brilliant, thank you! I tried to do the test exactly the same way and only alter the last one. When I chose top middle on last one I got higher score. Very strange.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Can someone change my title to smartest man on ftr, thanks.
I can't figure out if you've actually solved it or if you two just think you might have.
It is clearly solved.
My way works but it doesn't give the answer given in OP, if he did the test and only changed one answer and got higher when he put my answer it would point that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
A good point about puzzles like this is that if the overlap happens the dotted line goes from being connected at a point to not being connected which happens.
i.e.
l- - - -
l - - - -
Every one of these I've ever seen goes left to right, but it's never explicitly stated that they're supposed to and that's what annoys me the most. When I get lost I start searching in all directions and that just gets me more lost.
edit: looks like this one is top to bottom! Fucking brilliant.
I tried the test again, I now get top score with bottom right. The test is here (in Finnish but that doesn't matter): http://www.mensa.fi/iq/index_2.html (choose age, then press "Jatka" in blue). It's a simple 30 minute pattern recognition IQ test.
What'd you get out of interest?Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketfours
I always toy with the idea of going to get my IQ properly tested. I'd be surprised if I didn't get into Mensa but what's the real benefit?
The only reason I'd do an IQ test if someone told me that you could practice for one and not get top score. It seems like if you put in some daily practice you should be able to ace them every time. Not much of a game.
You can't improve your IQ indefinitely at will. You can get better at IQ tests but we're talking in the region of points not getting getting 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
This was just really annoying me. I'm not interested in joining Mensa as I would probably feel stupid there.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Here is an IQ test for extremely intelligent people:
http://www.matrix67.com/iqtest/
Ok so I figured out what savy is saying.
Flip the top along the horizontal (as opposed rotating it 180 degrees), then overlay it on the second one, and you get the bottom one, assuming two lines cancel out.
In which case yes, it's the bottom right one, not the top middle one.
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.
It doesn't annoy me that it doesn't specify whether it's left-right or up-down. I feel like if you can figure it out, well done.
Hence why IQ tests aren't a perfect thing. They have lots of biases.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The point is you'll get it done a lot quicker if you're familiar with the rather limited rule set of standardized IQ tests. Like everyone in this thread will solve one of these in seconds if it follows the same pattern as OP, wouldn't you agree? It went from looking nearly impossible to super obvious really quickly.
I def agree with this. Here is a very difficult one if you haven't seen one like it before:Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
http://i.stack.imgur.com/6Stlh.jpg
The solution is super simple.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
edit - I'd also argue you did actually get smarter but yes maybe less so than your results would imply.
The word on Mensa is that it's a bunch of pre-cancer Walter Whites talking about how much potential they have.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
@Oskar: IQ tests are extremely biased by their nature. They are designed to test what you are capable of learning during the test. I.e. they assume you have a certain skillset going in to take them, and they play on your ability to learn other skills which are presented in the test.
This is supremely difficult because different cultures (even within the same geographical area) can favor very different modes of thought as "intelligent." A test which assumes you've been to school and studied information from books is not going to test a person's IQ who dropped out of school at a young age. That is no reflection on that person's intelligence, merely an indication that the test is broken by their circumstances. They do not meet the assumptions of the test-designer as per their background.
Similarly, a test which adequately and fairly described the dropout's intelligence would almost certainly fail at assessing a college graduate's intelligence. These people consider very different behaviors to be expressions of intelligence.
If you are studying for the test, you're literally breaking it. Any results would be moot. I mean... it'd be a pretty stark critique of your study habits otherwise.
If you want a "fair" assessment of your intelligence, you need to seek out an IQ test which is biased toward your socio-economic and educational background and cultural preferences. Then you need to NOT study for it.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
What kinds of pattern recognition are there?
This may be true for the question presented ITT, but it's not generally true of IQ test questions I don't think. But maybe we've been given different tests.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
While it's true a person who drops out of school may be learning things the bookworm isn't, it's very unlikely they're going to be as objectively 'smart' unless you drastically change how you define 'smart'. E.g., if you change a question about maths into a question about what bus to catch to the unemployment office, then maybe the dropout will do fine. But that to me isn't testing their IQ just because you've tailored the question to their circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You could argue the dropout becomes more street-smart but no IQ test I know of purports to measure that.
Pretty fair up to a point. I wouldn't say the results would be moot though. Some people could study maths until their heads exploded and still not get a good score on a test.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
I don't get what you mean really but here is an asnwer. If you can spot a pattern in something and that pattern is in someway useful then being able to spot that pattern is a bonus over those who can't spot it because then you only have to determine the use of it, which if you spot more patterns in things you become better at too.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Sound like my type of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Lol he answers one question before anyone else can and now he's telling everyone how important a skill he has.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
What on earth are you on about? You seem pissy about something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If I say something about the subject then Wuf asks a question about it directly below my post I'm going to assume he's talking to me.
I'm wondering about the different categories of pattern types. Say somebody in a social situation goes from calm to upset for non-obvious reasons. I'm generally good at recognizing the patterns that can help explain why. What I'm not good at is recognizing the kinds of patterns relevant for the example in the OP.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
He asked a question and you didn't try to answer it but instead told him how important it was that you could do the puzzle. That's funny to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
I'm not sure how it works. I'd somewhat group the two together but as you say there are clearly groups of people who are good at one and very bad at the other. I'd reckon that patterns like the OP are actually very simple and direct in comparison whereas picking up on changes in human emotion is very complicated and there isn't actually a correct answer just lots of signs that point to an answer which is usually correct if that makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
So in my post that I start with saying I might have misunderstood it turns out I have misunderstood?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
edit - As you may have missed the pattern I was attempting to say that pattern solving can be used for all sorts of things, literally anything there is a pattern in. Then wuf pointed out something which I had actually lumped together and we got further along in talking about a topic.
I think that would fall under social intelligence. Probably not the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Hahaha. Maybe you have trouble with language then. If someone asks you a question like 'how many different types of cheese are there?' the answer usually is a number possibly with an explanation. It's not 'I'm an expert on cheddar and that's really a valuable skill to have'.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Donald?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I think Savy read his book ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Or you know it isn't something that I thought could be answered by saying there are x amount of cheeses. Is solving patterns in shapes that different to solving patterns with letters? At what point does something become a type of pattern? The point I was more getting at was that pattern recognition in a test like the one in OP is the same as being able to spot patterns in trends for things like productivity of workers at certain times of the day and getting an idea of why this happens. Hence lumping them all together. Then wuf made a good point and made me reconsider what I was saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Unless you took my post about being a genius seriously I also don't see why you think I'm an expert in pattern recognition or anything like that. I clearly have no skills of any real value.
What does constitute a different type of cheese?
I'm just razzing you. Forget about it. :)
Yeah... I was just reading the link to the wiki page about multiple intelligences, and I knew I had some wrong assumptions in my prior post.
Defining intelligence is tricky, and I'm not claiming to know the best definition.
I think it's exactly the point that street smarts is an expression of intelligence. The scenario I was trying to set up was that it's the same person, with the same intelligence, either way. They may have stayed in school or dropped out, but that doesn't change whether or not they're smart. It only changes what their smarts will be focused on.
The funny thing is that IQ tests do that better than any other form of test that I've seen. There was a show about child geniuses in the UK a while ago that followed kids who had stupidly high IQs from a very young age. Two children of the same age both who had IQ's like 170ish at the age of ~12 one was studying undergraduate courses and the other wasn't even top of his class in a standard comprehensive school.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The rejection of IQ tests as a measure of intelligence is all well and good if you replace it with something better but that doesn't ever really happen. It also shows that if you pick any walk of life a higher IQ from traditional methods tends to lead to better chances even when it comes to kids making a living off the streets. People very much confuse knowledge for intelligence and whilst there is a link between them one doesn't imply the other.
I genuinely want to know how many types of cheese there are and how you go about defining them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Be smart enough to join, but smart enough not to pay for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
I think there's something to what you say - that a person's intelligence is generally stable and will remain similar throughout life. But there is also an element of nurture in it, too. To take an extreme example, if two kids with the same genome are raised in starkly different environments, one who goes to good schools may end up with a very high IQ and one who the parents keep locked in a dark basement will have a low one. So perhaps the best way to think of intelligence is as 'learning potential' or some such.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'd be anxious that I won't do as good as I would want to and then I'm not even allowed to improve on my score and rather take it as: Look at this! This is how dumb you are! What's the point?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
A+Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Another fun IQ test fact:
The first large-scale IQ tests were administered by the US Army during WWI. The idea was to make the smart guys into officers and the dummies could go die in the trenches. But they had some problems. All the people who scored the highest were either native-born 'Muricans or from the UK or Canada. The highest-to-lowest scores went something like :US, Canada, UK, N. Europe, S. Europe, everywhere else.
Why did this happen? Because the test was written in English and a lot of the immigrants from outside English-speaking countries didn't speak English very well. Another reason: They asked questions about American culture, like 'how many players on a side in baseball?'.
Ya, slightly biased that test was.
I'm not saying it's a good point, but it's like measuring your height. Maybe it's not what you wish it was, but it is yours. The exact result is probably not going to be surprising to you. (You strike me as more self-aware than most.)Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
There are some things about yourself you just have to accept. This is one that you don't have to put a number on unless you want to.
I stand by my belief that if you could devise an IQ test on how to be the most intelligent basement-slave, that it wouldn't be the college educated one who scores top marks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Ok, but you might have a hard time convincing others that one's ability to scrape bits of food off the floor is a demonstration of intelligence comparable to the other's ability to do algebra, problem solve, and speak five languages (or w/e).Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
i have no idea what's going on
gmml confirmed basement slave.
Recap:
OP posted a logic puzzle
Savy solved it in post 8, and elaborated on his solution in post 14.
(Savy's solution is easy to confirm, once you understand the technique.)
We digressed into a discussion about IQ tests.
Tim Davey is a smart guy.
I got an email today from someone with that surname, made me chuckle.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Was it Jim? That works too.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
http://i50.tinypic.com/mtpj74.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by pocketfours
42?
It's a magic eye thing, trees in a field.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRtnihqVL4YQuote:
Originally Posted by givememyleg